Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Internet Filters - Libertarianism is Hate Speech? 107

Posted by Cliff from the go-figure dept.
John Deere asks: "Just went live with a libertarian web-based discussion site a few days ago and today one of our members posted that our news and political discussion site has been listed as a 'Hate Speech' site by SurfControl ("details) Needless to say, some of our slacker members are now unable to access the site, due to blocks at their places of employment. Now, I don't mind our site being blocked by employers who want to keep their employees working instead of arguing objectivism vs. utilitarianism. It does concern me, however, that it appears to be quite easy to be listed as a 'Hate Speech' site, and not have much recourse. My questions are, has anyone been successful in changing the categorization of their site by one of these filtering services, from negative to neutral or positive? How much pressure was required and how long did it take?" It would be interesting to note how many GOP and Democratic sites are also listed under the same tag at SurfControl. I have a hard time seeing political discourse being listed as hate speech, but maybe this is a case of a single comment or post getting the entire site banned. Has anyone been able to negotiate a change of status with the various filtering services out there? If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Filters - Libertarianism is Hate Speech? More

Internet Filters - Libertarianism is Hate Speech?

Comments Filter:

  • Oxymoron (Score:2, Funny)

    by bwt ( 68845 )
    If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?

    Some Libertarian you are. Are you really looking for a government regulatory solution?

    Maybe you can sue them for slander. Do libertarians believe in slander?
    • He doesn't seem to want any kind of government involvement. That would be hypocritical.

      But I think it is enough for him to question his allegiances a bit.

      The whole situation is funny in an ironic kind of way :)


      • Sheesh. You people don't even know what libertarianism is?

        Of course libertarians believe in slander.

        Get some education. You don't have to buy the party line, but at least understand it.

    • Re:Oxymoron (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jahf ( 21968 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @02:20AM (#4295451) Journal

      Ok ... assuming this wasn't an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor ... please pay attention to the formatting.

      The submitter, "John Deere", who is the libertarian and is quoted in italics, did not ask for legal recourse.

      Cliff, the /. person who actually posted the question and in normal non-italicized text, mentioned legal action.

      ...

      Note that Cliff also mentioned arbitration, which might appeal to some libertarians as a non-governmental solution (though many libertarians rail against the term arbitration since it has come to be synonymous with "mandatory arbitration" as is used in many legal contracts to revoke a contractor's rights).

      ...

      Most Libertarians I know (and if I were to classify myself, I would probably be a moderate Libertarian ... but that in and of itself is an oxymoron to most people) are against government interfering in private life but are quite willing to have government be involved in law enforcement and regulating business. So even if "John Deere" had asked for a legal resolution, it would not have contradicted his Libertarian views.

      See libertarian.org [libertarian.org] for more information. A very generalized summary would be:

      Liberal = left-wing social and economic views
      Libertarian = left-wing social views, right-wing economic views
      Conservative = right-wing social and government views
      Authoritarian = right-wing social views, left-wing economic views

      Of course each group has moderates and radicals.

      • See libertarian.org [libertarian.org] for more information. A very generalized summary would be:
        Liberal = left-wing social and economic views
        Libertarian = left-wing social views, right-wing economic views
        Conservative = right-wing social and government views
        Authoritarian = right-wing social views, left-wing economic views
        A little too generalized, I think. "Social views" should probably be broken down a little. Conservatism has a pretty significant divide over civil liberties issues--e.g., the Ashcroftian post-9-11 infrigements.

        I find that I have to sub-categorize conservatives into "conservatives" and "libertarian-conservatives".


    • > Some Libertarian you are. Are you really looking for a government regulatory solution?

      The challenge: Pick another political party and describe a situation that would be a similar paradox for a member of that party.

      Winners will receive an appropriate amount of karma from their peers. (So will whores, but that's not part of the contest.)

    • How did this get modded up? I think "-1, Flamebait" is more appropriate. Cliff was the one who said that, not the poster, and besides, not all Libertarians are extreme anarchists. You can believe in less government regulation without having to believe in no government regulation.
  • Did anyone bother to check it out? I don't see any indication Surf Control is censoring it -- they don't even have it logged!

    I typed in the url for the site mentioned (more precisely, I copied and pasted the link in the story for Liberty Forum from the /. page into the categorization/test page at SurfControl and it didn't even recognize the site name.

