The Law Freedom of Speech

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Snake_Baker]

SJW extremism marches onward

Patreon bans controversial (and broke) far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos from fundraising

By Emily Sakzewski

Posted Fri at 8:30pm

Controversial far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos has had a tough two years. He's been banned from Twitter, had to resign from Breitbart, lost his $250,000 book deal, he had to let go of staff from his company and this week announced he was broke.

The nail in the coffin came when he was banned from community crowdfunding website Patreon, which lets people pay a certain amount of money per month to support their favourite creators and artists.

Yiannopoulos reportedly wrote on his Patreon page "Support Milo's Glorious Comeback" (which has since been taken down):

"I've had a miserable year or two, banned and de-platformed and censored and blacklisted … and now I need your help. I want to get back on my feet and come roaring back in 2019.

"I am one of the most censored and most lied-about people in the world. Even my fans sometimes believe things about me that aren't true, because journalists lie more about me than perhaps anyone else in America."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12...far-right-activist-milo-yiannopoulos/10595788

 

[Snake_Baker]

What sort of nutcase planet are we living on when a f** with a black lover is referred to as "far right"?

 

[The Passenger]

Is Patreon - as a private entity - not allowed to decide who is and who isn't on their platform?

 

[CM86]

What sort of nutcase planet are we living on when a f** with a black lover is referred to as "far right"?

View attachment 593529

Do you often find yourself judging someone based on their sexual orientation and partner, rather than their words and intentions?...

 

[ShanDog]

Is Patreon - as a private entity - not allowed to decide who is and who isn't on their platform?

Yes. Everyone acknowledges that. It's still a values issue, regardless of the legalities. We don't have free speech here in Australia, yet it is still an important discussion. Put it this way: the ownership of the overwhelming majority of news services by a very small few is considered by many to be a barrier to the sharing of ideas and free speech. Yet they are also breaking no (current) laws. The issue remains valid to discuss, regardless of legality.

 

[ShanDog]

Do you often find yourself judging someone based on their sexual orientation and partner, rather than their words and intentions?...

I'd say someone's actions are far more important. This has always been the case.

Not exclusively important, but certainly the most.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is Patreon - as a private entity - not allowed to decide who is and who isn't on their platform?

Are you claiming that private entities should be free to institute censorship based upon their own values?

 

[CM86]

I'd say someone's actions are far more important. This has always been the case.

Not exclusively important, but certainly the most.

I deliberately excluded the word "actions" for that reason.

 

[The Passenger]

Yes. Everyone acknowledges that. It's still a values issue, regardless of the legalities. We don't have free speech here in Australia, yet it is still an important discussion. Put it this way: the ownership of the overwhelming majority of news services by a very small few is considered by many to be a barrier to the sharing of ideas and free speech. Yet they are also breaking no (current) laws. The issue remains valid to discuss, regardless of legality.

No doubt, but that would mean it's issue of private censorship as opposed to freedom of speech.

And even if the States where freedom of speech is in the constitution there is no freedom to a platform.

 

[The Passenger]

Are you claiming that private entities should be free to institute censorship based upon their own values?

Yes, but if you ban or censor people then you have to deal with the reaction.

Not dissimilar to the baker not wanting to bake the cake for the gay couple.

Imo you shouldn't have to serve someone.

But own that decision your business has made and cop the backlash if you don't want to serve people because they are of a certain ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, sex or wherever.

People will call you out and if it means that much to you then cop it on the chin. Don't hide behind freedom of speechs expression or whatever bullshit excuse you're going to use.

On a business level it doesn't make sense to refuse work unless you are snowed under. Everyone's money is valued the same one you oup it in the bank.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yes, but if you ban or censor people then you have to deal with the reaction.

Not dissimilar to the baker not wanting to bake the cake for the gay couple.

Bingo!

SJW selectivity at it's hypocritical finest yet again.

 

[its free real estate]

Tumblr banning pr0n and upsetting the trigglypuff community is the other side of the coin.

