Should We Ban Incitement to Violence?steemCreated with Sketch.

Where do we draw the line between permitted free speech and alleged hate speech? I'm asking this while listening to Twitter Jack Dorsey and his GF Princess Vagina lie about Infowars Alex Jones to Tim Poole and Joe Rogan, today.

Infowars Alex Jones Mushroom tumblr_p0ni6k1K6K1vtts30o1_540.jpg

What is hate speech?

Subjectively speaking, hate speech may hurt your feelings. So, therefore, on a subjective level, hate speech may be anything that can hurt your feelings, your mood, your emotions. That may be an answer. But the next question would be whether free speech would include hate speech or not. Some people believe free speech does not include what might be hate speech. The next question would be on the enforcement. Who decides what is hate speech and what is not hate speech? Who decides what is an actual incitement to violence? These are great questions that delves into the world of psychology, sociology, anthropology, the mind of humans, the interaction humans have with each other, and the history of all of that. I'm for free speech which includes hate speech, spam, terrorism speech, incitement to violence, politically incorrect speech, inaccurate speech, etc, etc.

picard

Fundamental Questions Are Critical

I'm asking these questions while Jack's lover girl lie about Alex Jones. How many big tech social ghetto networks banned Alex over deception, things he didn't do, things he didn't say, etc, etc, in 2018? How many other people were banned? Why is Laura Loomer getting banned from everything, everywhere? Why were my two YouTube channels, like Ojawall and Joeyarnoldvn, and Facebook accounts, etc, terminated, deleted, removed, banned, destroyed, shadow banned, gutted, erased, etc, etc, why me? Why is there an internet porn tax that is one step towards the Obama Internet Vision? How do we get Trump to stop Big Tech Monopolism from their continual takeover of the Internet and so many things? How does 5G work like a microwave to scramble up our molecules, our brain cells, to give us cancer, tumors, etc, etc? How bad is 5G and how many people are dying from them? Alex didn't say Sandy Hook was faked. Other people did. Alex talked to them. Alex was taken out of context. Listen to the whole story. They put stuff in the water to make frogs and people more gay, homosexual, etc. Alex didn't beat up that kid. The whole world was sharing this video of a bully kid. A man stood up to that brat. Everybody was talking about that viral video. Vagina Girl lied about that today on JRE. We got to sue Twitter. We got to go after them as they continue to lie and much much more. Did you see the Reddit Ask Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson (PJW), and Owen Shroyer anything? Was Alex drunk? Better yet, why are people lying so much about Alex and Trump and others? The good news is that many of the younger generation get it. They are hardcore red pilled. So, the Jack Dorsey crap is backfiring so much. Globalists and Jihadists have joined forces to take you down? Are you going to let them take you down? If you don't take the leadership, they will take us down. Real leaders don't want to take up the mantle of leadership. Stand up while you can and take up the leadership. Join the fight for liberty.

Breaking World News

Agenda 2030 - Alex Jones - America - AI - Banned From His Own Trial - Bias - Bomb - Borderless - Brexit - Cars - Censorship - China - Climate Change - Clinton - Facebook - Farmlands - Ending Cold War - Genetic Fakeness - Geoengineering - Globalism - Google - Hat - Hillary Clinton - Homestead - Hostage - Jihadism - Kanye West - Korea - Laura Loomer - NPC - One Person? - Parenting - PDX - Pew Die Pie - RCS - Rebels - Red Pill - Religion - Risk Takers - Rogers - Roseanne - Russia - Serena Williams - Sharia - Space Force - Steemit is Fake - Strzok - Transhumanism - Tommy Robinson - Tweets - Wikileaks - Video - Walmart - Walk Away - Wings - 80-20 Light Fight Ratio - Watch Banned News - Alex Jones - Infowars
forbidden frog forums


























Click here to see more Alex Jones related videos on YouTube

Should We Ban Incitement to Violence?