    How can they filter it if it isn't in their database and catagorized?

  • Let's Think About This.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zpengo ( 99887 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:52AM (#4295379) Homepage
    Everyone's jumping on internet filtering services, saying that they're "censoring" sites and violating their first amendment rights.

    Hasn't it occurred to anyone that this filtering services *also* have a right to say what they think is good and bad? That they have first amendment rights too?

    And if people choose to use those services, shouldn't they have a right to select from a variety of independent, somewhat autonomous services, rather than a bunch of sites that only censor what the government says they're allowed to censor?

    What kind of libertarian buys this rubbish?

    If your site gets blacklisted by some company, tough crap for you. If they blacklist you and catch crap for it from the public, tough crap for them. But let's not get into this pansy liberal government regulation nonsense. Nobody's constitutional rights are being violated. Sheesh.

    • Mod Parent Up! [clueology.com] by CmdrTaco (Score: 4) 02:41 PM

      Why do you feel the need to add the "Mod Parent Up!" crap as your sig?

      Isn't your viewpoint strong enough to stand up on its own without you having to attract the attention of moderators who aren't eagle-eyed enough to spot your shenanigans?

      Perhaps you're just one of those people who feels that they need to be noticed. Perhaps Mommy didn't pay enough attention to you when you were a kid. I'm sure you've got some whacko reason for being the way that you are.

      I don't know whether to feel disgusted at you or sorry for you. I do know this though: you need help.
    • Actions such as this could be interpreted as offences under slander/libel laws I would think. That would be a perfectly libertarian way of doing it. It's not that it was blocked that is the problem, it's the reason that it was blocked. Saying something is hate speech rather than just saying "you should be working, don't look at this" is a *VERY* large difference.
      • Of course, it's only slander or libel if it's not true. Given that this site engages in holocaust denial and can't make up its mind whether Jews use the blood of gentiles in their baking, it's not at all clear that the site doesn't properly fit in the category `hate speech' on a voluntary, independent rating system.
    • The problem here is that the site in question is (presumably) not hate speech. I don't think there is a problem labeling a true hate speech site as such, but here, SurfControl has essentially slandered the site by calling it a hate site. It would be as if I went to all my friends and said that zpengo is a racist, hate-mongering son-of-a-bitch and none of his posts should be viewed. Since this is a false statement that I would have told to other people, we're two thirds of the way to slander. Now, you probably wouldn't care that much, since that statement doesn't really hurt you. But what if it did? Then, there would be damages, and you could sue me (or course, IANAL, but that's the general idea as I understand it).

      For the site in question, they already have the first two parts -- SurfControl has publicly slandered them (I guess, technically, it would be libel since it's written). The hard part would be to prove damages. Sure, some people can't get to their site from some places, but is that enough to constitute damages? Perhaps just the damage to their reputation is enough? That's where real lawyers and the court system come into play.

      Also, some people have commented that it seems contradictory that a Libertarian would be seeking government redress. While I'm not a Libertarian and I don't know all of their policies, I don't think it would necessairly be against their views. Libertarians seem to stand less government intrusion in our lives. When two people have an honest conflict (such as the site and SurfControl), or a crime has been committed, the courts get involved to deal with the situation. If that's incorrect, then I guess I've seriously misjudged the Libertarian party.
      • but here, SurfControl has essentially slandered the site by calling it a hate site.

        Not to be too picky about this (and I agree with your statement), but technically, SurfControl's false statements about the Libertartarian Party are more likely libel than slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. But then again, IANAL (or a linguist).

    • Hasn't it occurred to anyone that this filtering services *also* have a right to say what they think is good and bad? That they have first amendment rights too?

      Sure, up until the point where public schools and libraries are required, by law, to use these services. At that point they effectively become part of the government and it becomes censorship.

  • After discussion with a few, the answer is "yes" unless you also happen to be a libertarian.

    • I was going to say something about how you should actually talk to some libertarians...

      But then I realized that yeah, I hate anyone who advocates putting a gun to my head.

      I hate anyone who says I should be their slave.

      I hate anyone who says that two men can't marry, or that a guy and two girls (or a girl and two guys) can't live together.

