Yes, there was a huge backlash against Fox News for calling Arizona early for Biden. A lot of people unfollowed Fox in the days that followed.
The folks who write at that link are so extraordinarily unaware of what they advocate they should demand a refund of the taxes their parents paid for their middle schooling. And the left really needs to up their meme game.
Concerning Parler? Any competition to the tech monopolies is good.
Love this Myers quote so much I might just make it my sig…or, apparently, the nearest we can get on this platform
Not censoring Nazis is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Nazi.
“Not censoring Communists is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Communist.”
“Not censoring Christians is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Christian.”
“Not censoring Muslims is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Muslim.”
“Not censoring atheists is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-atheist.”
“Not censoring blasphemers is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-blasphemy.”
“Not censoring male chauvinists is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-male-chauvinism.”
“Not censoring feminists is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-feminist.”
“Not censoring statists is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-statist.”
“Not censoring anarchists is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-anarchist.”
None of those groups are Nazis. I’m not in favor of state censorship, but I am in favor of private organizations maintaining rules of conduct that ban Nazis and similar hatefulness. I agree with the quote when applied to private organizations – allowing Nazis to use your platform for pro-Nazi benefit is an actively pro-Nazi stance.
Because Nazis are the same as all those things…
Only one of those is an ideology actually predicated on racism and irredentism, and not subject to simple vocal opposition. Almost none of your examples actively calls for the extermination or suppression of opponents, and so allowing them to speak is not condoning the promotion of hate speech.
I would say you’re spot-on with the male chauvinists, though (assuming that’s just quaint old guy speak for misogynists)
Well, we may not have to forbid, say, Fabian socialists from speaking, but Leninism will definitely have to go. Leninists weren’t real big on allowing opponents to go unsuppressed. I don’t know about “Christians”, but certainly the Bible will have to be censored–I can give you a whole mess of Bible verses calling for worshippers of “false gods” to be put to death. I’m not as familiar with the Quran, or the hadiths, but I am given to understand there are passages in the Quran and hadiths which certainly seem to advocate for the violent suppression of “infidels”.
Oh, and hey, MrDibble apparently also wants to suppress his opponents!
And we’ve already gone right past “actual Nazis” to “misogynists” (but not, I hope, “people who fail to use the most au courant terminology to refer to misogynists”).
Damn right I do. Just like the police “suppress” murderers and thieves.
And if you don’t censor me, then you’re actively pro-me. Either way, I win…
But if I don’t want to suppress either you or your opponents (unless either you or they actually commit murder, or assault, or larceny, or some other violation of other people’s rights) then you simultaneously both win and lose.
What if they merely threaten to commit those acts? Not good enough? What if they cause others to live in constant fear? Not good enough, either? The right to live free of unfounded fear, not a real right that can be violated?
“True threats” are not protected by the First Amendment in the United States. Where other countries have similar provisions in their laws and constitutions, I wouldn’t accuse those countries of “censorship”.
But “causing others to live in constant fear”–many people are very afraid of the dangers of global warming (and rightly so). Should people who make stupid arguments about man-made climate change be arrested? Large numbers of Trump supporters claim to be truly afraid of the Democrats (with their “socialism” and their child-sex-slavery rings run out of the basements of pizza parlors and so on). We certainly can’t censor everyone who just voted for President-elect Biden based on the absurd fears of a large portion of the American population.
(Sort of parenthetically here:
Did you actually mean to say unfounded fear? Because of course there’s not a right to live free of unfounded fear! That would literally mean “locking her up!” because a bunch of yokels and cretins have unfounded fears about “Pizzagate” and God only knows what nonsense!)
Legal action based on the idea that your words cause others to “live in fear” MUST be strictly limited to some kind of reasonably objective and verifiable threat, to something immediate and real (“Give me your wallet or I’ll bash your head in!”; “If you vote for Bedfellow I’ll bash your head in!”; maybe even a social media post on the Internet that conveys that idea–“I know where you live, and if you vote for Bedfellow I’ll come to your house and bash your head in!”–even if maybe the poster doesn’t actually know where you live and is just a dipshit keyboard commando.)
