Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

[LordsFire]

No. Because damning their protected speech is how you lose your protected speech. There's a very good reason that the ACLU stood for the KKK's speech rights when it was worth something, and we now know they are worth nothing because they don't stand for the rights of people they disagree with.

Seriously, that's a win for the ADL, if they lose but have compromised speech rights for everyone in the process.

No, I'm pretty sure the ACLU stood up for the KKK's rights, because they've pretty much always advocated on behalf of evil. They may cover it under the aegis of free speech, freedom of assembly, or whatever, but they're generally busy defending sexual predators from the law, while also attacking parents trying to defend their children, etc, etc.

At a minimum, they've been completely compromised since the 90's.

 

[Abhorsen]

I disagree, @Lord Sovereign has arrived at the correct conclusion-- and your own argument (esp. "they are worth nothing because they don't stand for the rights of people they disagree with") hints towards that same conclusion.

Why? Because the ADL (which is much worse than the ACLU, as far as I'm aware) doesn't just fail to stand for the rights of certain others; they outright attempt to destroy those rights.

And, as you almost certainly know, in a consistent moral framework, one cannot claim rights that one denies to others. It's a performative contradiction (and, if applied in practice, it is evidently what one might call "the initiation of force").

As such, in your kindness, you have been too charitable to the ADL. Crushing their acts of violation isn't subsequently also a violation of their rights, because they have forfeited those rights by violating the rights of others. To compare: shooting someone who shoots at you isn't aggression, either. And that is why silencing someone who is trying to silence others (by force) also isn't aggression.

Destroying the ADL is an act in the defence of free speech.

I think you misunderstood who I was comparing the ADL to: I was comparing them to the KKK the ACLU defended, and us to the ACLU.

Yes, one cannot claim rights one denies to others. Thus we are in the position of needing to defend the rights of people who do not share those rights, otherwise we'd be doing that. When the ADL argues free speech, then we are free to laugh at them for the hypocrisy, while still needing to defend them.

Why do we defend them? Not because we like what they say. But because not defending them would set legal precedent that would be used against us.

Now I'm not saying we pay their legal bills: if they screwed up in a way that isn't impacting speech rights, I really want them caught. But I'd pick speech rights for everyone and the ADL escaping punishment over the ADL getting slapped once, but getting to legally attack anyone it thinks is antisemetic.

No, I'm pretty sure the ACLU stood up for the KKK's rights, because they've pretty much always advocated on behalf of evil. They may cover it under the aegis of free speech, freedom of assembly, or whatever, but they're generally busy defending sexual predators from the law, while also attacking parents trying to defend their children, etc, etc.

At a minimum, they've been completely compromised since the 90's.

The ACLU defending the KKK in the 1960s is why we have free speech rights today, and can protest things without being arrested for sedition 'because we are shouting fire in a crowded theater'.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Literally, that's the case currently spiting the ADL's wanna be clampdown: hate speech is protected speech.

You've bought into the binary of 'group bad now, therefore always bad, and everything they did was bad'.

 

[Karmic Acumen]

You've bought into the binary of 'group bad now, therefore always bad, and everything they did was bad'.

As someone with minimal emotional investment in this, it doesn't come across to me like that at all. All I see is them saying 'stop giving evil back the rights and privileges it already threw in your face along with their shit. Again.'

The ACLU defending the KKK in the 1960s is why we have free speech rights today

No, you have free speech thanks to the first amendment.

Note that the ADL aren't practicing free speech. They're practicing slander and calumny.

You've fallen into the trap of giving evil credit for the workings of good.

 

[LordsFire]

You've bought into the binary of 'group bad now, therefore always bad, and everything they did was bad'.

Don't pretend to be a telepath.

There's a reason that I included the caveat about 'since the 90's.' I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of their case history.

Did they, perchance, stand up for the rights of non-heinous people being persecuted by the state at any point?