      I hate anyone who thinks that I should not be allowed to be secure in my life and in my house from unreasonable search, seizure.

      I hate anyone who says I cannot hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.

      I hate anyone who says I MUST hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.

      I hate anyone who says that I have to give half of my money to them, at gunpoint, and while I'm at it I have to collect a third of my employees money for them.

      I hate anyone who expects me to work for them without compensation.

      And since the Liberal, Conservative, Democratic and Republican movements ALL subscribe to ALL of those ideas, then, yes, I guess in a sense I hate them.

      But usually I see them as misguided-- if only they'd see the light and support human rights, it would be that much easier for me to exercise my human rights.

      So hate isn't the right word-- I'd defend with force and my life and my rights, but those who merely talk about taking them away, I don't have hate for. Just pity.


  • FWIW, a quick browse of the site suggests that the Libertarian posters to the site are an odd mixture of a group of people expressing a basic good-sense take on what's going on in the world and another group of people too right-wing for the Republican party.

    This isn't really too surprising, since a moment's reflection will reveal that the Republican and Democratic parties are also coalitions of strange bedfellows. I wonder whether any Libertarian watcher would like to share his/her thoughts on the major coalitions that make up the Libertarian party and its supporters in 2002? (Please, no ideological fluff of the sort you'd get if you asked a Democrat or a Republican the same thing about their own party. I'm looking for someone that has watched and read and put some reasonably unbiased thought into it.)

    Also, if anyone cares to venture so far off topic, I'd like to hear some opinions about the pros and cons of parliamentarian governments vs. what we practice in the USA. I have some thoughts on this, but I'll hold them to see whether the discussion gets off the ground. (I ask because a parliamentarian government would presumably break up the two-party system and let Libertarians and other "fringe" groups have more direct representation in government.)

    • Re:[OT] Interesting site. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BitGeek ( 19506 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @09:48AM (#4296685) Homepage


      The libertarian movement is made up of three groups.

      1) The kooks that every third party gets almost by default for being "non mainstream" enough. A small proportion.
      2) Ex-Repubulicans who realized that the republican party doesn't really support liberty (even economic) like they say. And a few hardline ex republicans who think the republican party doesn't go far enough in cutting taxes and spending.
      3) Ex liberals who were liberals because they believed in free choice, human rights, and all that but who recornized that the democratic party opposes all of these things. Who realized that alle the "anit-corporate" and rich bashing was a form of hate speech, and that if you really want free choice, then that includes not just the choice to be a home maker, or marry who you want, but to work where you want and to keep your money. (Yes. I'm a member of this group.)
      3) Anarchists. There are anarchists who share only the description with the 1334 idiots on college campuses who just really wanted a cooler way to say "slacker". These types have noticed that every government is corrupt and that the smaller the government, necessarily the more free the people, and so they have thought a lot about just how small you can make a government and have a safe free society. They tend to get into lots of arguments with the ex republicans and democrats.
      4) Objectivism. Because Objectivism is a philosophy that has libertarianism as its political component, all Objectivists are Libertarians. (Unfortunately, there are a lot of "objectivists" who actually aren't objectivists, and are really 1334 slackers who wanted a cooler name. This includes the Ayn Rand Institute.)

      The biggest problem in the libertarian party is that since they draw from so many groups the groups spend too much time noticing that they came from different places and not enough time going to the people in the groups they left and pointing out to them how their groups are failing them.

      Personally, I lean to a parliamentarian government. But I don't think that would solve the problem of liberty in the US. The problem of liberty in the US will not be solved until a majority of people in this country realize that:
      1) There are human rights.
      2) Human rights are worth fighting for.
      3) If you believe in human rights, you will take up arms to defend them.

      Since we have most people convinced by the two major parties that 1 is false, we don't even have the bill of rights anymore. So, we're a long way from liberty.

  • Strange bunch the libertarians: "I don't mind our site being blocked by employers who want to keep their employees working instead of arguing objectivism vs. utilitarianism.", but if governement tries (v.g.) to protect consumers/breathers against fraud/pollution is tyranny!

    Why opression by employers isnt opression?

    • First I would like to point out that I don't see any link between the first and second parts of your opening sentence. It's not oppression because you can find another job. Nobody is going to put a gun to your head and say "you are going to work here." If you care enough about the policies you will quit and find another company that does not do that. If enough people care, enough people will quit, and the company goes tits up.
      • > It's not oppression because you can find another job.

