It's great to read such eloquent defense of such an important idea. I would ask that anybody with terrible ideas be allowed to speak at length and convince all the peaceful tolerant listeners of the terribleness of the ideas. Sadly, the importance of freedom of expression seems dead in the minds of many Americans.
In the near-term (10-15 years), fortunately, the Supreme Court is very likely to shield freedom of speech from this latest cultural assault.
The primary question is what direction the authoritarian types will attack it from legally / politically. The main vehicle has to be the intentionally vague hate speech approach, which they've been readying and building up for decades. To regulate it into action, they'll have to argue the Internet (the primary medium that matters now) is under FCC broadcast control just as with traditional radio and broadcast TV. Then they'll task any Internet content publishing platforms with obeying and enforcing the new hate speech limitations. Those new rules will vary with the political winds and be aggressively abused by each administration and major political shift in DC. It'll become a form of shifting thought terror brought down upon the American people (what can/can't I express changing every 4 to 8 years); by the time the public realizes what has happened, it'll be far too late, their speech - their last line of defense - will be gone.
The approach they are using right now, and very successfully, is to force the large companies to censor for them. Internally to the company they will say "this and this and this should be deleted". They accuse anyone that disagrees of creating a hostile work environment (illegal per anti-discrimination laws). Without anyone left to disagree, they can get basically all they ask for.
They then disingeniously say "this is the decision of a private company, free speech only applies to the government" even though they were the ones that forced the company's hand.
Complete censorship is not possible with this strategy, because there will always be other ways to get the speech out, but it may well be censored from as large a percentage of people as in a dictatorship.
How is the government forcing large companies to censor? I've not come across any instances of this. Pressure maybe, but there's a world of difference between pressure and force. See Apple's refusal to assist in decrypting the contents of their phones.
Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities.
Excepting explicit regulation such as common carrier. I don't think anyone is saying it would be OK for the phone companies to cut off KKK members phone service.
Agree... but cloudflare was basically arguing that they should be considered something like "common carrier" because very few companies have the technology and network to build DDoS resistant websites.
I don't know how true that is, but if so... it stands to reason that free speech on the internet could be in danger. But who knows, maybe we'll get better DDoS protection technology in the future :)
> Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities.
Are you opposed to net neutrality, then? If not, why the different standard for ISPs vs other tech oligopolies?
Not OP, but I think publishing platforms should be able to decide policies who to carry, infrastructure companies on the other hand should at most differentiate by usage patterns, never by ideology.
I count ISPs clearly in the infrastructure category, same with cloudflare, domain providers and AWS.
Personally, I think there is a difference between publishing companies that develop their own content and social media companies that only provide a mechanism for others to communicate.
I'd count the latter among the infrastructure companies.
I wouldn't. Even just the design of the tools they provide to facilitate communication influence what content can be created and how it is created. How can Facebook be a common carrier when it has age restrictions on accounts and makes choices about what languages and scripts it supports? If it were a common carrier, it would be unable to filter or limit the dustribution of pornography, for example. Should the be coerced by legislation to drop all such restrictions? If they should then what about private forums and bulletin boards? They provide essentially the same kinds of service? I just don't see how that approach is at all tennable.
Every platform limits the content based on the design of the tools. Being a common carrier wouldn't mean Facebook would be forced to support particular scripts any more than the phone company was required to develop video calls.
If there are some restrictions we want as a society, like age or porn, those could be made exceptions.
Regarding private forums, I'd distinguish between forums that seek to serve 99% of people and those that serve less than 1%. The first are public; the latter are private.
Facebook is just the last platform in a stack of platforms people use to communicate. Why would Facebook be allowed to restrict content while those who provide the services Facebook is built on wouldn't?
I already explained exactly why. They already have responsibility for the content on their platform simply due to the nature and design of the platform.
That's completely beside the point. They are required to do that by law, in exactly the same way that the phone company can be required by law to cut of service or trace calls by the law or the courts. Its got nothing to do with common carrier status, which is about the discretion of the company not the government.
I'm in favour of net neutrality, and believe that ISPs should be common carriers just like phone companies. Physical infrastructure should be covered by common carrier rules as not discriminate (in the broad sense) between content. Maybe content types, for efficiency purposes, but not the content itself.
