☕ David Antoine Well, regarding censorship on social networks, the only speech for me that is not free speech but effective hate speech is the one defending, pushing for and generating violence. In that sense networks should be more censorious, don't you think ? The best example now is Twitter were overtly pushed "free" speech is calling for the murder of various people (included new POTUS) based on their skin color or political orientation and is effectively generating violence, hurting innocent people. Disagreeing by going outside hurting or killing people is pretty unproductive. You can't even start any discussion with those people, frightening.
Login or register your account to reply
Martijn While true, networks like Twitter have been essential during the Arab Spring. Would people in those countries have been able to organise and get on the streets against the will of the government and law enforcement if hate speech was censored? Where does hate speech start? Where does rebellion begin? Why is it OK for people in Northern Africa to use Western networks and create dissent but not for the Americana walking the street against Trump? I am not sure where to draw the line either, but after you get rid of actual clear threats of physical harm it gets muddy real quick.
7y, 27w 3 replies
☕ David Antoine There is no problem protesting on the streets against Trump but why riot, doing damages and hurt/kill innocent people when Trump has not yet started as POTUS elect? Now, if the USA were in the situation of some middle-east countries, that's where the lines blur as you say and where rebellion begin. Hate speech, racism, intolerance are starting points for getting on the streets against it, even more if it is the will of the government & law enforcement. Was it under Obama? Is it now? Revolutions start against state violence, dictators, etc. Sometimes they are inevitable but not right if you promote what you want to fight.
7y, 26w 2 replies