Re:Removing Holocaust Denial Content
by refurb on Monday October 12, 2020 @11:32AM
(#24755457)
Those things you worry about are already illegal. Direct threats of violence (through speech) are already illegal. Funding raising for terrorism is already illegal, including fundraising through speech.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> Those things you worry about are already illegal.
This is where free speech absolutists lose me. They say that all speech should be protected and as soon as they find an exception that is just labeled "not speech". Why then can't we use a definition of "not speech" that includes Blood Libel?
Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change means the end of free speech".
The line is much less arbitrary when you make it “speech that clearly violates criminal law” versus “speech that I disagree with”.
When the govt starts talking about “speech to foments discord” that’s a hell of a slippery slope.
But "violates criminal law" is a statement about the population's beliefs. We pick what is illegal. It isn't some fundamental thing. In Germany, for example, holocaust denial is literally illegal.
Right, but the criminal law falls outside of purely speech. That's the line drawn at least in the US - you can say whatever you want, but if you start inciting crime, that's a problem.
In Germany, the line is drawn much further back. It doesn't matter if what you say incites crime, the speech in and of itself is illegal.
Facebook is not the legislature. You can make Lessig-style Code Is Law arguments, but the fact remains they are not defining the bounds of legality, they are defining the bounds of acceptable on their platform.
Yeah, everyone already knows that. Facebook can do what they want. But they can't claim they support free speech at the same time they censor their platform.
If they came out and said "Facebook does not support free speech on it's platform", then at least they'd be hoenst.
This fundraiser appears to be going just fine: https://www.insider.com/fundraising-efforts-kyle-rittenhouse...