Internet Filters - Libertarianism is Hate Speech? 107
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?
Re:Other Mis-Identified Site (Score:2)
Your Friend,
Calvin Handanderfanson
Oxymoron (Score:2, Funny)
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?
No (Score:2)
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
Re:No (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Oxymoron (Score:1)
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".
Contest! (Score:1)
> 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.)
Re:Oxymoron (Score:1)
How Can They Block it if it's Not on Their List? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
How can they filter it if it isn't in their database and catagorized?
Re:How Can They Block it if it's Not on Their List (Score:3, Informative)
Seems like it's in there...
Re:How Can They Block it if it's Not on Their List (Score:1)
I cut and pasted the actual link from
Do you think it might have to do with where you access the site from?
I've got no idea why, but when I pasted it in, I got a "not in our list" answer.
Anybody else get the same?
Re:How Can They Block it if it's Not on Their List (Score:2, Informative)
Thought you'd like to know.
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:1)
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:1)
What kind of `libertarian' is against private ranking services? Aren't they in fact the ultimate free speech / free market solution for site filtering?
And while we're on the subject, doesn't it seem likely that the `hate speech' designation has more to do with the fact that the site in question seems to think ``do Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make pastry'' is a question which might be answered either way, rather than with the author's black helicopter theories that he is being `suppressed' because of his opinions?
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:1)
I consider myself a libertarian and I am against private ranking services.
They claim to be providing the "choice" to parents &c to be able to filter "bad" info from their children, but even suggesting the need for this choice implies that:
o some things are objectively bad
o children should be shielded from some things
o it's okay for parents to censor what kids see
o etc.
I reject those ideas.
I don't think they should (or can) be prevented from doing what they do, but I do think they are part of the problem, not the solution. Promoting self-censorship solutions only propogates ideas of the "children seeing naked people is bad!" variety. That's not the direction society should move.
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting. So, let me ask you a question? When you are looking through TV Guide (or your Tivo directory, or whatever), and trying to decide what to watch, do you read the descriptions of the shows/movies you are considering?
Because that's what these rating sites are. They are automated summaries of the type of content a site contains, for use by viewers who are interested in seeing some types of content but not others.
Speaking as a parent, I see a big difference between my four year old being exposed to some of the really nice kid-friendly stuff [noggin.com] that's out there and some of the really nasty stuff [no link provided, use your damn imagination] that's out there. If you don't, well, let me say, as politely as I can, that `we disagree'.
And yes, this does indeed mean that:
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:2)
Greetings,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said... Particularly "it's not only `okay' for a parent to exercise some control over what their child is exposed to, it's their responsibility to do so".
But, while I agree with what you say here, some people take this one step further... They think that because they don't want their kid looking at X then nobody should be allowed to look at X.
You can't keep kids wrapped in pink cotton wool all of their lives, eventually they are going to go out, skin their knees, and get experiences in the "Real World" (TM)...
When that happens they will come across Sex, Drugs (and hopefully Rock and Roll)... The "Bad Things" (TM) that you have tried to keep them away from. The best that you can do is teach them to think for themselves, to act responsibly, and to keep out of trouble.
The problem I have with censorship services (we use one here at work) is that they don't work. When you are looking at the TV listings do you look at the listings for every channel for programs for your 4 year old? I doubt it... "Hey, there's an educational program about Womens clothing through the ages on the Playboy Channel. They're doing a special on lingerie today." Or do you look at the listings for only those channels that you "know" will be relevant.
At work I can get to the NRA website. I can't get to the website for Buck Knives (I own a multi-tool made by them). I assume that Buck Knies are considered to be promoting violence. I doubt that I can get to the playboy website, but I'm sure that their blacklist does not include every possible porn site out there.
I know that I can view the text of banned sites using babelfish or the Google Cache. So if it's information I'm after I can usually work my way around the filter.
Comparing this to your TV analogy one last time. The filter that we use is like an incomplete TV listing. It lists some things as being "Bad", the rest it doesn't mark in any way. If it's not listed it is by default "Good" but new programs and channels are popping up all of the time. So the brand new "Axe Murderers Orgy" Channel is "Good" until someone decides that it isn't.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be all that happy about my kids watching that Channel.
