Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Should hateful speech be illegal?

268 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AnchorSteam
53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

This is all in regards to free speech and whether there should be a limit on what people can say. Particularly if those people have a platform wich is meant to inform and holds influence.  

Even in your own ideal scenario of a news outlets you put strict self imposed limitations.

I did, and the reason for doing so is simple; Market Share. 

The New York Times has spent the last few decades destroying it's own reputation as "the paper of record", it is time for some new media to step up ant take it's place. Once you have established yourself as the go-to guys for the straight truth, the other guys become increasingly irrelevant and their glitzy production goes to an ever narrowing market until  it disappears in the next recession and their little audience runs out of spare change.

It is a self-imposed restriction that is there to create a reliable product, plain and simple.

The Free Market can be very useful, eh? ;)

53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I really like your ideal by the way, it would be great to see news platforms like this and I am sure there are small enterprises of true integrity. But I can guarantee they are often lost amongst the constant flow of the 24 hour news cycle, outrage news, and click bait, we are bombarded with.

Well... that's freedom of choice. When you have free will, some people are bound to make the wrong choices.

People sure get jumped on when they get things wrong around here, don't they? Myself included, and that is a GOOD thing. People getting jumped on when they get their facts wrong is how people keep each other honest.

53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Fact checking must be a very time consuming job with the speed that news comes out some days and with the willingness of some to be regularly dishonest.

Well of course it is, so people need to SLOW DOWN.

If it is all too much, just step back, make sure your own life is in order (I leave this site for days or weeks at a time for that very reason) and then come a few important things when you get a chance. IMHO, 99% of all that noise out there is part distraction, part attention-begging and part baloney.

Nobody can be an expert on everything, demanding that people be experts on anything they want to talk about is a cheap tactic used by people with weak arguments.

53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

 That is why I personally would like to see regulations put on "youtube" news. There is no legal requirement for some youtubers, to be honest in thier reporting, because it all hides under the guise of opinion piece.

I don't agree. That means that some people's opinions will be held in higher regard than other people's opinions, and whoever controls that approval will be in charge of shaping everyone else's opinions.

 

And speaking of the YouTube / Google empire, hasn't it reached the level of a monopoly? What is the effective alternative? 

At this point, most providers of basic services are transformed into Public Utilities, which is another way of Nationalizing them. Of course the shareholders and any other investors will be frozen out, but that's their own damn fault for allowing their company to discriminate agianst people along Political lines in a supposedly public forum. 

... as if Facebook & Twitter were not a dire enough warning already.

53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Something I have seen several times lately has been along the lines of the statement, "so and so from the Internet said it so it must be true," or " if such and such says it, that's enough for me to believe it". I have literally read these statements and just wondered how far backwards we have fallen intellectually. You can even catch these "youtubers" out in a verifiable lie, and thier followers will refuse to see it. Because being enlightened to some means just believing what someone on the Internet says.

Yep. Hell, some fool on Buzzfeed is saying that the compound in New Mexico where those kids were being abused was actually a place where Islamic terrorists were training kids to shoot up their schools. Nobody here fell for that (aren't you glad?) and I think the reason for that is people won't leap before looking when it comes to that sort or thing.

That, and Buzzfeed has said so many dumb things that nobody in their right mind gives a damn what those miscreants have to say... and never will again.

53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

We live in dangerous times, your right to an opinion and to express that opinion is fundamentally a right, without question.  

But the right to knowingly spread disinformation or disengenous opinion which can have negative effects on innocent people,  should be held to account. The weight of responsibility to be honest, should be balanced with the level of influence you have.

Then we should start with an honest and very public accounting of what students in Universities are being fed by their teachers. That is a subject so massive that we'd need another thread for it, but I really had to get that out. 

 

Knowingly spreading disinformation is what I call Propaganda. I despise in and YES, once you can prove it is being done, nail the b*******. However, that can be a tough case to make... and how many people will back you up with the time & resources to see the battle through to the end?