Publishing platforms explicitly manage content. They provide tools to create, edit, transform and manage content. They provide facilities to control content distribution and subscription. That's clearly a different class of service. You can't reasonably argue that a service that actually facilitates the creation and routing of content can't influence what content is created or routed. They already do so explicitly in their choice and design of tooling.
ISPs also "facilitate the creation and routing of content". We just don't think of them that way because they exist at a lower layer and we don't directly interact with them. Instead, services like Facebook use the services ISPs provide.
Thats some pretty contorted reasoning. ISPs only carry content after it has been created and they do not route traffic based on it's data payload, only it's addressing metadata set by the sender. The protocols they implement were specifically designed not to care about the data payload and just do what the sender told them to do regarding addressing and delivery. Internet users rely on them to do what they are supposed to do, as clearly laid down in the protocol specifications.
Various social networks use 'relevance' metrics, keywords in the text, timeliness and all sorts of criteria to choose how to distribute or sort and highlight content and they change these algorithms over time. They are part of the value the service provides and clearly their responsibility.
We're taking about private companies. Title IX only applies to federally funded services. Federal agencies anti-discrimination policies are a completely different subject.
Perhaps, but then we have effective safeguards over here that the US doesn't have. Particularly, we have a truly independent and non-politicised judiciary. That's a big deal.
We don't have the absolute and uncompromisingly worded constitutional rights of the US, but we're also far less likely to suffer erosion or elimination of those rights in practice that we see in the US. E.g. If the UK government wanted to have National Security Letters they'd just pass a law allowing them to do so. But there's no way the judiciary would allow them to create and apply such letters otherwise, the way it happened in the US. So yes the security state here does go too far IMHO but it's much more explicit and open to public debate and challenge.
> Indeed, also EU member nations are subject to European Court of Human Rights.
Council of Europe members. Russia is a Council of Europe member, so the UK isn't leaving that. On the other hand, it also isn't as effective as you might think.
the boundaries for freedom of speech will always be tested, and as the document reveals this the first time freedom of speech is debated.. and won't be the last either.
But I for one don't believe there is any serious efforts to limit freedom of speech in America, we're still far from that point :)
It is a noble sentiment that bears remembering. Although, we should ruminate on what it means in a world of attention span saturation, where competing ideas are essentially DDoSed. If you look in depth at cult deprogramming techniques, there is a danger to isolation and concentration of ideas.
You and the ACLU have been tripped up by the paradox of tolerance: there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society, but that is not the same as what happened in Charlottesville or Germany in the '30s
> there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society
I hope you realize this is the type of speech we should expect from a totalitarian regime.
Who determines whether something is destructive to society? Always and everywhere should be the time and place to analyse any ideas regardless of whether anyone thinks they're destructive or not.
>>Who determines whether something is destructive to society?
This is a key question people want to avoid
Every group has their own idea as to what is destructive to society, Ask Anti-fa they will tell it is the White Supremacists, Ask the White Supremacists and they will tell you it is Anti-fa
Ask me and I will tell you it is both...
Ask Christians and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive,
Ask Atheists and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive,
Ask <insert group>, and they will give you a whole list of speech that is destructive,
So who is right? None of them.... not even me.
What is actually destructive to society is Censorship... Both by government and by society at large
Hitler didn't take over Germany because he had the best words. He was enabled, among other things, by complicit Bavarian judges who refused to lop off his head for treason.
> there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society
Just like there's a time and place to question the war effort, right? Besides, some people want closed borders, not an open society - why should only ideas that favour openness be allowed?
I realize I'm risking downvotes with this one, but I think it's worth acknowledging. While Charlottesville was a tragedy, and the time is not right imo to discuss it with the public at large precisely because it was a tragedy and people are still mourning, the event was overall as peaceful as any severely political protest ever is. The deaths and injuries that occurred should not be simply discounted as if the people are simply disposable, but the majority of activists on both sides did not cause those deaths and injuries. Unless there is a major point of information that I am ignorant of, the driver who has catapulted the event into the national spotlight acted essentially in isolation even if his ideology was not held in isolation at the event. He acted heinously, and now is not the time for taking easy solace, but I think there's some merit in the reality that by and large people on both sides were able to demonstrate with the -relative- peacefulness of a generic controversial American protest with orbital counter protests.