Z.
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:1)
Filters purport to block "bad" things. They do not block all "bad" things. They give moronic parents the idea that they are "being responsible" and hiding all these bad things from kids. In reality, they are closing their eyes to actual resposiblity of taking care of their own children and deligating to a grossly inept substitue gatekeeper. Parents, by-and-large, don't understand how filters actually work and I would guess the majority don't actually care.
Show me a filtering software that DOESN'T claim it will protect your kids and I'll support THAT company. Kid protection is something only a vigilant parent can do. Filters are good in non-critical settings, like work, if a company is so inclined. If you can't be vigilant, don't give your kid a handgun to play with even if you have a trigger lock that "always" works. Of course this is a overly-dramatic comparison. It just comes to mind.
I am not saying YOU are a bad parent. Most parents don't care enough to know sites like noggin.com exist.
I am biased. I help run a company who's cornerstone is human monitoring of all kid-community activity. : )
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:2)
I wouldn't recommend anyone believe the hype that these are `fire and forget' services. OTOH, they do have their uses, combined with knowing what your kids are doing, and helping them find good things to do.
Anyway, tell us more about the company you run. :-)
Re:As someone else pointed out... (Score:1)
Our company's part of the solution is to have a kid community that is, in essence, moderated by staff memebers. so bulletin board posts are looked at prior to "appearing", our web based almost-IM gets a look at to prevent personal data being sent to other kids. The only realtime data transmitted between client computers is in our chat rooms, but those have a person in them at all times acting as supervisor and also to make sure the kids don't into "un-approriate" topics and again don't reveal personal info. They also entertain the kids or suggest things to talk about as needed. On the other hand kids can talk about whatever they want unless it's to mature (sex,drugs) or it is belittleing to someone else in a major way.
It's not a perfect solution, nothing is, but it's fun and actually extremely safe, so I'm happy with it as a product and as a potential parent.
www.kidfu.com [some flash,not manditory to navigation]
Re:Gee, I wonder... (Score:1)
Pathetic.)
Re:Gee, I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
A columnist from the state-controlled Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah recently re-asserted the claim that Jews use human blood in baked goods when preparing for holiday celebrations, according to a translation of the column by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, an independent, nonprofit organization that analyzes the media of the Middle East.
The story was about a Saudi newspaper article. The opinion of jews held by the arabic countries is actually pretty important, as you may be aware, israel is mostly jewish and is locked in a cultural, economic, and sometimes military struggle with it's arabic and islamic neighbors.
Anyway, I read through the posts curious as to what the hell you were talking about, and the major discussion was about the importance of the newspaper and the validity of the translation. And then the discussion shifted to sausages and hot dogs. The mention of the allegation of jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks was to highlight another case of xenophobia.
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and read whole sentances instead of just the smaller phrases.
Re:Gee, I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you expect from slashdot?
Thats why I call gnu "Free as in totalitarian"... in this crowd when they say "Free" they're talking about such bastions of "freedom" as stalin, marx and lenin.
Mention that someone made some money in the 90s and you get pages and pages about how they should be propping up dictatorships in east africa by sending them food to withhold from the starving in their country because "we all should care for each other, especially care for those nice brutal dictators that work so hard to keep people oppressed."
You'd think people running linux would be libertarian, or would at least understand libertarianism. But you'd be wrong.
Re:Gee, I wonder... (Score:2)
Of course, in this country a tax cut that cuts the taxes on the poor by %50 and the taxes on the rich by %2 is considered exactly that kind of law. At least, thats what the liberals said about the republicans tax cut, that did EXACTLY THAT.
Funny with all this concern about the poor, you'd think you'd want their taxes cut.
Re:Gee, I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have such an easy explanation for this story [libertyforum.org] on the site? Eh? (quote:
) This comes at the end of an article whose second half is a claim that ``there were no mass exterminations at Auschwitz'' and ``concentration camp conditions couldnt have been that harsh at all''I'd provide quotes of some of the really nasty, hateful stuff which was in the story I linked to above, but the editors of the site seem to have yanked it after it was pointed out here....
Face it -- this site is chock full of anti-semitic nonsense. I see no problem at all with the fact that a (voluntary, independent) rating service classed it as `hate speech'.
