Youtube is finally cutting down on hate content

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

 

[Harshaw]

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.

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.

 

[Winston]

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?

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.

Brandenburg v. Ohio doesn't. You just don't understand it.

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. That's for a judge to decide.

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."

I acknowleged your argument. I understand how you came to the conclusion.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Which they can't on Youtube. Right wing videos get more likes and views than their videos.

 

[Henrin]

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.

You fight for equality and censor ideas of certain people? So equality doesn't include the ability to speak your mind?

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

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?

You are talking about stigmatizing someone's race while I'm talking about stigmatizing ideas.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

When it comes to stripping people of Rights, yes, there is a moral equivalency.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

You are talking about stigmatizing someone's race while I'm talking about stigmatizing ideas.

Both show a level of intolerance...

 

[Harshaw]

The difference is, I would let a person of color in my society and workplace without sneering at them.

So what? You'd sneer at different people. But you'd still sneer.

There is a mile difference between someone who fights for equality and a nazi.

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.

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.

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.

The bigots on YouTube seek to divide

So do you.

You are applying tenets from political philosphy to smear progressives as fascists.

No, I'm applying my "tenets" generally, to everyone, and YOU have told me that I'm correct about YOU.

It's dishonest, but someone clever can force progressives to defend themselves.

How could I possibly be "dishonest" when you've agreed with me about you all the way through this thread?

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.

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.

So, if someone makes a YouTube encouraging people to commit hate crimes. They may be in violation of the imminent lawlessness test.

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.

I acknowleged your argument. I understand how you came to the conclusion.

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.

 

[Harshaw]

You are talking about stigmatizing someone's race while I'm talking about stigmatizing ideas.

Judaism isn't a race, it's a religion, which is a set of ideas. (Ideas which you hate, by the way.)

But you're still talking about stigmatizing people. So the yellow stars would help.

 

[Winston]

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.

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." That's the dishonesty of your argument. It's one big false equivalency. 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 a society post-genocide, my request doesn't seem unreasonable. So, are restrictions dependent on disaster/genocide to be admissable?

 

[matchlight]

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.

Not so, however much you might like it to be. Your restatement of the Brandenburg rule is not accurate because it is too broad. Contrary to what you imagine Brandenburg means, it could well be unconstitutional for government to make it illegal for a speaker intentionally to incite a violation of a law. To pass constitutional muster, the government action would need to be limited to speech which was both directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action AND likely to produce or incite such action.

 

[Harshaw]

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 was right when I said that it interferes with libertarian ideology,

I already told you, it doesn't.

so they will seek to discredit it.

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.

And you take your mindset -- that it's a good idea to restrict free speech -- and try to warp Brandenburg into supporting you. You start with the conclusion you want and work backwards from there.

"Oh, Brandenburg v. Ohio, what a progressive fascist, bringing up relevant constitutional arguments."

Except that isn't what I said.

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?

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:

If you have to use fascist techniques to fight fascists, so be it.

Why, specifically, did you feel you need to remove that?

 

[countryboy]

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!

Right, because pointing out the absurdity of SJWs automatically makes you a Stormfronter. :roll:

 

[matchlight]

Unfortunately, you just don't understand Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Golly, professor, I guess I just don't understand it either. But then I have an excuse. See, at my little old law school in the Ozarks, the only classroom was an old barn, and we only had one textbook. There wasn't but a half-dozen copies of it all told, so all fifteen of us had to share. And over the years (those books were OLD!) the pigeons that lived in the rafters had flat wiped out whole paragraphs here and there.

You seem like you've boned up real good on your Wikilaw, so maybe--if it ain't asking too much of someone so learned--you could kinda educate me and Harshaw about all this Hindenburg stuff, or whatever they call it.

 

[Winston]

: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?

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.

 

[trouble13]

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.

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.

Your argument about children however does not really cut it for me. That is something for parents to decide.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

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.

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.

by, your measure, since they censored free speech they're no better than the nazis themselves.

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.)

This is a ridiculous, dishonest comparison, that serves libertarian ideology, rather than reality.

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?

By all means, explain Brandenburg v. Ohio to me.

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.

My teachers must have sucked at communicating ideas.

From what I see here, the problem may not have been their ability to communicate them.

And this is especially evidenced by:

Because from what I recall, they taught me that we don't have free speech in this country.

^^^^^

THIS idiotic statement.

You can't conspire to commit crimes or say you're going to kill someone.

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 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.

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.

 

[Winston]

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.

 

[Harshaw]

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.

 

[Winston]

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.

Yeah, I did some research on the Brandenburg test. It actually protects hateful speech, like you were saying. I had it confused. And it's applied to local laws that restrict free speech, not people, I understand why you were saying that now too. Hazarding opening up a can of worms, as there is still a lot of disagreement here, I understand what you were saying, and will be cautious when applying the Brandenburg test. In the beginning of the thread, I think I was talking with Henrin about "free speech" in general. And I wasn't saying anyone who says a bad word about another race is guilty of advocating violence. But, that could certainly happen and lead to racially motivated violence.

 

[trouble13]

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.

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.

Its not about freedom or fairness. Its about the left thinking they are entitled to filter content. Its about control.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

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?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Mal]

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

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?

 

[trouble13]

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?

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.

Many of the people supporting this are the same people who are against allowing other types of discrimination. That strikes me as a bit hypocritical.

I personaly dont care who youtube sponors and who they restrict, nor do i care if a club wants to only admit blacks, whites, women, men, gays, irish, or whatever. Privately owned buisinesses have that right, imo.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk