Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Kids are sneaky little bastards. I agree that "hate speech" is ambiguous. Carjosse addressed the non-Nazi YouTuber concerns and did so well earlier in this thread.
Kids can't get around firewalls without passwords.
Parents being technologically ignorant, should learn how to protect their kids, rather than outsource it to a third party.
I don't care if Nazi's, Klansman or anyone else gets a platform.
Can you argue against them successfully, then you win.
Censorship means you can't.
How twisted does your thought process have to be to call simple truth, plainly stated, "cleverly devised"? Nothing I said was complicated, and you agreed with me that I'm right.
I suppose it's as twisted as it has to be to be proud of acting like a fascist while claiming to be "anti-fascist."
What on EARTH do you think you're "fighting" them for when you know you're just like them?
Brandenburg v. Ohio doesn't. You just don't understand it.
The bolded part of this sentence is absolutely confirmed by the part after the comma.
Nothing I've said is exclusive to "Libertarianism." Any actual liberal would agree with me here.
No, my "quarrel" is with your being gung-ho to censor speech.
My point is that it makes you just like the "fascists" you claim to be "fighting."
More than that, the only reason you'd censor someone's message is because you're afraid it will catch on.
And if you're afraid of that, it means you must not have much faith in your own message.
The difference is, I would let a person of color in my society and workplace without sneering at them. There is a mile difference between someone who fights for equality and a nazi. Try introducing your concepts of free speech in post-WW2 Germany and Austria. See if the common man agrees you should be able to exercise your freedom to speak your opinions on the Jews. The bigots on YouTube seek to divide and if YouTube doesn't want to be associated with them any longer, then I see that as a win. You are applying tenets from political philosphy to smear progressives as fascists. It's dishonest, but someone clever can force progressives to defend themselves.
I will take it for granted that you have no idea whatsoever that the irony contained in this statement darn-near cracks the universe in half.
Hey, I know what would help you to establish this "stigma" -- why not make people who hold those viewpoints wear something on their clothes, like, I dunno, a yellow star or something. Then everyone will know who they're dealing with, right? That those people can be shunned from polite society, right?
Not the same thing at all. On one hand you've got people who think being Muslim should be made illegal, or that African Americans shouldn't have the right to vote, or that Jews secretly run the world and are "persecuting the white race"; on the other, you've got people who think that those people should not be allowed a platform to spew their hatred.
There is no moral equivalency here.
You are talking about stigmatizing someone's race while I'm talking about stigmatizing ideas.
The difference is, I would let a person of color in my society and workplace without sneering at them.
There is a mile difference between someone who fights for equality and a nazi.
Try introducing your concepts of free speech in post-WW2 Germany and Austria. See if the common man agrees you should be able to exercise your freedom to speak your opinions on the Jews.
The bigots on YouTube seek to divide
You are applying tenets from political philosphy to smear progressives as fascists.
It's dishonest, but someone clever can force progressives to defend themselves.
I understand it enough to know about a couple terms that emerged from the case. The direct incitement test, the imminent lawlessness test. Meaning that if a speaker intends to incite a violation of a law, it is illegal speech.
So, if someone makes a YouTube encouraging people to commit hate crimes. They may be in violation of the imminent lawlessness test.
I acknowleged your argument. I understand how you came to the conclusion.
You are talking about stigmatizing someone's race while I'm talking about stigmatizing ideas.
So what? You'd sneer at different people. But you'd still sneer.
You don't fight for "equality." "Equality" means rights apply to everyone, not just the people you approve of.
What you "fight" for a shifting of privilege.
You don't fight for inclusion.
What you "fight" for is shifting who's excluded.
My opinions on Jews are quite favorable, which, actually, has put me at odds with a lot of "progressives."
And this is not post-WWII Germany or Austria.
So do you.
No, I'm applying my "tenets" generally, to everyone, and YOU have told me that I'm correct about YOU.
How could I possibly be "dishonest" when you've agreed with me about you all the way through this thread?
No. It's not "illegal speech." It means that the government may be able to restrict it under very narrow, very stringent circumstances.
You see, the Supreme Court doesn't declare anything "illegal." That's not a court's job.
So you don't understand it very well at all.
No person is ever in violation of any "imminent lawlessness test." The court doesn't apply any such "test" to people. They apply it to a law to decide whether that law violates the Constitution.
You don't get how this works, and your IDEA of how it works is repugnant, right out of Franz Kafka.
And you are unwilling to accept it, but that doesn't make it any less true. It just means you're unwilling to accept what your own behavior and mindset actually is.
I understand it enough to know about a couple terms that emerged from the case. The direct incitement test, the imminent lawlessness test. Meaning that if a speaker intends to incite a violation of a law, it is illegal speech.
Unfortunately, you just don't understand Brandenburg v. Ohio.
I was right when I said that it interferes with libertarian ideology,
so they will seek to discredit it.
"Oh, Brandenburg v. Ohio, what a progressive fascist, bringing up relevant constitutional arguments."
If speech should be unrestricted, try that argument out in post-WW2 Germany. Try disseminating some anti-semitic propaganda papers, exercising your free speech rights, and see how fast you get shut down. In the context of an oppressive regime that commits genocide, my request doesn't seem unreasonable. So, are restrictions dependent on disaster/genocide to be admissable?
If you have to use fascist techniques to fight fascists, so be it.