        Maybe in the old good USA is easy... but in my country (Spain) the unemployement is higher (yes, the libertariansolution is the snake oil of invisible hand). My point is that in libertarianspeak the only possible opression is opression by governement, and that almost anything but protection of private property is deemed opression. By the way, the blacklist of union members is libertariangood? The racial segregation in a private-owned bus company is libertariangood?

        • Libertarians do not oppose only government oppression; they oppose all oppression by force. If an employer makes something a condition of employment, they're just setting the conditions under which they want to do business with you, not oppressing you. To a libertarian, it would be oppression to force them to employ you despite your not meeting their conditions, just as it would be to force you to work for them.


    • Fraud is currently illegal.

      I've yet to see a libertarian advocate for fraud being legalized.

      Somehow, I suspect what you're talking about wasn't fraud, but something else.

      Fraud is just a nicer word for you to use, makes you sound more rational doesn't it?

    • I think the answer they will give is that the employees entered into a contract with the employer and are free to leave.

      However it seems that this means a government can do anything it wants as long as people are free to emigrate and it would be ok with libertarians. I don't think that is true, so yes they have to explain this a bit.

  • the same recourse as spammers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Friday September 20, 2002 @07:19AM (#4296064) Homepage
    It seems you don't have any recourse, or more precisely, the same recourse as spammers do. This is exactly what many in the /. community have been fighting for in regards to "spammers list". The company has a right to block any site it wants with it's software (just the same way an email server can block any address/domain it wants to). They have no obligation to let anyone using their software see your site. This seems one of those ironic cases of fighting to get the right to block something (spammers in this case) and then other people using that same right against us.
    • The blocked list is published and contains a categorization or description of the site which could be damaging to it's reputation and therefore it's viability. If that description is inaccurate, then the publisher of the list is guilty of libel, and the site can go after them for civil damages.

      The same thing goes for spammers. If a lists blocks you for being a spammer and you can prove in court that you aren't, you can sue the list for damages.

  • Just sue (Score:2, Interesting)

    by neitzsche ( 520188 )
    You never need even the slightest reason, with our court systems, to sue someone. Let 'em have it!
  • Here's an idea: create a proxy filter that sits before the web filter. Every time someone tries to access a web site, the proxy will examine what the web filter returns. If it's blocked, then the proxy will add the URL to a list. A web server will then display that list, updated in real time. Eventually, you'll have a pretty accurate list of what the proxy blocks, and everyone will be able to see it.

  • GNU.org (Score:3, Funny)

    by Atzanteol ( 99067 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @09:03AM (#4296461) Homepage
    I have a friend who can't access gnu.org from work because it's listed as an 'activist' site. I'm not sure what they're using for software though...

  • Defining Hate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Timinithis ( 14891 )
    I sent this site over to a friend of mine at the Southern Poverty Law Center [splcenter.org]. They have an Intelligence Project [splcenter.org] that monitors Hate groups and Hate sites on the internet. I am still waiting on a reply, but for those wanting to know how to define 'hate' -- at least in the legal sense -- and free speech, this is the site to learn from.

    • Which is ironic, given that the Souther Poverty Law Center *IS* a hate site!

      Its just hatred of the rich, though, so its politically correct.
      • Quite an accomplishment, displaying unbounded ignorance in only three lines of text.


        • Denial of reality on your part is not ignorance on my part.

          Hating the rich is a time honored tradition in this country by those too lazy to get rich themselves.
          • Do your ideas come from any place on my planet?

            (That would be Terra, third orbit out from the star Sol.)

            Perhaps you could elaborate on your characterization of the Reagan economy, or explain your defamation of the SPLC?
      • For anyone joining us late in the broadcast!

        The Southern Policy Law Center [splcenter.org] helps victims of hate crimes (such as the relatives of blacks brutally tortured and murdered by Neo-Nazi and "Aryan" groups) obtain legal representation.

        The SPLC sponsors the Intelligence Report [splcenter.org], which monitors the activities of violent hate groups - most of which are religious [godhatesfags.com] and/or racist [newnation.com]. They also run the Teaching Tolerance [tolerance.org] project, which supplies school teaching materials to help fight entrenched racism through peaceful means.