Re:Gee, I wonder... (Score:2)
Re:Gee, I wonder... (some facts straightened) (Score:2)
I don't see the problem with attributing this to the Saudi state, they are the ones who took on the role of censors.
I don't know exactly which thought crimes are considered hate speech, but when it comes to politics open discussion is usually a good thing. I guess the generally accepted definition of hate speech is vocalizing an opinion that is seen as immoral or dangerous by the majority. Opinions and morals change, and having open forums for discussing ideas that may currently be seen as dangerous creates a way to evaluate the future of ideas.
Imagine a country where most of the citizens believe in a God that created species as we know them. Now imagine that saying evolution exists is a personal assault on people's personal beliefs and is considered a hate crime. In this imagined environment, you would find it nearly impossible to do scientific research into the mechanisms of evolution. I don't think this example is excessively contrived, to call out a strictly dogmatic religion as imbecilic and to call it's followers misguided simpletons could quite likely be considered hate speech. Here's a fun homework assignment, try that above example with the USA and the Roman Catholic religion.
Let's Think About This.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Unnecessary Sig Abuse (Score:2)
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.
Re:Unnecessary Sig Abuse (Score:2)
Re:Unnecessary Sig Abuse (Score:2)
Re:Let's Think About This.... (Score:1)
Re:Let's Think About This.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's Think About This.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let's Think About This.... (Score:2)
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).
Re:Let's Think About This.... (Score:2)
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.
Is Libertarianism hate speech? (Score:2)
Re:Is Libertarianism hate speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is Libertarianism hate speech? (Score:2)
Ducky? What does that mean? Silly? Peachy?
Scare-de-cats?
[OT] Interesting site. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:[OT] Interesting site. (Score:2)
The libertarian movement is made up of three groups.
1)...
2)...
3)...
3)...
4)...
Don't forget the other group...
6) Those who can count.
Hypocrisy (Score:1)
Why opression by employers isnt opression?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1)
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?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes. You'll notice that I was talking about "libertarian philosophy", not "my philosophy". I mostly agree with the libertarian principle: that it is wrong to initiate the use of force against others, and that use of force includes both physical harm and misappropriation of property. There are some areas, though, where the LP falls short in my view:
I'm sorry I can't be more confrontational about it; I'm genuinely interested in good answers to these questions, so I'm likely to do a bad job of providing a typical Slashdot throwaway remark about them.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1)
I don't think this is uniformly true. I've definitely turned down potential employers because of things they wanted me to do (and didn't want to pay me enough for me to consider doing), like a urine test for drugs. It's a supply and demand thing: sometimes you're interesting to other people, sometimes you're not.
The question of what to do about this is a little fuzzy. I tend to think that using force to fix it is only OK in (at most) the case of an actual malignant monopoly that is actively trying to screw somebody out of a living; in the rest of the cases, I'd be willing to donate to a fund to take care of the poor losers (because I might be unlucky enough to be in their position some day), but I wouldn't consider it reasonable to use force to compel others to help (i.e., taxes).
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2)
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?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2)
It is true that the companies employed the government to crack down on worker revolts. This would be a good argument to make: if there was not a government with a military willing to obey the company and funded by taxing many people (and thus having a larger source of funds than the company has access to) perhaps they could not crack down on the worker's revolt. It is possible that trying to fund a military of their own would not be cost-effective for the company.
the same recourse as spammers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the same recourse as spammers (Score:2)
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)
Embarrass them (Score:2)
GNU.org (Score:3, Funny)
Defining Hate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Defining Hate (Score:1)
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.
What an amazing post you just made! (Score:2)
Re:What an amazing post you just made! (Score:2)
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.
Fascinating. (Score:1)
(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?
Re:Defining Hate (Score:2)
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].
Re:Defining Hate (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
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/treatmen
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=&B
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.
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
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..."
Re:Nto a hate site? (Score:2)
Slashdot can actually make a difference here... (Score:2)
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
Re:Slashdot can actually make a difference here... (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot can actually make a difference here... (Score:1)
Did they chance the setting already?
Are you kidding? (Score:1)
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.
A few idiots is all it takes (Score:2)
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