What's the argument against? Folks have been driven to suicide by targeted harassment and doxxing labeled "speech." The whole reason we have laws about public accommodation is because in a society you can drive someone to ruin by everyone collectively refusing to do business with them which was (and still is for the gays) backed by 1A. The threat of violence is violence, speech that is an implicit threat of violence is violence. Speech that makes people feel unsafe due that implicit threat is violence (say a neighborhood where every house had a flag with a black man hung by a noose). Verbal abuse is still abuse. Everyone who's ever been to school knows that bullying doesn't actually require anyone lay a hand on you to make you live in constant fear and that dynamic doesn't just go away when you become an adult.
Sure, we could coin a term like "diet violence" to mean actions that cause in people the behave as if they were under the threat of violence but which doesn't cause bodily harm but what would be the point? Legally it makes sense to do that to discourage escalation but to the victim the only difference is usually but not always the severity.
I'm sympathetic to folks when their messaging or iconography becomes recognized as an implicit threat of violence due to it being co-opted by others when they didn't mean it that way but if a bunch of people started flying communist flags and lynching people I would take mine down even if I was just really pro-workers rights.
No they haven't, not on Kiwi Farms anyhow. This is a deliberate smear intended to justify any extrajudical action taken against the forum. The reality is that it's just a bunch of assholes gossiping about other assholes, and one asshole in particular is doing everything he can to eradicate the site because it has documented, amongst other horrible things, his confession of rape.
Kiwi Farms has been more than just gossip. It's been used by people to harass people in the real world. People there have taken things way too far in the past, and that behavior has been encouraged and supported by the culture of the site. I don't think the forum should be silenced, but it's simply not accurate to say that it's nothing more than online gossip. It has at times been the source of outright harassment and abuse. I think we'd agree that it's an issue that needs to be handled with moderation and the law, but it's also a real problem.
And libraries have been used by people to learn effective methods to harass or harm others in the real world. Quick! Let's shut down all the libraries!
> I think we'd agree that it's an issue that needs to be handled with moderation and the law, but it's also a real problem.
We already have such a law. It's called Section 230. Forum operators should not be subject to tortious interference, criminal harassment, or other manner of extrajudicial punishment because they choose to exercise speech that you find repugnant.
You can put that straw man away. I made it clear that I didn't think the site should be shut down. I was only saying that its content and impact shouldn't be misrepresented as mere gossip.
> How about this then, I suggest, in order to both demonstrate freedom of speech and to entertain fans of KiwiFarms like content we create a KiwiFarms like site based on studying and publishing public facts on popular KiwiFarms members.
Sure, why not. Are there any potentially entertaining or ridiculous ones you have in mind, such that you feel it would be worth your efforts?
Yes, they have absolutely tormented people into suicide. That sounds bad so they deny it.
When they want to appear harmless, they call it a "gossip" site. It's not. It's a hub for stalking and abuse.
No, muddying up terms and words is not okay. The threat of violence is not violence. It's a threat. And I say that as someone who thinks that threats should carry a far (FAR) higher penalty than they currently do. This constant redefinition of words is done as an attempt to define a new morality but you know very well that there are many holes in it. And yet proponents of this new morality don't care to think about those holes. Being offended or scared can be subjective, therefore you cannot define threats and insults as violence. Otherwise the person which is most easily scared and offended wins. And what a surprise: That's how people already evolved under this new morality, how often do you now see people talk about how "terrified" they are of X or Y or Z or something their political opponent said. Obviously they are not actually terrified per dictionary definition but they use that word because they know that it gives them power under the new morality. Likewise being offended now equals power. You create a very dangerous system through these word redefinitions. Also by admitting that in a world where your views are the minority, you would define violence differently just proves what a problem this is: Whoever wins the social battle, gets to define what violence is. That is dangerous. Things must be based on objective reality.
If speech is violence then we have no means other than acts of violence to explore, discuss, and debate ideas. We need to be able to disagree with each other without it being assault and battery.
We need the right to offend, make uncomfortable, and challenge.
Exposure to an idea shouldn't be treated the same as being beaten with a fist because acts of violence are criminalized. Criminalizing unpopular speech is exactly what free speech is supposed to protect us against. Our freedom and ability to demand change depends on the ability to speak out against oppression without fear of being sentenced to prison just because of our words. If we need to speak out against those in power, we need the ability to use words they don't want to hear.
Blurring the lines between words that offend us and actual violence is dangerous and can only lead to actual violence. If there's something we disagree on, let's keep talking about it to reach a solution or at least an understanding of one another. If there is no difference between speech and violence we may as well just pull out guns instead and let might make right.
> The threat of violence is violence, speech that is an implicit threat of violence is violence.
Some speech really does rise to the level of threat and incitement to violence and we already have first amendment exceptions carved out in law to deal with that. We have laws against harassment. We don't need to expand that to include anything that someone doesn't want to hear. Even on the more extreme end, courts have tended to agree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
The OP’s assertion was that if I oppose censoring Stormfront then I shouldn’t be surprised when I find myself censored. But of course I would: the speech I (and the vast majority of the population) engage in is nowhere near as inflammatory.
According to who? History shows us that what people generally find acceptable or inflammatory has changed wildly over time. I think people should be able to love and marry any consenting adult they can convince to agree to it. That kind of talk would have had me crucified under McCarthyism.
You can't know what the prevailing opinion on the views you hold today will be even 5-10 years from now. People in recent times have been surprised to find themselves in very difficult situations because of that reality. In the US, our culture and values are less stable now than they've been in a long time. If you weaken free speech, as a right or an ideal, just to make yourself more comfortable today you might very well be surprised to find yourself censored or worse tomorrow.
The definition of a crime of violence[2] in the US also explicitly includes threats as a form of violence. "The term 'crime of violence' means—... (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." (18 USC § 16 my emphasis)
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/E-Stanko
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/E-Stanko/publication/24...
We already have laws against speech that incites violence and you might be surprised how contested the lines themselves are. There are a lot of people these days who outright state that speech itself == violence and should carry the same consequences.
I'm not a free speech absolutist. When pressed, I don't think very many people are. I just think we need to be extremely careful when it comes to expanding those boundaries and that we're better off to err on the side of freedom because of the importance of what we stand to lose.