        The previous poster [slashdot.org] (who likes to post numbers that attempt to contradict the generally accepted view that fiscal irresponsibility was the hallmark of US President Reagan's administration) has characterized [slashdot.org] the SPLC as a "hate group" promoting "hatred of the rich" - which is, apparently, "politically correct".

        Many (if not most) of the SPLC's contributors and lawyers [splcenter.org] are quite rich; especially when compared to the people the SPLC is typically trying to help.

        So the only question in my mind is - Moron [tripod.com] or Nazi [midlandhammerskins.net]?

        I'm thinking Moron [carcino.gen.nz].


        • Yep, liberals love to think that something being politically correct (ie: all liberals agree) makes it true or "generally accepted view".

          I applaud SPLC to the extent that they fight hate groups. A criticize them to the extent that they too are a hate group-- much like most liberal organizations who's sole organizing purpose seems to be the prosecution of the rich (lately taking the form of campaigning for the idea that all companies are corrupt like Enron and that all property ownership is theft and that for anyone to get rich, other people have to be made poor, etc. etc.)

          In my book, anyone who fights to instill slavery is advocating hate. And when the SPLC lobbies for higher taxes, that is exactly what they are doing.

          Ironic, no? But the fact that its ironic does not make it false.

  • Nto a hate site? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by pauldy ( 100083 )
    http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Boar d=news_philosophy&Number=230396#Post230396 [libertyforum.org]

    Damb this is just someone trying to pander the masses to his cause. His intentions may not be to be a hate site but look at the link it seems that it is. And of course because he is labeled as such they are all just looking to crush his free speech. Their are tons of examples of full blown and borderline hate speech if you look through the site. He got what he deserved and if people are using the product that blocked his site I say good for them at least they got this one right.

    Cliff I have to ask do you ever look through these before posting or are you so inundated with submissions that this crud slips through sometimes.
    • Did you bother to read the whole thing? If so, you should read it again and actually think about what it is saying.

      I would agree that it is extreme, definately controversial, but hate speech? Only to someone with poor reading comprehension.

      The article is definately anti-racist, including the type of racism promoted by affirmative action programs. I happen to disagree with him on a practical level (I don't see a better way to have acheived what we have acheived than affirmative action, although I do think it's time for it to fade away), but on an intellectual level he presents some valid arguments.

      • Comprehension? I read the article and the replies did you go that far or did you stop after the FAQ. There are others and I still stand behind the statement this site should be blocked. I'm all about social devience for intelectual gain but I think this site is extremist and doesn't constitue a grass roots movement on the grounds that his site has been classified as a site containing hate speech. I also find it a bit judgemental that you would question my comprehension given you missed the racial epithets on the very page I posted.
        • I read the article and the replies did you go that far or did you stop after the FAQ.

          I did indeed read the replies, all 4 pages of them. There were a few comments that could be considered racist if you took them totally out of context and ignored their obvious satirical nature. By and large, though, it was an intellectual discussion on the roots of racism.

          There was certainly nothing there I would characterize as hate speech. I absolutely would not catagorize the site as one promoting hate, any more than I would categorize slashdot as a hate site based on the comments of a few trolls (the worst of the comments I read on the site in question didn't even compare to some of the things I've read while metamoderating here).

          I stand by my assesment of your reading comprehension.

          • There was plenty there that falls under the direct definition. People like you make me fel like slashdot is no longer a geek site and is to be no and forever more run by those who resort to name calling and insults to make them feel better about the points they are trying to make. I'm sorry your experience in racism, hate speech or your personal agenda precludes you from understanding what you read. The site in question can in fact be classified as hate speech and if you represent the interests here I suggest you take them to court for libel. Slashdot is able to avoid this type of label by providing moderation for user posts that would rank those deemed inappropriate or racist. I wouldn't think I would have to explain the intricacies of this given your steadfast position on the topic but I guess even the holy have their flaws.
            • I'm sorry your experience in racism, hate speech or your personal agenda precludes you from understanding what you read.

              It's interesting thet you should be the one leveling this accusation at me...

              One might even call it ironic.

              Slashdot is able to avoid this type of label by providing moderation for user posts that would rank those deemed inappropriate or racist.