 

[Snake_Baker]

People are diving out of Patreon now, as parties who support freedom of speech are seeking alternative arrangements.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think speech that incites violence on someone else should be criminal. Most would agree there.

I don't think offensive speech should be criminal. Apparently our country has some issues with that, and so do a lot of people. But I don't think the arguments stack up.

So what speech incites violence? Would your answer be different to the person next to you? Likely

So what speech is offensive? Would your answer be different to the person next to you? Likely

The point is that rarely does anyone take into account that the variables in everyone's opinion/view (or "fact" depending on any one persons conviction of their view) is so varied it is impossible to have a regulatory standard that everyone will agree on and by extension we can't "include" everyone. Just the minuscule sample size on BF glaringly shows this.

And this is where the ideological extremes will eventually paint themselves into a corner, because it's hypocritical. And I'll use this free speech debate as a classic example.

There is a utopian idea (from the far left) that want "free" speech at least "controlled" so that everybody is "protected" from such speech, it also (the impression I get at least) seems the far left that want to "include" everyone in their ideal (ology)

The conflict of interest is so obvious and yet no one seems to point it out.

 

[CM86]

So what speech incites violence? Would your answer be different to the person next to you? Likely

So what speech is offensive? Would your answer be different to the person next to you? Likely

The point is that rarely does anyone take into account that the variables in everyone's opinion/view (or "fact" depending on any one persons conviction of their view) is so varied it is impossible to have a regulatory standard that everyone will agree on and by extension we can't "include" everyone. Just the minuscule sample size on BF glaringly shows this.

And this is where the ideological extremes will eventually paint themselves into a corner, because it's hypocritical. And I'll use this free speech debate as a classic example.

There is a utopian idea (from the far left) that want "free" speech at least "controlled" so that everybody is "protected" from such speech, it also (the impression I get at least) seems the far left that want to "include" everyone in their ideal (ology)

The conflict of interest is so obvious and yet no one seems to point it out.

Do you think an adult should be able to repeatedly tell a teenager to kill themselves?
Do you think radicals should be able to teach people how to make a bomb?
Or do you believe there should be some control/limitations to free speech?

Speech is one of the most powerful tools that we possess.

People are scammed out of thousands by the power of speech. We have laws that deter that.

It isn't just about offending someone, it's about the real world damage it can do.

 

[CM86]

So what speech incites violence? Would your answer be different to the person next to you? Likely

So what speech is offensive? Would your answer be different to the person next to you? Likely

The point is that rarely does anyone take into account that the variables in everyone's opinion/view (or "fact" depending on any one persons conviction of their view) is so varied it is impossible to have a regulatory standard that everyone will agree on and by extension we can't "include" everyone. Just the minuscule sample size on BF glaringly shows this.

And this is where the ideological extremes will eventually paint themselves into a corner, because it's hypocritical. And I'll use this free speech debate as a classic example.

There is a utopian idea (from the far left) that want "free" speech at least "controlled" so that everybody is "protected" from such speech, it also (the impression I get at least) seems the far left that want to "include" everyone in their ideal (ology)

The conflict of interest is so obvious and yet no one seems to point it out.

Do you think an adult should be able to repeatedly tell a teenager to kill themselves?
Do you think radicals should be able to teach people how to make a bomb?
Or do you believe there should be some control/limitations to free speech?

Speech is one of the most powerful tools that we possess.

People are scammed out of thousands by the power of speech. We have laws that deter that.

It isn't just about offending someone, it's about the real world damage it can do.

 

[ShanDog]

Do you think an adult should be able to repeatedly tell a teenager to kill themselves?
Do you think radicals should be able to teach people how to make a bomb?
Or do you believe there should be some control/limitations to free speech?

Speech is one of the most powerful tools that we possess.

People are scammed out of thousands by the power of speech. We have laws that deter that.

It isn't just about offending someone, it's about the real world damage it can do.