But these claims that we ought to censor, by state power, all “Nazis”–with “Nazi” being defined God only knows how–or maybe it’s all “Nazis” and all “misogynists”–these claims are disturbing. Why, they are causing me to feel fear! I’m not a Nazi, or a misogynist, but if we keep going, pretty soon we’ll wind up with some category for “suppression” that I do belong to.
In the famous “First they came for…” quote by Martin Niemöller, a lot of the popular and “softer” versions start out with categories like “socialists” and “trade unionists”, and then go to “Jews”, and no decent person wants Them to come for people in such categories. Hell, my mother is a socialist! And I myself was a member of a labor union for many years (Communications Workers of America, Local 3204).
But it’s worth remembering that the original quote actually started out with “Communists”. I don’t like Communism! Communists probably killed more people than even Nazis and other fascists! But I still don’t want Them to “come for” even card-carrying members of the Communist Party (unless those Communists are actually engaging in some sort of real violence–not rhetorical “violence”–or immediately and directly threatening violence, and NOT just talking in theoretical terms).
What does the First Amendment have to do with anything?
No, I did mean unfounded, but I mean “fears caused by unfounded threats”, not “fears that are themselves unfounded”. So being suppressed for your race if Black - an unfounded threat. Being suppressed for being a murderer - not unfounded.
Probably. But the killing people isn’t part of the ideology of Communism. It’s not even part of the ideology of fascism. But it is very much part of the actual ideology of Nazism.
In my country, the United States of America, our free speech laws don’t protect “true threats”. Our free speech laws are grounded in the First Amendment, which (along with the Fourteenth Amendment) provides a national protection to freedom of speech that is very robust–we even protect the right to utter or publish “hate speech” here. But, even with the First Amendment, “true threats” are not considered protected free speech.
As I said in my previous post, to the extent that other countries also have laws which don’t protect “true threats” from the possibility of legal action, I don’t consider those other countries to be engaging in what I would call “censorship”. (Other laws from other countries–and historically some laws in the United States, and maybe even some laws in the United States right now–I would consider to be improperly infringing on the right to freedom of speech. But not laws that genuinely protect against “true threats”.)
I’m sure that would be a very great comfort to all the people killed by Communists.
Also, “killing people” isn’t really part of the ideology of “misogyny” is it? To the extent misogyny even is an ideology, as opposed to a prejudice which may be a component of this or that ideology, it would surely more be about oppressing people and keeping them in “their place”. But I would guess most male chauvinists actually quite like having women (or “girls”) around…as long as they “stay in their place”.
I think it’s appropriate for any community to have some community standards. And “censor advocacy of killing other members of the community” seems like a pretty reasonable standard. The federal government needs to consider the first amendment, and needs to be very conservative in censorship, making a strong claim of harm for whatever speech it bans. A private organization like Facebook, Twitter, or this message board is not restricted by the first amendment, and can draw whatever balance it deems fit between open discourse and civility.
None of those other groups have “Kill me” as a central tenet. Nazis do. (I’m a Jew.)
Ironically I think Fox did jump the gun in their calling Arizona for Biden.
I think what MrDibble was referring to, and which I’m sure you’re aware of, is that the first amendment starts off with Congress shall make no law.. It doesn’t say Twitter, Facebook, or the SDMB shall make no rule. Of course those things weren’t around back then, but it also doesn’t specify any of the private publishers that were around at the time.
(And to @puzzlegal as well.)
MrDibble pretty clearly is going beyond saying that Twitter or the SDMB are allowed, as private entitites, to have community standards, which they enforce by denying access to their respective platforms. (Is anyone here disagreeing with that? I’m certainly not disagreeing with that.)
What I’m arguing with MrDibble about is this:
I don’t think the expression or advocacy of ideas–even odious and detestable ideas–should be in the same category as murder and stealing.
I was responding to @MEBuckner, not to Mr. Dibble, fwiw.
You took just the bit about supporting those who you give a platform to. And I agree with that much. No, I don’t think the police should be proactively raiding those who express hateful positions unless they go over the line into threatening harm to others. (Which, um, Nazis often do…)