              I agree, but for the site in question to use moderation would be in opposition to everything for which it stands, namely libertarianism.

              I wouldn't think I would have to explain the intricacies of this given your steadfast position on the topic but I guess even the holy have their flaws.

              Please feel free to cure me of my apparent ignorance. Show me an example of a comment from the article you linked which could be classified as hate speech without taking it out of context or ignoring its satirical nature, and please explain why it is still hate speech.

              Unless you can do that, your continued arguement on this topic merely proves that you have not comprehended what you have read. Comprehension is the ability to derive meaning, and meaning is dependent on context and intent.

              • Irony is when you question my comprehension of a site and you haven't read it. It's obvious you have something going here above and beyond simply insulting me it doesn't take more than a scan of the first page to see exactly what I'm talking about. I tried to reason with you about it and you aren't hearing it the only one who can help your self-proclaimed ignorance is you. I can only suggest you read both the site and a dictionary. What you do of course is up to you.
              • I'm going to go ahead and post you an example of what one would consider hate speech even though I feel it's probably wasting my time. First I'll define hate speech for you so you will be on the same page here.

                Hate speech can generally be defined as words so outrageous that they would be considered fighting words. I have a source here from UCB so you know I'm not just blowing smoke at you.

                http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment /g oodspc.htm

                I would consider the phrase on the site and I quote here "Nuke the Raghead" rather inflammatory to the point of fighting. Let me clarify here that I am a White Anglo American so you don't form some undo stereotype.

                http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Bo ar d=news_lf&Number=241803&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t= 0#Post241803

                or how about some others you might be able to argue for but are still considered "fighting words"

                "The world's biggest racists are the Jews" direct quote from the site. "And whatever else they are, the Jews are not non-achievers" another directly from the site. There are more but I think this is enough to get you past the first page with the two people talking back and forth to each other in jest which I can only assume was what you were talking about.

                Why you would deny this language is used throughout this site is beyond me unless you have an agenda. I'm done responding to you until you can see that this site contains hate speech I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with some kid who doesn't know the difference between comprehension and what it means to derive meaning from a reading. There is a huge difference between understanding and being able to come to an understanding.

                For clarification I find the term used to describe the site within reason for the fact there is no way for the site to be moderated or the moderators choose not remove this type of speech. My personal bias is I find the site devoid of any real meaning. Many of the postings present views that are socially deviant and while provocative don't offer any new perspectives on anything but do offer inflammatory views on various topics that can and will spark uneducated discussions that can have and will resort to name calling and other more elevated forums of hate speech.
                • Hate speech can generally be defined as words so outrageous that they would be considered fighting words

                  And the rest of the sentence is:

                  provocations sufficiently serious to elicit a violent reaction

                  A few paragraphs down:

                  First, hate speech can be very hard to precisely define. Statements which some people regard as hateful, others may regard as an honest effort to raise the tough issues. Hate speech prohibitions can also be used as a basis for the suppressing dissent and harassing people. It is almost always possible to accuse people raising difficult issues of hate speech crimes... They can also have an extremely chilling effect upon efforts to honestly discuss the tough issues which underlie most conflicts.

                  Yes, I think that some statements made in the discussion you linked origionally are treading that line. The statements above, however, and indeed the large part of the Good Speech article, seems to imply that many of these borderline cases are in fact legitimate and that leveling the Hate Speech accusation can often be destructive in and of itself by preventing necessary discussion of real, if controversial and potentially offensive, issues. I believe that is the case here.

                  Remember that reading comprehension thing we were talking about? Were you hoping I wouldn't actually read the article, or did you not actually read it yourself?

                  Being able to seperate myself from the innitial emotional shock of seeing something like "Jews are the biggest racists" and think critically about the arguements presented in that and related posts, I didn't find anything particularly inflamatory. I did, however, find a great deal of intelligent discussion on the nature of racism, its roots, and effort to dispel many of the common myths about racism, such as that racism is exclusive to redneck trailer-trash.

                  The statement that "The world's biggest racists are the Jews" is definately extreme. I wouldn't say "the worlds biggest", but I have studied various religions including Judaism, and there are definately some racist aspects to Jewish tradition and history. The current Isreali regime is absolutely racist, and I would say the history of the Isreal/Palestine conflict reads like a study on racism on par with our own eviction and oppression of Native Americans.