Good. If you use your platform to promote hatred and bigotry you shouldn't be on YouTube. Especially considering that YouTube could be viewed by a 9 year old kid. If you harass people who live alternative lifestyles, besides making you a lame hateful person, it also makes you a coward. Run along back to stormfront!
Unfortunately, you just don't understand Brandenburg v. Ohio.
:roll:
Dude. I'll put my J.D. up against whatever it is you think you have.
You think the Supreme Court declares certain speech "illegal." You think courts apply the "imminent lawlessness test" to people. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY Bill of Rights jurisprudence works.
It's YOU who do not understand it. As such, you say dumb things like:
I already told you, it doesn't.
I don't seek to discredit it. I agree with it. You just don't know what it actually says. You take a few words from it that you don't understand and try to wield them like a ten-year-old kid who just found his father's condom drawer and thinks they're supposed to keep your fingers clean while finger-painting.
Except that isn't what I said.
This isn't post-WWII Germany, or Germany at all.
And you MUST have some sense of how thuggish your mindset is, or you wouldn't have edited out this sentence from your earlier post:
Why, specifically, did you feel you need to remove that?
Im against cenorship when it pertains yo the gov but private industry should be free to promote or not promote whatever they want. If youtube wants to filter its content they have a right to do so.yeah there could be some abuse. I think a kid of color or whatever the case may be, should be free from stumbling on hateful garbage on youtube. If they're young enough it could traumatize them. People morph into mega sized versions of themselves online. If you're a slight bigot with your buddies at the bar. Then when you go online, you let your mega bigot out. Sometimes the fantasy world you create for yourself, on your channel, can be traumatizing. I don't normally use the "think of the children" argument. Violent videogames/movies shouldn't be banned. But, a mainline into the psyche of a deranged mental case, kids shouldn't be able to see that.
It must not have flowed right. It's true. If the Allied forces censored German publications from exercising free speech, then they were employing fascist techniques by your measure, should be compared to fascists, while fighting fascism. It's a paradox that overlooks the wake of WW2. Germans had the Denazification period, where you couldn't publish Nazi propaganda because, goddamnit years before that, Nazi propaganda influenced the population to condone genocide.
by, your measure, since they censored free speech they're no better than the nazis themselves.
This is a ridiculous, dishonest comparison, that serves libertarian ideology, rather than reality.
By all means, explain Brandenburg v. Ohio to me.
My teachers must have sucked at communicating ideas.
Because from what I recall, they taught me that we don't have free speech in this country.
You can't conspire to commit crimes or say you're going to kill someone.
Under the direct incitement test, the constitutional right of free speech is no longer protected if the speaker advocates to incite imminent lawless action that is likely to produce such action.
You accused me of being "dishonest" numerous times, yet you keep coming back to "post-WII Germany," as though that has any bearing on what you want to do NOW, HERE.
No, I've pointed out how you, in your general belief structure that you don't deny, are no better than the "fascists" that you claim to "fight." (Though I'd bet arguing on the Internet is the full extent of any "fighting" you actually do.)
It's not the one I made, and you already said you don't have any idea what libertarian ideology is, so how would you know?
Besides, I already noted that nothing I said is exclusive to libertarian thought.
You keep repeating things I've already dismantled. Why?
I already have, a number of times; I guess you read that just about as well as the other things I have to keep repeating.
From what I see here, the problem may not have been their ability to communicate them.
And this is especially evidenced by:
^^^^^
THIS idiotic statement.
Conspiracy to commit a crime isn't a First Amendment or free speech issue. And yes, you CAN say you're going to kill someone.
Under narrow circumstances, yes. But that doesn't mean such a thing is automatically illegal. There actually has to be a law against it. This is the stuff you don't understand.
And that you're arguing so fiercely about it stems from your urge to restrict free speech.
My civics teacher told the class in a clear, even tone, "You don't have free speech in this country." Then he explained it to the class using examples. The post-WW2 example is fine. You're the one saying that if you censor someone to prevent hate speech, it makes you no better than the ones propagating it. It's a fine comparison.
If so, then your "civics teacher" was incompetent as to the topic and unqualified to be teaching the class. It happens.
And I've reiterated what I've actually said enough times that you have no excuse for mischaracterizing it.
It should do that but in practice it wont because the left will use the law to block it. They claim youtube has the right to set any terms of service its sees appropiate, only because it currently alighns with left-wing social values. If yahoo announced that it decided to ban pro-gay speech or pro-musslim content. The left would have a string of lawyers parading youtube through court.So I guess the only question is if this policy leaves a big enough opening for a competitor to come up. Hopefully if a competitor comes up they aren't corrupted by liberal weakness for a few years.
But you do feel like a baker must make a wedding cake for a gay marriage or be put in jail?If I owned YouTube I wouldn't feel obliged to provide a forum for people who's message I despise. Let 'em go beak off on someone else's dime.
You? Would you feel you had to allow everyone to use your site, whatever their message?
But you do feel like a baker must make a wedding cake for a gay marriage or be put in jail?o're talking to?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
If i missremenbered i appologize but i thought you were one of the ones who agreed with fining the bakery that refused to bake a gay wedding cake.I do? Do you have any idea who you're talking to? Or do you just pull a card at random out of your mental rolodex, like a get-together board game, and reply to it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?