Not sure why you’re saying this. You’ll be hard pressed to find a message board with active user community (especially on the scale of Reddit’s) that doesn’t forbid certain kinds of speech. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever come across a board that doesn’t.
Censorship is the rule, not the exception, on the internet.
I suspect you do not see. I don’t know where this suspicion comes from, but there it is.
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying.
Okay, I don’t see how this matters.
Okay, that wasn’t me.
I still think highly of reddit – I’m a redditor and I spend a lot of time on various subreddits. I just think they should have higher standards for what they allow, and by allowing some of this stuff (like r/coontown) I think a bit less highly of them than I would otherwise.
I still don’t understand, because no one is advocating for “freedom of murder” with or without consequences. The ‘consequences’ being discussed are societal disapproval – freedom of speech means no government consequences, not the freedom to not be criticized. I think there should be government consequences for murder, and there should never be government consequences for speech. The analogy doesn’t make sense to me, since the “consequences” are entirely different in nature.
That’s fine. Why should you have to agree with me? I’m stating my opinion on what I would do if I ran a message board, and what I think reddit should do. I’m not advocating that this stuff must happen by law – in fact, that would be a terrible thing.
Of course reddit isn’t mine, I was just hypothesizing about owning such a site, and giving my opinion on what I think they should do, and what is appropriate.
I like the tradition of big discussion spaces on the internet. Most of them have standards of some sort – we just seem to disagree on what we would like the standards to be.
I don’t think you would really argue for no government consequences for any speech. Some speech will have government consequences either because the speech itself is forbidden (child porn, some forms of campaign financing, etc.), or because the government can be used to enforce another person’s rights (slander, copyright, etc.).
Agreed.
Some people here aren’t clear what “bullying” is. “Bullying” is when someone with power intentionally and repeatedly causes distress to someone without power to respond, for personal gain or entertainment.
That’s clearly not what is involved in labeling hate speech. C’mon.
Some people here are horrifically unaware of the meaning of “First they came for the Jews…” bit. The point is that when they came for the Jews, they imprisoned the Jews and then killed them. If you’re comparing it to a situation where “they came for” means “they refused to allow someone to spew hate speech on their website,” you’re making an insanely bad comparison.
Lastly, yeah, some proposals are censorship (although the labeling of certain subreddits as “hate” isn’t censorship by any measure). It’s ridiculous to conclude it’s therefore bad. Censorship is not only appropriate under some circumstances, it’s something that every single neurotypical human being over the age of five engages in on a daily basis. It simply means being aware of inappropriate communication and not engaging in it, when you’re censoring yourself, or being aware of inappropriate communication and not facilitating it, when you’re censoring a medium you control. As a concept, it’s a perfectly normal and valuable tool. Of course it can be misused, and as a society we’ve decided that the government, because of its unique and monopolistic power, should minimally censor; but that’s a feature of the government, not a feature of censorship.
You are quite perceptive. Thing is, I believe the first amendment was written the way it was because they understood that if they let exceptions into the free speech zone, other exceptions would come flooding in. For example, one longstanding argument was that the First Amendment only protected POLITICAL speech, which was why it was OK to censor sexual stuff, because that wasn’t political in nature. Of course, that ignored the fact that way back when the government forbade sending birth control information through the mail because it was pornographic in nature. (In short, they were lying their asses off.)
And child porn is not an especially good example, as it is a form of speech that requires the commission of crimes against children to exist. You could just as easily prosecute child porn producers as accessories to child molestation as for production of illegal images, in fact, that is what you should do instead of messing with free speech issues.
Well, good thing we have no laws against obscenity!
Reddit doesn’t call itself that, as clearly noted in post 33. The OP says it once claimed to be but nobody has provided any support for that assertion.
You said
I do not think you will find many on this board who feel this way.
The difference is, well, umm, oh yeah, the people who want to host their own servers make their own rules so the can refuse certain specific content are not the currently fashionable minority. The people who want to open a business and refuse content specific orders do not want the business of a currently fashionable minority.
Here ya go:
Yeah, the problem is that I didn’t understand what you were saying; it’s that I wasn’t responding to you. I’m happy to, but the thing you responded to wasn’t directly to you, so it may seem garbled.
Oh, if you’re running a board discussing, say, butterflies, then long screeds about, say, gun control are obviously bootable things. The more general the board purports to be, the more they ought to be able to accept.
(lumping these two together)
No, “freedom of speech” does not mean no government consequences. The first amendment assures us there won’t be, but that’s a subset of the concept of freedom of speech.