                  Nothing that was said in support of this statement was untrue, feel free to research it yourself. Additionally, many of the people involved in that discussion were very careful to point out that they weren't trying to bash Jews, but rather dispelling the myth that poor white America has a monopoly on racism by providing a counter example.

                  How you can say that "And whatever else they are, the Jews are not non-achievers" is hate speech, however, brings back the question of your comprehension skills. How exactly does saying that a particular race has accomplished a great deal qualify as hate speech? Am I somehow bashing the Romans when I say that they were great engineers who built roads and aquaducts that have withstood the ravages of centuries all over Europe? I think not.

                  "Nuke the Raghead" I'll give you, I guess, even though it is in a completely different discussion and, again, taken totally out of context. You seem to not understand that context effects meaning, and that is the root of my questions about you comprehension skills. Personally, I thought the comment was an unfortunately worded indictment of the current national attitudes and the current administrations pining for the days of the Gulf War, when "Nuke the Raghead" was widely considered a perfectly acceptable thing to say. It was clearly a comment about how sites get classified by webfilters, implying that there would be a setting that would allow hate speech directed at Arab extremists only in accordance with the wishes of the current administration.

                  Why you would deny this language is used throughout this site is beyond me unless you have an agenda.

                  Ah, yes. It couldn't possibly be that your arguements are fallacious and your "proof" weak, it must be that I have an agenda!

                  I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with some kid who doesn't know the difference between comprehension and what it means to derive meaning from a reading

                  There is no difference. Read comprehension is the skill of deriving meaning from reading. They are one and the same.

                  • I kind of figured it was a waste of my time pointing out specifics for you. Even when it is in front of your face you deny it or excuse it. Bottom line the site was blocked for hate speech after looking it contains what is considered hate speech end of story. I'm sure you can argue yourself in circles but when it comes down to it your wrong. Sorry, I'm not the one who hopped on slashdot and decided to insult someone without at least checking things out first. I'm sorry you have yet to learn the difference between comprehending and deriving meaning. Just because the meaning I derived is different that what you did doesn't have anything to do with anyone's lack of comprehension. What it does show however is intolerance on your part going directly to attacking my comprehension rather than taking a look at the facts. This shows you have a bias towards allowing hate speech. The question now is, are you a hate filled racist or simply someone who is so paranoid about loss of free speech that you will try and protect it even if it means you are standing up for hate filled racists?
                    • Even when it is in front of your face you deny it or excuse it.

                      I haven't denied anything. I agree that there are several words and phrases that, individually, would constitute hate speech. Where I disagree is that this makes the whole site a hate site. Every one of those potential hate statements is in a context where it becomes highly questionable whether they in fact constitute hate speech, and the vast majority are used in an intellectual discussion dealing with issues of racism.

                      Remember that Good Speech article you offered the URL to? You should really read it again, because you apparently have completely missed the point of it.

                      If I were to point out the fact that inner city black youth are trying to reclaim the word "nigger" and remove it's negative connotations, at least within their own social circle, would you respond by calling me a racist because I said "nigger"? If so, then you are the one here who has an agenda, not me. The fact that this is exactly what you are doing with regards to this site says a lot.

                      I hope my little example has served to point out to you the importance of context to meaning, since you still don't seem to get that.

                      Just because the meaning I derived is different that what you did doesn't have anything to do with anyone's lack of comprehension.

                      Yes it does, actually.

                      Many years ago I took a class in college called "Advanced Composition and Critical Thinking". We spent a great deal of time in that class annalyzing text and deriving the difference between what they meant and what they actually said when you pull it apart into it's component pieces. Doing that was quite a revelation. It's shocking how often people say things and everybody understands what they meant, yet when annalyzed in detail the actually said the exact opposite. People understand what they meant only because of context. Context makes all the difference, and if you don't understand that then you have no real comprehension of what you read.

                      Sorry, I'm not the one who hopped on slashdot and decided to insult someone without at least checking things out first.

                      As I've already stated, I read the article you linked in your origional post, including all four pages of comments, before I ever responded to you.

                      I'm sorry you have yet to learn the difference between comprehending and deriving meaning.

                      Again, there is no difference. Go look it up, or even better, go ask an English teacher.