I get what you are saying but the examples are specifics when the issue is generalised. We can pick out specifics all day long and poll people on what they think should be legal or illegal - that was the point of my post earlier. There are some very good specific examples we can pick out that almost everyone agrees on, such as inciting people to commit crimes or be violent. But aside from those few specifics, the question should be far more focused on the broader principle IMO. The right questions, I think, are why do we need (or don't need) the right to speak freely without legal repercussions? What benefits (or problems) does that bring? The answers to specific issues need to be discussed through the lens of the answers to those questions.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Nobody has a right to a platform or an audience.

 

[ShanDog]

Nobody has a right to a platform or an audience.

The sky is blue.

C'mon, this is obvious. But there's no nuance. Free speech isn't just a matter of rights, but also a question of "shoulds". Should private businesses relying on user-generated content be required to be impartial? Are they impartial as it is? I would argue not. Should someone be allowed to say something offensive? Because right now, if it's based on race, it's an offence in Australia. Which offends me. Does nothing about the UK's reaction to things like Count Dankula not concern you?

I think some nations are in danger of being so liberally progressive that they—ironically— become puritans.

 

[CM86]

I get what you are saying but the examples are specifics when the issue is generalised. We can pick out specifics all day long and poll people on what they think should be legal or illegal - that was the point of my post earlier. There are some very good specific examples we can pick out that almost everyone agrees on, such as inciting people to commit crimes or be violent. But aside from those few specifics, the question should be far more focused on the broader principle IMO. The right questions, I think, are why do we need (or don't need) the right to speak freely without legal repercussions? What benefits (or problems) does that bring? The answers to specific issues need to be discussed through the lens of the answers to those questions.

I think that it is. Legally.

The problem currently is the nutjobs who scream for persecution at anything they don't like the sound of.
You'd understand it via the J-Peterson stuff, how he is attacked and has his platform taken away when he hasn't done anything wrong, or incited anything wrong.

But, in general he is protected under the broad spectrum of allowable free speech that conversely also says bomb building classes are not OK.


I think the majority of critical thinkers understand that free speech is important, and that there needs to be limits.
Too many limitations are bad, not enough are also bad.

Platforms are required to get messages across, but if we support private industry owning all the platforms, we shouldn't attack people putting pressure on the private industry, but more the fact we've allowed them to take control.

I've been complaining against the power of media ownership in Australia for a long time.
I'm not sure why it's only a big deal now because facebook, Twitter and whatever else are not letting certain demographics spread hate, when it's been a growing issue for my entire life.

 

[ShanDog]

I think that it is. Legally.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not the above. Differences in legalities across western countries alone will tell you that there can't be one completely correct way of doing things. The law determines what is allowable now. But the law is not infallible, and nor should it be the sole shaper of how we look at ethical questions.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I've been complaining against the power of media ownership in Australia for a long time.
I'm not sure why it's only a big deal now because facebook, Twitter and whatever else are not letting certain demographics spread hate, when it's been a growing issue for my entire life.

Because Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc. Invited the average Joe to be part of the machine and more or less uncensored, to help build their brands and viewership.
Now they are taking that unique participation away and deciding what is acceptable or not.

Old style media never had the level of involvement or ability to comment to a wider audience negatively on what they did

 

[ShanDog]

Because Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc. Invited the average Joe to be part of the machine and more or less uncensored, to help build their brands and viewership.
Now they are taking that unique participation away and deciding what is acceptable or not.

Old style media never had the level of involvement or ability to comment to a wider audience negatively on what they did

It's true they created a whole new industry and forms of communication where, previously, it was a select few who had the opportunity to reach people with their views and thoughts. The old fashioned 'letter to the editor' is even selectively published. Social media changed the game completely and I think we are really still stuck in pre-internet era ways of thinking on some issues.

 

[Gough]

It's true they created a whole new industry and forms of communication where, previously, it was a select few who had the opportunity to reach people with their views and thoughts. The old fashioned 'letter to the editor' is even selectively published. Social media changed the game completely and I think we are really still stuck in pre-internet era ways of thinking on some issues.

My first successful troll was as a twelve year old when I had a bit published in the Addy about what ANZAC day means to a kid living the 80s. My response in comparing it to Vietnam (still a hot spot back then) in terms of futility had the letters page going for a couple of days, very few of which were complimentary to me.