Many groups radicalize "lone wolves" precisely to do the things that they want done, but want to keep their hands clean.
You saw this particularly during the 90s, when people were radicalized to attack and kill abortion doctors. It was rarely called terrorism, but the tactics were the same.
The folks who sent hoax anthrax packages to Planned Parenthood offices where mostly lone actors, picking up on their group's radicalizing messages.
One could also say Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were "lone wolves" in that they believed the radicalizing talk, but acted essentially alone.
If you're an avowed Hitler fan at a #UniteTheRight alt-right rally, and you drive multiple blocks at high speed into a crowd of people, and then drive multiple blocks in reverse at a similar rate of speed in order to evade capture, I think there's enough room to indict.
This is why I couldn't believe that terrorism was invoked. (for a second, before accepting the unscrupulous cleverness of it)
Terrorism is when a message is sent to the people at large, not what happens between warring protestors. Terrorism is what Theresa May wants to tap internet communications for.
Replying to matt, not sure why his post was flagged (aside from veering off my topic):
>People protesting against Nazis aren't... >That means...
You theorise a lot about the opposing side on this one occasion, that is contrary to what we've seen for a year from american political clashes.
>But anyway... The definition of terrorism is politically motivated violence. Not calling this terrorism, when it's using literally the same method as ISIS has been using in the last years, is starting to make it really hard to believe that all these free speech advocates aren't just trying to hide their sympathies for the skinheads they're defending.
Drunk drivers "use the same method" to kill people. What's really depressing is the fact that lights a bulb in people's head that says terrorism. It means they don't have actual definitions of words in their heads. I'm not a nazi sympathiser at all, thank you. And believe any of those at Charlottesville truly concerned with white heritage and statues failed themselves by association (nevermind carrying torches..).
to me the key difference is terrorism is premeditated. this violence was the act of one individual and is blown out of proportion.
what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue.
I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible. it gives them an outlet and lets the rest of us know who they are. so while their message may be repugnant they have the right to march.
the ACLU recent preening/posturing/etc is shameful compared to their past actions. far too many groups are piling on declaring how they are against violence which is non declaration. Of course violence cannot be supported.
the real danger is if we force these groups underground that some of their members may act out with much more terrible violence.
> what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue.
It could be because both of those statements are lies. You might need to rethink which outlet you go to for news.
Although one of those outlets happens to be the POTUS, which is unfortunate.
> I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible.
You do know what happens once neo-Nazis get photos of your face? People are getting harrassed online, then offline, rounded up, beaten and occasionally murdered. Masking is self-protection.
And yes there IS a difference between lefties and Nazis masking up: Lefties, generally, don't kill. Worst you get as a Nazi is a beating. Nazis do kill (50 or 68 alone due to terrorist attacks since 9/11, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#cite_ref-...).
Source: know a couple "outed" activists, got my face distributed by a local Nazi party leader on Youtube.
Are you seriously parroting Donald Trump right now? The lefties at Charlottesville were peaceful (and in those cases where it did turn violent, the Nazis began with assaulting). Most weren't even Antifa, they were ordinary Charlottesville citizens protesting against Nazis from all over the USA taking their city over!
According to that, either Muslim or left-wing (anti-white or anti-police) extremists were responsible for all the fatalities in 2016, save one attack for which the motive is unknown.
> According to that, either Muslim or left-wing (anti-white or anti-police) extremists were responsible for all the fatalities in 2016, save one attack for which the motive is unknown.
First off, you're taking liberties in assigning those to left-wing extremism without a basis.
Here's some more data, over a longer period:
Quoting ADL's Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2016 report [1] (focus on domestic terrorism):
Left-wing violence is on the rise. All of those 8 people killed by the left were in 2016 (Dallas and Baton Rouge attacks on police officers), none of the people killed by the right were (unless the ADL is mysteriously counting the killing of an Imam in NYC by a Hispanic man whose motive is unknown as "right-wing").
That's assuming the ADL's numbers are right and none of the other people the GTD called "anti-police extremists" were left-wing, which appears to be incorrect. [1]
The "rise of the violent left", as The Atlantic called it, is a depressing trend.