                      Perhaps you actually mean something like "derive meaning other than what is actually there by taking individual statements completely out of context"? Your right, that isn't comprehension, and that's exactly why I keep calling yours into question.

                      The question now is, are you a hate filled racist or simply someone who is so paranoid about loss of free speech that you will try and protect it even if it means you are standing up for hate filled racists?

                      I'm intelligent enough to recognize that stifling any speech, especially speech which is deemed destructive in nature, is damaging to a free society, and to the democratic process upon which all of our other freedoms depend. As soon as you say "you can't say that" it sets a precedent, and that precedent makes it easier to say "you can't say that either", and before you know it I'm not allowed to criticize the Attorney General for trying to turn the US into the same kind of police state that the Soviet Union was. When it's illegal to speak your mind you have no other rights. That's why it's called a "slippery slope", and that's why freedom of speech is far more important than the hurt feelings of a few individuals, or even groups.

                      Am I paranoid? No, because the definition of paranoid stipulates that a paranoid fears something that isn't actually happening. Our rights are being erroded as we speak. USA/PATRIOT has severely abridged our Constitutional rights to privacy, a speedy trial, legal representation, and freedom from illegal search and seizure. Granted that's only if I'm a suspected terrorist, but who's a suspected terrorist? Potentially anyone who disagrees with the government.

                      So, to quote both Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

                      And I'll add a little something from Eleanor Roosevelt: "A mature person is one who is does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally..."

                    • Let me try one more time to make it clearer to you why I feel surf control was correct in their assessment of the site and maybe in the process convince you that the comment you made was not only uncalled for but wrong. The site in question libertyforum.com contains comments, which can be considered hate speech. The site lacks the ability or simply does not want to censor these comments. This is their choice and is perfectly fine. Surf control has this to say, "www.libertyforum.org is in our list and categorized as Hate Speech." Now should I choose to use them and rely on their judgment to deny access to controversial materials on the net to my employees that is my choice. Now you may claim that is censorship but as the employer it is my right to deny access to whatever I choose on the internet. Otherwise the internet becomes a haven for undesirable content much like it already has. It becomes more of a distraction than a tool in the. Then it is a liability and becomes extinct in the office space. No one is claiming that the site should be taken off the net or that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss even the most outlandish topics but seeing as how surf control blocks potentially offensive sites not individual pages of content I think they did the right thing here. As for the article you read about destructive speech did you skip the first and last paragraph and go straight to the legislating aspects of hate speech. The article I posted was there to help define the stance I was taking, not roll you out on a tangent about the legalese of hate speech and get you going on censorship and our rights as Americans eroding away. It's also a prime example of your arguments strategy. Bring into question the intelligence of your opponent then discount any comments with the same question of intelligence it is a passive aggressive way of dealing with opposing views. Which if you read the article is used as an example of hate speech. I try and play it down with you and allow you to strengthen your argument but in the end your argument is I'm smart and your not. I'm beginning to find it regressive to participate in that portion of the discussion and it is starting to overshadow the main point of the sites classification. So if you would like to continue the discussion on why they are classified as containing hate speech then I'm willing. If you are still stuck on questioning my comprehension then I am done as there is no point continuing with this any further.
  • Why are we sitting around debating this. Just ask SurfControl to change the categorisation.

    Just go to their 'test-a-site' page" [surfcontrol.com], enter www.libertyforum.org, and yes, it does indeed come back as "Hate Site". Now, all you have to do is click on "Submit a site" and you can ask for the category to be changed. I set it to "Lifestyle & Culture" , but you might chose something else.

    Matt
  • Whatever man. Suck it up. I'm sure all this talk about "The Jews" had nothing to do with it ;)

    here you go [libertyforum.org]

    Nice try buddy, but the favourite quote is "
    Stinking Rotten Jews Make Cakes of Human Blood and Excrement, and Eat Them While Watching American Pornography" I know it's an open forum, but if I said that in Slashdot or any other site, I'd expect the post to get modded down to deletion.
  • I have a hard time seeing political discourse being listed as hate speech

    A lot of people *hate* the government to some extends though, and this often goes a bit too far in discussion (as the same as many slashdot rants).

    The actions of a few tarnish the reputations of many - phorm

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Close