I’ve seen *a lot* of people approvingly share Robert Riech’s really bad Guardian piece on “reining in” Elon Musk.
I’m begging these people to please read @mmasnick.
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/03/robert-reichs-ridiculous-response-to-elon-reminds-us-that-censorial-instincts-have-infected-both-parties/
#techdirt #tech #socialmedia #freespeech
@chrishudsonjr @mmasnick sounds like a case of Poppers tolerance paradox, you have to be intolerant to intolerant people if you want a tolerant society.
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick Refusing to tolerate him by boycotting his platform and products is a great answer. But there's a big difference between refusing to tolerate him and using the force of government to actively persecute him.
@louis @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick I think that your view is based upon a very noble (but unfortunately not true) idea that if you let individuals say what they want, the majority will see through the lies and won't endorse the hate and won't resort to violence. It simply doesn't work that way. We need to make illegal type of speech that undermines democracy and/or leads to violence.
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick On the contrary. My view is based on the premise that if people want to believe the lies and endorse the hate, then that's their right, their freedom, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process. The minute they turn to violence, I'll be right there to shut them down by force. But so long as they're peaceful, they should have every bit as much right as you or I to believe and espouse whatever they want.
@louis @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick let's take Jan 6. As I understand your argument only those participating in violent activities should face legal consequences, whereas those that organised and promoted (let's suppose there are some) have no responsibility? I believe that you can't separate the two- ones that stoke the fire in the first place and those that then act. Also, words can be violence as well- just see bullying - I hope we agree that there freedom of speech has to be policed by the state? So
@louis @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick i agree- there is a fine line - but obviously there is speech that is should be prohibited by the state. And I think that using old laws in internet age is not a good idea.
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick The internet hasn't changed speech, it's just changed the reach. And not using the old laws in the internet age is exactly why S230 exists in the first place.
If you've got a better idea, propose it. But for now, the status quo does seem like the best way to balance human rights against harm reduction.
@louis untag please
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick That's a fine line. There is, and should be, an exception for "incitement to violence". And the US has a good standard for that in Brandenburg v. Ohio. To qualify as illegal incitement, speech must pass a four-pronged test, being both (1) intended to and (2) likely to provoke (3) imminent (4) lawless action.
So, anyone calling for a protest with charged rhetoric would be protected, but anyone directly inciting violence on-site would not.