Published in March of 2019 by Oatmeal Joey Arnold (@joeyarnoldvn) in Shelton, WA, USA - Biography - Social Networks - Taught English in Vietnam
Live Bookmark - Get My RSS Feed

#joerogan #twitter #jackdorsey #tech
Sort:  

"hate speech" is protected speech, but you have to be careful who your judge is. There is the law as it is defined by the scotus, then there are judges who politic from the bench and judges aren't well educated who will scream probably cause exists any chance they get. There are generally 3 types of of analyis of free speech. One is the traditional categories of speech, another is a captive audience, and a third is a time manner or place restriction.

For the most part what private companies allow on their own platforms is not covered by the first amendment. Imagine opening up a server for the christian community, and some troll comes on and keeps posting trans por*. There are strong arguments to support the property rights of the owners. Although, increasingly, that could change. California, where many of these dotcoms are, would be an interesting place to start since they extend the first amendment into private malls subject to time manner and place restriction. In addition, when a public official blocks a user on social media that can open the public official up to section 1983 suits. If twitter were to intrefere in that access to contacting a public official, that a person could try to plead that twitter is violating their first amendment rights. Although I think such a suit is untenable.

Untenable because Twitter not only would say they are a private company, that as a private company, unlike the public official, they can't be held liable for speaker/content based discrimination as the public official can, and they could argue that there exist alternative remedies such as an office trip, the us mail, a email to the congressman's webpage and so on.

The alternative channels are time manner and place restrictions, and there must be some compelling governmental interest for their policies. Such as preventing noises when most people are sleeping, for city beatification, safety regarding road construction, sidewalk traffic, safety/environment at large events,and so on. The policies must be content neutral and they must leave an adequate channel of communication. When their is a less speech restrictive means the government must choose that alternative. It doesn't mean that the government has to choose the best alternative.

The internet is not a captive audience. See janet reno v united states, also see bolger v young drug products co. People can tend to have to actively look for offensive content, and supposive they do see it they can avert their eyes. They can block social media users, they can throw away emails, they can block webpages and ads all without the need for government intervention. The home, like medical centers, the courts, the schools, and your travels to and from work (rarely used) are examples of captive audiences. The home being a captive audience are why the 7 dirty words can't be spoken on the radio during day time, because someone could manually turn a dial (how old the fcc v pacifica foundation case is) and hear unwanted words in his own home against his wishes. It is also a similar basis, see Rowan v us post office department, why a home owner can block certain commercial mass mailings that he find arousing-even a dry goods catalog. However he isn't able to do so, short of abusing the family courts, with ordinary mail-including commercial informative mass mailings (central hudson, I think it was).

The third method would be the categorical approach. That would include true threats and their subcategory intimidation (virginia v black), fraud, libel, fighting words spoken face to face (gooding v wilson), obscenity/cp (miller v california/new york v ferber), conduct integral to criminal conduct (giboney v empiror storage), and finally incitement (brandenburg v ohio)

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
-brandenburg v ohio

As far as suing twitter, there may be a theory that I haven't researched. It wouldn't really be a lawsuit against twitter per se, but a twitter and various john does. If liberal actors and organizations (cough CNN) are pressuring twitter not to do business with conservative speakers, that could invoke liability under a secondary boycott.

I have been trying to restart an old social network I wrote. I need to get back to that, but I got aggravated after the zindex refused to work properly (some css attributes messes up the hierarchy I hear) and took a break and forgot to come back. Originally it was html based and supported user entered javascript, but 10 years later I see that as a security risk. So a visual interface and script that compiles into html and javascript and hopefully bypasses the security risks.

Did you know that Twitter is connected to Safe Harbor? Do you understand what Safe Harbor is? Twitter cannot be a publisher and a platform at the same time according to U.S. laws like Safe Harbor. Don't forget about Antitrust and others. Do you know about Antitrust? Did you hear Jack Dorsey say that Twitter is a human right? Do you know what Laura Loomer said about that? Do you know that there is porn on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc? You can find almost anything on these ghetto networks include real murder, etc.