 

[Skallagrim]

Yes, one cannot claim rights one denies to others. (...) When the ADL argues free speech, then we are free to laugh at them for the hypocrisy, while still needing to defend them.

1. One cannot claim rights one denies to others.

2. The ADL actively and consistently tries to deny free speech to others; this pursuit is in fact their "core business", in practice.

3. The ADL, therefore, cannot claim free speech.

4. Therefore, we do not need to defend them.

5. In fact, defending them is tantamount to defending the "rights" of robbers against the "violation" of their rights (i.e. "being shot by a would-be victim").

6. Denying free speech to the ADL on this ground does not harm free speech at all, because the explicit grounds for denying it here is that they are violating it themselves. Anyone who respects the rights of others is automatically defended, and in fact strengthened against all would-be violators (because the means of self-defence are more solidified).

 

[Abhorsen]

It doesn't come across to me like that at all. All I see is them saying 'stop giving evil the rights and privileges it already threw in your face along with their shit. Again.'

You must allow evil rights. Because who actually allows people rights? The government. Who would then decides who is evil and doesn't get rights? The government. You can see where this is going.

No, you have free speech thanks to the first amendment.

You've fallen into the trap of giving evil credit for the workings of good.

The first amendment is only a piece of paper. It needs to be enforced by the Supreme Court. Prior to Brandenburg, the Supreme Court didn't enforce it. It allowed the arrest of people for believing that WW1's draft was wrong.

Don't pretend to be a telepath.

There's a reason that I included the caveat about 'since the 90's.' I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of their case history.

Did they, perchance, stand up for the rights of non-heinous people being persecuted by the state at any point?

Given that's all the argument you gave, it certainly seems that I was right: You assumed, because the ACLU is now bad, that they've always done evil, without looking it up.

They have a number of cases where they defended Jehovah's Witnesses on various things, represented a large number of people arrested in the South for Sit ins, represented kids wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war along with others protesting the draft, they got a non-violent mentally ill person who had family willing to take care of him out of a state mental hospital, and I could go on.

The thing is, usually the state tries to pull BS on bad people first, as the state is really just individual people, and they can justify in their minds breaking the law because 'this guy deserves it'. The problem is that sets the standard for those who don't, hence why the ACLU would defend bad people along with good people.

It eventually went the way of all good organizations though, and lived long enough to see it become the villain. It now doesn't defend people it disagrees with. And that's how you know the ACLU is dead.

4. Therefore, we do not need to defend them.

This is where you fail. Completely fail. If we do not, this precedent will be used to attack us.

It's the same reason one supports Hunter Biden's gun rights before the Supreme Court: because if he wins, suddenly a whole lot of BS convictions die. Does he deserve everything bad to happen to him? Yeah. Would it be better for everyone if he ended up becoming a patsy to get better gun rights? Also yeah. Same logic applies here.

It's not that the ADL deserves rights. It's that if we don't give them rights, it will be twisted to fuck us all.

 

[Karmic Acumen]

You must allow evil rights.

Yes. To begin with. Until they forfeit them.

It's not a difficult thing to grasp.

 

[King Arts]

Don't pretend to be a telepath.

There's a reason that I included the caveat about 'since the 90's.' I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of their case history.

Did they, perchance, stand up for the rights of non-heinous people being persecuted by the state at any point?

Yes the ACLU has done a lot of good and you should educate yourself before you castigate them.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes. To begin with. Until they forfeit them.

It's not a difficult thing to grasp.

No. Or you'd lose it too. As you are advocating for people losing speech rights.

Again, the government would judge you to have forfeited it for a million reasons, many false, one true: that you argued that the ADL should lose speech rights. For some reason, most can't grasp the idea that yes, even those people get speech rights. Everyone seems to have their own pet cause that they think should speak. Many are right that if the people they didn't like didn't speak, the world would be better. The problem is the action of making them not speak. This action is done by government, and will be exploited by those in power against those not in power.