“Freedom of speech” (which the 1st constrains congress from infringing on) is the more general idea that there are words, concepts, and ideas, some of which are noxious, which can be discussed. Yes, there is a certain level of societal opprobrium that can come along with your speech (that is, you may not wish to marry someone who advances views the majority find noxious), but (and this is where it’s important to point out I wasn’t responding to you, although I am happy to engage with you), calls for, say, boycotts of advertisers (I can look up who suggested them) if certain views aren’t banned exceeds the level I am comfortable with, even if the speech was really bad.
You may not be one of the people calling for boycotts of advertisers if reddit doesn’t boot this forum. However, there are, or will be, those who do.
One side then responds with “free speech”
The other then responds with “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”. My analogy (that, by that standard, we have “freedom to murder”) is a rebuttal to that.
I am suggesting that it is better for society to allow, to tolerate, this speech, subject to fairly liberal (no targeting an identifiable person, no inciting immediate violence against an identifiable group) restrictions. I am saying, as noxious as the speech is, we, as a society, should accept “freedom of speech” is a thing beyond the 1st. I’m happy with time/place restrictions (no, you can’t take your pro-gay-rights arguments to work, nor to a site about butterflies), but, if it’s a general discussion board, that allows controversial and non-mainstream opinions, then allow even the noxious, offensive ones.
Yes, although from the sounds of it, it’s a matter of degree, rather than kind. My concern is that the sort of societal-censorship people are discussing can easily be applied to all sorts of minority views. The idea, for instance, that police seem to be especially hard on minorities is one that a majority find offensive. Should we, since they truly do view that as noxious speech, limit that? Should Reddit, who would be in their rights to do so, boot subreddits about it?
I’m willing to let racists go rabbiting on to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Should they? No. Can they? Sure. Are my choices if they do the same as my choices if they don’t? Yes. I can stay or I can go. (Or, I can go there or I can go elsewhere, since I can’t stay somewhere I never was in the first place.)
By limiting reactions to speech, you are limiting speech. There is no way to have “free speech” that does not also allow for me to speak against your speech.
I repeatedly state they can. I’m explaining why I don’t think they should, and why not doing so is reflective of a view I admire. The view they have (“We permit speech. Even ichy speech”) is a legitimate view. One I can understand a lot more than “We limit speech, especially the type the majority doesn’t like”.
But again, if you say that I cannot call for a boycott, you are limiting my speech. If you say a community cannot label racists as racists, you are limiting the community’s speech. You are not calling for fewer limits, you just want them in a different place.
Well, I would certainly not object to calling them racists, and have no idea where you got that idea. Feel free. Call them worse than that, if you can. Label them, and their ideas, horrible things. I mean, they are racists. Knock yourself out. That’s what I said about societal opprobrium.
Calling for a boycott is fine, I suppose, but boycotting itself isn’t speech, it’s an action, (or, more specifically a lack of action). And, yeah, I draw the line at actions.
Thanks.
Okay, I agree except for certain things (racial screeds, advocating for genocide, etc.). I think a community is better if these are disallowed (but not banned by the government.
I’m fine with this, and I don’t want to suppress any discussion.
I find calls for boycotts another form of “free speech”, so I’m perfectly comfortable with them. Often I disagree with them.
Except by that standard we don’t have “freedom to murder”, since the consequences of murder include loss of freedom or even life, while the consequences of free speech are just other forms of speech (including possible calls for boycotts or being booted out of privately owned spaces). Those consequences are not comparable.
It may depend on what we qualify as noxious and offensive, but I’ll at least partially disagree. I don’t believe there’s any possibility of reasonable discussion on some topics, and I think it’s fine if they are disallowed. We might disagree on what these are.
I have my own opinions about what reddit should do, and considering the rules of places like this board, and the discussions that go on despite the rules, disallowing content like much of r/coontown holds negligible risk for spreading in this way.
Typing on a keyboard is an action.
See, you don’t want to “speak against their speech”. Speaking against their speech is engaging the argument (or, even, really, ignoring it). Competing in the marketplace of ideas.
A boycott of the advertisers is, sure, a type of speech (I mean, from a first amendment perspective, anyway). It is not, however, anything like the concept of “Free speech” I recognize.
I disagree with your approach. I certainly recognize your right to it, and, should you wish to pursue it, I would not only not stop you, I would stop anyone who did. However, I would argue with you that you would be better off engaging or ignoring, rather than attacking a proxy.
I’m not sure how that limits your freedom of speech, or how arguing with you somehow limits what you can do.