[in the us] porn involving adults is protected speech, unless it falls into obscenity category or other nuance like invasion of privacy. I don't agree with that visual porn is speech, and I don't have to personally, but it is what it is. As far as Jack dorsey saying access to social media is a human right, it doesn't make him liable in the us or in the international courts. Loomer is correct to mock Dorsey as a human rights violator using his own arguments against him. Dorsey, in his rationale, probably is making his social network accessible to SJWs by prohibiting any speakers that might upset his cult of fragile snowflakes. There also is no monopoly in social media in general; you evince that by saying twitter, facebook, and youtube....and here we are on steemit or clone thereof. Although Facebook has engaged in activity that clearly tends to stifle competition (snapchat, pinterest, likely others), antitrust is outside my focus. Since you essentially brought up 47 u.s.c 230, the congress has immunized companies like twitter and facebook when they block what they deem to be objectionable material.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Simply because the giants have taken sides doesn't transform them into a publisher, that is exactly the kind of power the congress wanted them to have, To argue that they become a publisher, could effectively shut down not just say a christian social network or phpbb site, but could shut down interactive family oriented video games as well. Imagine if writing a filter that blocks an ad where a bot repeats, "buy game gold at [website]" over and over again makes the provider suddenly a publisher, where the company then loses all immunity for any users based in game banter. it would send a chill down that would scare any venture capitalist, any IT owner, and web developer. Yelp and more online rating systems could disappear if it tried to block abusive or fake reviews, else face liability for libel, negligence, or other tort(s).

If you don't like what the giants are getting away with with their banhammer, then build your own site. But even after it is built, you will see far more obstacles than you foresaw. Marketing is a big step, and ensure that before launch, that the network can grow without having to radically alter the code for a new network topography while dealing with irate clients. If you use a host provider, you'll quickly see there is a limit on the number of files you can have on their unlimited space sever, and you may run into a maximum queries per hour limit fast.

Should people be banned from using PayPal and even their own banks? And back to the concept of being a publisher. Generally, if you are a publisher, you edit, remove, control, regulate, what you publish. But you would become liable for what you publish. But we know, it would seem, that Facebook has not been liable. Why? Because it's a platform, not a publisher. So, that goes back to Safe Harbor. For example, ABC, CBS, and others, issued me copyright claims. They didn't issue those claims to YouTube. Why? Because YouTube is not liable. My videos were protected under Fair Use. YouTube terminated my two channels. In doing so, YouTube broke the law.

But those companies should have went to court with me. Because then a judge could have decided whether my videos really were Fair Use or not. YouTube is not a publisher but a platform. Those companies could win, and the judge could have ordered those videos removed, and then YouTube would then remove them. Beyond that, if need be, YouTube could have terminated my channels after that as well, if there were too many strikes, too many violations, or whatever the rules may be. However, in October of 2017 and 2018, YouTube did not give me strikes, those companies did not take me to court, and they skipped ahead to the end to assume that I lose and that they lose. But that skips the process, the procedures. You might as well execute people for pre-crime murder. Like with Kavanaugh, are people presumed guilty until proven innocent? Did you see the live Facebook videos of actual murder? Do you see how ISIS, Antifa, and other gang members, are on social networks, and in how they took Tommy Robinson off Facebook? Did you see how Twitter sent me an email that I must be a Russian spy or bot of some sort or that I was sharing things that was promoting fake news, AKA country first focus?

It is disturbing what paypal, patreon, chase, and probably others are doing-it reeks of revelations 13. It is long overdue for independent media agencies/personalities to switch to crypto and try to stop using the dollar, and time for them to upload their works on the block chain. Even if it has to be encrypted and later retrieved by a main website as to maximize ad revenue by keeping the material exclusive.