 

[Skallagrim]

This is where you fail. Completely fail. If we do not, this precedent will be used to attack us.

It's the same reason one supports Hunter Biden's gun rights before the Supreme Court: because if he wins, suddenly a whole lot of BS convictions die. Does he deserve everything bad to happen to him? Yeah. Would it be better for everyone if he ended up becoming a patsy to get better gun rights? Also yeah. Same logic applies here.

It's not that the ADL deserves rights. It's that if we don't give them rights, it will be twisted to fuck us all.

You continue to assert this, yet I see no evidence of your claim. I also find it peculiar that you fix your reaction entirely on my fourth point, and seemingly -- no, in fact, blatantly -- ignore the other points. They argue against your position; you have not refuted the points, however. Merely ignored them.

You have stated agreement with point 1. As you'll be able to see, points 2 and 3 form a logical argument derived from the premise of point 1. I assume, therefore, that you agree with points 1, 2 and 3. If not, you'd have to either argue that the ADL doesn't seek to infringe upon the free speech of others (a fairly ludicrous assertion, I hope you'll agree), or you'll have to find fault with my logic (which seems difficult, since my reasoning is pretty much iron-clad, I think). If (1) is true, and (2) describes the situation, then (3) is the logical conclusion of applying (1) to (2).

Meanwhile, (4) is in turn the inevitable consequence derived from (3). If (3) is true, then (4) is also true, unless there are specific additional conditions under which it is not true.

That would mean that to disagree with point 4, you'd have to introduce some new, additional argument in favour of an exception to the logic. That is: "Those who deny rights to others can't claim those rights for themselves, but we should let the ADL do it anyway, because..."

Because what?

You say it's because otherwise the restriction be used against us, but my points 4 and 5 indicate why that isn't true. You haven't refuted or even addressed those points. At the core of the argument, you neglect to recognise that there is a difference between a violator and a non-violator. They are categorically different. Denying rights to a violator on the grounds that he is a violator doesn't put the rights of non-violators at risk, because to deny them any right, you first have to prove the violation.

Hence my comparison: shooting a robber in your home.

The ultimate conclusion of your logic is that we wouldn't be allowed to shoot a robber, because we have to "respect the rights of evil, too".

But we don't. We really don't. In fact, we categorically must not.

 

[Karmic Acumen]

No. Or you'd lose it too. As you are advocating for people losing speech rights.

No I'm not. I'm saying the ADL is not using free speech but calumny, and we should treat it as such.

The rest of your argument is that the government would turn it around on you on a technicality because they're all bought and corrupt.

But I can see this talk is pointless. You refuse to acknowledge anything anyone says, only repeating the same points that have been refuted as if that should change the result.

 

[DarthOne]

In practice, the ADL is one of the most anti-Jewish organisations you can find in America. In the same way that BLM is one of the most anti-black organisations. They are ludicrously harmful to the people whose supposed interests they pretend to serve.

Of course they are! They’re like politicians- if they actually solved problems, how would they get more money/re-elected

 

[DarthOne]

No I'm not. I'm saying the ADL is not using free speech but calumny, and we should treat it as such.

The rest of your argument is that the government would turn it around on you on a technicality because they're all bought and corrupt.

But I can see this talk is pointless. You refuse to acknowledge anything anyone says, only repeating the points that have been refuted as if that should change the result.

It’s not as if the governments of the West don’t already do that anyway, despite their claims.

 

[Abhorsen]

You continue to assert this, yet I see no evidence of your claim. I also find it peculiar that you fix your reaction entirely on my fourth point, and seemingly -- no, in fact, blatantly -- ignore the other points. They argue against your position; you have not refuted the points, however. Merely ignored them.