Anyway, I have to go and won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Have a great day.
> All of those 8 people killed by the left were in 2016,
8 police officers shot by radical BLM activists. I don't like that kind of action either, but given that PoC are routine walking target circles for police, I certainly get how the two activists were motivated - and there is a difference between taking revenge on murderers versus murdering people just because they're black/jewish/...
And: according to ADL (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-e...), however, Nazis did commit two triple-murders (bringing their tally for 2016 to 6), and it's the first year that Nazis were not the absolute dominator on the murder statistics since over 30 years (9/11 was not domestic terrorism). This one year is nothing to prove a trend turn.
> Anti-government extremists and white supremacists were responsible for only a minority of extremist related deaths in 2016, though they did commit two triple homicides.
Unfortunately they don't identify those incidents. The GTD doesn't list any triple homicides by the right. Let me know if you can find out what they're talking about here.
> They would exist without Nazis. In fact, Charlottesville may be the first time they've actually fought Nazis.
> The first German movement to call itself Antifaschistische Aktion was proclaimed by the German Communist Party (KPD) in their newspaper Rote Fahne in 1932 and held its first rally in Berlin on 10 July 1932, then capital of the Weimar Republic. During the early 1930s amidst rising tensions between Nazis and the communists, Berlin in particular has been the site of regular and often very violent clashes between the two groups.
I was at G20. We did not initiate the violence, it was initiated by the police on Thursday by attacking the peaceful demonstration (which had even unmasked in the majority, as ordered by police).
Source: Witnessed everything from a bridge above the watercannons.
> which had even unmasked in the majority, as ordered by police
Honestly I find such an order repugnant. Anonymity is crucial to free speech, especially when protesting a group as powerful as G20. I'm sure no-one thinks they should be forced to report their political activity to their employer (at least judging from the outcry when the Trump administration requested all those IP addresses), but such an order is effectively exactly that.
> if it were true, every media outlet in America would be reporting it.
LOL as if the mainstream press would care about right-wing violence. As long as it can be swept under the rug or it's only minorities who suffer, they don't care - simply because the majority of customers are white men, and they are not interested if PoC or minorities get hit. Charlottesville only got attention because the terror victim was white, what happened the day before at night or with the PoC nearly beaten to death in a garage was shadowed by the murder.
There are many sources proving my point, when it comes to the facts. For example:
- The number of violent attacks on U.S. soil inspired by far-right ideology has spiked since the beginning of this century, rising from a yearly avarage of 70 attacks in the 1990s to a yearly avarage of more than 300 since 2001. These incidents have grown even more common since President Donald Trump’s election. (per http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...)
- They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. (per http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...)
These nazis/white supremacists/etc glorify the holocaust, meaning they want to, once again, kill all those they consider inferior: jews/blacks/muslims.
Those protesting against them are the people that think it's not a great idea to kill all the jews/blacks/muslims. Because being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a communist terrorist or whatever.
That really shouldn't be so hard to understand, considering the US once fought a war against those people whose flag is now making a comeback. And I really didn't get the feeling that all those GIs were anarchists and communists.
Additionally, I'd wager that many antifascists would rather not use violence and rather have police take care about that matter.
However, even flying f..ing Nazi swastika flags and thereby create a sphere of threat for minorities (because, what else than "I will kill you when you come here" does a Swastika flag say to a Jew?!) is legal in the US - so in order to create a safe space for minorities of all kinds, Nazis must be driven away. And yes, this includes violence in some occasions (e.g. at Charlottesville, where a gang of white supremacists nearly beat a PoC to death).
If anyone is not fine with Antifa protecting minorities, then by all means lobby your politicians that Nazi symbolism, hate speech and other ways of threatening minorities gets banned. Until this happens, either stand in yourself when you see minorities threatened or at least don't stand in the way of those willing to protect minorities when no one else wants to!
They were violent at the presidential inauguration, the G20 summit, and in attempts to prevent countless people from speaking at colleges. Please don't try to pretend they only fight Nazis.
Snopes does cite the tweet, and does say there were brawls and that some people blame the police for not having intervened enough. Which facts have they missed?
