Kind of like Eminem and Michael Vick, it'll probably work.
And... it makes sense. Can you imagine if his movie portrayed a ridiculous caricature of a Jewish person, the way he portrayed a ridiculous caricature of a gay man ten years ago, today?
So yes. I can imagine such a movie today. And it would be funny as hell.
Wait! Actually this already exists as a TV show, it’s called I Am America and Cohen frequently portrays a caricature of a Jewish Mossad agent.
Edit: misspelling.
Cohen isn't a surrealist who is using a medium to convey the depth of life, he's just a comedian with an editing team.
Just like Bill Hicks, he's a political comedian that reveals hard to stomach truths. Unlike Bill Hicks who creates an abstract persona (of a particular kind of bigot, etc.) and then critiques it, Cohen astonishingly shows you a concrete instance.
Cheney autographed a milk jug he was convinced was used for waterboarding. Saying a joke about this on stage would be pretty funny, but Cheney himself autographed a waterboarding milk jug on camera and lamented about how much it would be worth as a collectors item.
He never said that. He said that a publishing delay just enough to filter out potential illegal content (snuff, hate speech are illegal under US law) would benefit the society overall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_St...
That specific type of imminent danger speech and it's expression are not protected by first amendment rights. It's right there in your Brandenbug v. Ohio.
> Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them.
This was determined to be protected speech under the First Amendment.
False - explained by a 1st Amendment lawyer: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amen...
If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other.
Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have.
This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.
Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?
The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.
Cohen from his ADL speech genuinely believes that platforms should be publishers and should be on the line for what is posted to them - and therefore the publisher should censor all words which disagree with its opinions. He doesn't use the word censor, he instead uses the words "restrict", "limit" and "delay". He uses examples like hate speech and racism, and while that sounds fine on the surface, he makes it very clear he believes publishers can rightfully restrict speech in many ways well beyond what the law requires.
In arguing for censorship, he is restricting the freedom of expression and that is against human rights. While it sounds great when it's focused on "big platforms" of "American Billionaires", forcing online platforms to be publishers is de facto censorship and it doesn't only affect Facebook, but your small community forums and message boards too.
Yes, I do accuse Cohen of playing the strongman. He's a wealthy comedian (his net worth is about $130M) who made his money by filming himself manipulating other people, and he believes average people shouldn't be able to post freely on the internet without someone (the platform, the Government) approving their speech. That's an abhorrent view and it's in stark contrast to the belief that humans should have agency.
Worst case it might be hypocritical, but the claim is certainly inconsistent. The question is, how do we handle dangerous manipulators on social media? Are they not a problem at all?
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle
- I'm right because ...
- You're right because ...
- You're ugly!
- Person 'A' hits person 'B'.
Yes, you can go to a group of people and get them to sing anti-semitic songs, just as you can bluster them with an unlabeled map or have them fall prey to trivial parlor magic. That's a terrible basis for attacking basic human rights on.
He calls the openness of platforms a defect, and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism.
I suspect he believes that most people are dumb sheep - this is after all how he made his money - and he sees himself as protecting the poor sheep. He believes that because his intent is just, his actions are just - that the end justifies the means. He is the most dangerous kind of strongman: the self-righteous kind.