I am not to familiar with all the internal politicking regarding youtube and copyright claims. Youtube is entitled to have policies that doesn't need a judge, or due process to enforce their policies. Ultimately it comes down to a customer service issue [and in some cases a contract issue], and youtube seems to have more preferred customers based upon political view. They are choosing to alienate at least a third of the US population, which is an extremely bad business model. A giant should want to maximize users, it should want to be a central hub of everything useful online to maximize ad revenue, commissions, and affiliate income. Shunning that many users is an incredible weakness, and an opportunity for smaller companies to take their place.

I heard from Stephen Crowder how companies are abusing copyright claims to file false complaints to shut down speakers, which especially hurts when the maximum profitability is when they are still relevant. Which is a reason why the theory of secondary boycott liability could be raised-I haven't researched it at all sadly, but came across an example a few weeks ago. There may be other torts relating to interference of business regarding the false accusers. But I focus more upon speech, not so much torts outside of section 1983.

I too am concerned about the ideas of the punishment of protected activities under the guise of pre-crimes, and worse the idea of holding people until they prove their innocence. I been through that for a very long period of time without a bond set, I was tortured, humiliated, they refused to let me defend myself and gave me a freaking plea lawyer-locked in a room full of serial killers before each dry run-some wanted for murder in multiple states. It has happened to multiple people, even attorneys who dared to file suit. But I still beat the false indictment as a matter of law, and they refused to set a bond and they held me until they finally had to drop the case. I am one of the rare people (about 100 a year, most are just special interest who haven't exhausted all domestic remedies) who have filed a international claim [possible through the iachr] against the united states because of the unremedied human rights abuses. There are countless political prisoners out there mostly hidden behind gags and/or prison/jail walls. Unlike Tommy Robinson, you rarely hear a squeak about them. Heck, I just heard of a press conference of the san antonio police bragging about the conviction of a first amendment auditor who merely insulted the police. I didn't any coverage from any media outlet that I routinely visit; I saw the video of the conference from an expatriate. The police were trying to harass and intimidate not just that individual who was convicted, but all people who might stand up their first amendment rights.

If you are familiar with the first amendment, sometimes you will run across a news story about an arrest or a conviction you may pick up that something isn't right....that is a queue to investigate further. Sometimes court dockets aren't online, sometimes the courts refuse to put warrant/indictment information on the docket. Sometimes you might have to search the book in page at a sheriff, look at names and the charges that often tend to violate the first amendment (stalking, harassment, violation of a tpo, disorderly conduct, etc), then order a copy of every warrant from the county/magistrate court. Of course there are thousands of counties, and it is near impossible to discover how severe the problem really is. Anyways after screening the warrants for possible first amendment violations, it is then waiting until arraignment or a conviction [depending on the state] to obtain discovery. Depending on the municipality, it can be quite expensive or delivered freely. The media that should be championing the freedom of speech, has, instead, been favoring these gags for decades in the name of feminism. I also doubt they do any serious investigation, I suspect they just pick whatever an attorney or prosecutor sends their way that they think is newsworthy and don't have a clue about the first amendment....which their bread and butter depends upon.
The social media giants may be buttholes, but the ability to censor is a governmental function-and a function that ought not exists. The social giants are simply one of many channels. The giants aren't going to hunt you down and lock you up for years without a bond because they didn't like an idea you expressed, they will simply ban you or your content. There are alternative Channels and new channels can be made, and good users can help them the alternative channels grow and replace the old channels. It is the governments that are the ones locking away people indefinitely without a trial, they are the ones disappearing people, they are the ones using as much force as they can get away with to try to shut people up.

There are also reasons for a social media company to leave the pages of terrorist groups up. Not just because the terrorist can and will set up another page in the blink of an eye, but so that they can be watched by the intelligence community. One little slip up, whether logging in without a VPN, the copying and pasting on multiple sites, a common user ID across sites, or twitter feeding the PMS directly to intelligence to learn of future operations or who might be joining, or the geography of which the users are visiting that might even where it is being marketed from.

Yeah, that's right, Steven Crowder was talking about fair use, about how videos are transformative. Alex Jones was talking to Crowder about the clock elves.

Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)

Ways you can help the @informationwar!

  • Upvote this comment or Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP or Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here