You have stated agreement with point 1. As you'll be able to see, points 2 and 3 form a logical argument derived from the premise of point 1. I assume, therefore, that you agree with points 1, 2 and 3. If not, you'd have to either argue that the ADL doesn't seek to infringe upon the free speech of others (a fairly ludicrous assertion, I hope you'll agree), or you'll have to find fault with my logic (which seems difficult, since my reasoning is pretty much iron-clad, I think). If (1) is true, and (2) describes the situation, then (3) is the logical conclusion of applying (1) to (2).

Looking at this more closely, it's actually 2 where you go wrong, not 4. Specifically the ADL does not actually deny others the right to speak. It doesn't own a social media company that limits use based on speech. Nor does it run the government and order the cops around to arrest protesters.

No, instead it advocates for the removal of speech rights, but doesn't actually do it themselves. As long as the advocacy is protected speech (i.e. no defamatory context ((there could be, there could not be)), incitement to immanent violence, a few other exceptions that don't count here) they have the right to advocate against speech rights. This means that point (3) changes to them being legally able to use free speech arguments, but it's dishonest and hypocritical, but not a forfeiture of rights.

And we are stuck defending them, because otherwise the ADL actually wins: they get to restrict speech rights for everyone by sacrificing some money. Evil is quite capable of making a sacrifice play.

No I'm not. I'm saying the ADL is not using free speech but calumny, and we should treat it as such.

The rest of your argument is that the government would turn it around on you on a technicality because they're all bought and corrupt.

But I can see this talk is pointless. You refuse to acknowledge anything anyone says, only repeating the same points that have been refuted as if that should change the result.

... because you haven't refuted them? Yes, the ADL is bad. But giving into them and sinking to their level is like Luke striking down Vader out of anger: it wouldn't have gone well for Luke as Palpatine is still in charge. Not the best analogy, but close enough: by restricting speech for your enemies, you've restricted your own speech too.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

When a child starts seizing and smashing other children’s toys to pieces, you take those toys away from them.

The ADL will not act responsibly so their toys have to be taken away

 

[Abhorsen]

When a child starts seizing and smashing other children’s toys to pieces, you take those toys away from them.

The ADL will not act responsibly so their toys have to be taken away

"When a child starts seizing and smashing other children's toys to pieces, you take those toys away from them.

The MAGA crowd will not act responsibly so their toys have to be taken away"

Come back with a better argument.

 

[LordsFire]

"When a child starts seizing and smashing other children's toys to pieces, you take those toys away from them.

The MAGA crowd will not act responsibly so their toys have to be taken away"

Come back with a better argument.

Your argument here hinges on the MAGA crowd actually smashing other people's toys.

Come back with a better argument.

 

[Abhorsen]

Your argument here hinges on the MAGA crowd actually smashing other people's toys.

Come back with a better argument.

Jan 6th. And before you come at me with 'feds' or the like, I know, but this is from the government's perspective. And they won't admit to Feds, so now any time they insert feds and get a violence, they get to remove speech rights from the group as well.

And Jan 6th at least had a small amount of violence. What the person I quoted was arguing for was about the ADL's protected speech, likening that to smashing other's toys, because the ADL advocates others lose speech rights.

 

[LordsFire]

Jan 6th. And before you come at me with 'feds' or the like, I know, but this is from the government's perspective. And they won't admit to Feds, so now any time they insert feds and get a violence, they get to remove speech rights from the group as well.

And Jan 6th at least had a small amount of violence. What the person I quoted was arguing for was about the ADL's protected speech, likening that to smashing other's toys, because the ADL advocates others lose speech rights.

The J6 rioters who actually did smash things, should be prosecuted for rioting. None of this BS that's actually happened, but actual proper 'you did a couple hundred dollars worth of damage' misdemeanors/fines.

The ADL has been extorting people and exerting torturous interference. They should be subjected to consequences too.

 

[Bacle]

ITT we see the AnCap Libertarian defense of extortionist practices under 1st Amendment grounds.

After all, scammer have a right to grift you, and if you try to silence them or fight back at limiting the harm they can do, you become the bad guy.