It is indeed a series of battles, the war against that sort of evil never ends. It just crops up behind your back the moment you are done eliminating one source of it.

53 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Unfortunately you can not guarantee people will be honest and laws (or guidelines if you prefer) need to be in place to make sure people responsible for getting out information are held accountable for making sure that information is correct.

So to sum up, free speech has limits. And free speech needs limits. Especially when what you say effects another person's life.

Oh HELL no.

People are trying to ban things that negatively effect their emotions. That is NOT the same thing. 

People go from "I hate that speech" to "That sounds like 'hate speech'" to "All Hate Speech must be banned!!"  

What is being banned is somethng that stimulates them negatively and gives them a bad feeling... because they are unable to reason and manage their own emotions  they end up having to control everyone else. This trend will never end, because if you never learn to deal with negative stimuli and try to cut yourself off from this ... that is exactly the wrong thing to do!  You get weaker, more hysterical more panicked and willing to do some terrible things. You get triggered by less and less and less important or even noticeable things, and reacting more wildly to everything that can be perceived negatively. 

Please don't give in to this. If people are indeed responsible for their own happiness then I don't need to go into why there is no such thing as a happy Snowflake.  They are allowing their own paranoia to murder their own spirits.

 

And there is a darker side to this. Once people get to the point where they not only can't stand the words of their political opposition, but their presence, then they move on to eliminating those people. If this sort of madness could overcome peoples as different as  the Germans, the Chinese, the Cambodians and the Rwandans, then it can happen to anyone on Earth.

Including us. 

We ain't that different, and I for one can't see why I should think I am better than any of the people listed above. 

So, I try to be different in one key regard; I refuse to that that one first step towards Totalitarianism. I will not cross the line that tempts me to infringe on other people's rights, and all I ask in return is that they do the same for me.\

Period.

No matter how tempting it is, no matter how mad they make me, I won't do it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker
2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

And there is a darker side to this. Once people get to the point where they not only can't stand the words of their political opposition, but their presence, then they move on to eliminating those people. If this sort of madness could overcome peoples as different as  the Germans, the Chinese, the Cambodians and the Rwandans, then it can happen to anyone on Earth.

Including us. 

This reminds me of this recent rallies here in Portland with the Patriot Prayer people. They are just a couple hundred people for each rally, and could easily be ignored, but each time they show up, thousands of Far Left loons show up to protest them. And then inevitably some hothead in the left side of things throws something, or charges the Patriot Prayer people, and it turns into a melee. If those counter protesters didn't show up, and left the Alt Right people to their (LEGAL) rally, then those Alt Right people would basically go away. But because they (The counter demonstrators) keep starting riots, the Alt Right people are collecting MORE followers, and getting MORE publicity. 

The Far Left in Portland are their own worst enemy. 

They also stormed the ultra Liberal Portland City Council meetings recently. Yelling that the city needs to throw out ICE. And that not doing so makes them HORRIBLE people. The city is already far left, but not far left enough for these vocal, violent nutjobs. Several were arrested the other day for disrupting the City Council and refusing to leave when ask politely. 

EDIT: Look what the counter protesters have done....

https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/08/08/today-was-success-right-wing-marchers-from-across-the-country-have-declared-portland-enemy-territory-to-conquer/

Quote

Right-Wing Marchers From Across the Country Have Declared Portland Enemy Territory to Conquer

The (liberal) counter protesters feel that the far right people apparently don't have a right to gather, and keep deciding to try to stop them. They don't seem to realize they are the ones acting in a Fascist way. They don't seem to realize THEY are the ones instigating hate and violence... which supposedly is what they are protesting against. Stupid hypocrites.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
8 hours ago, Kismit said:

 That is why I personally would like to see regulations put on "youtube" news. There is no legal requirement for some youtubers, to be honest in thier reporting, because it all hides under the guise of opinion piece.

 

It wouldn't be right to put "regulations" on Youtube news and not the other news outlets.   

I'm not one who likes people who sue over every thing.    I've never been part of a lawsuit.   However, the only way to limit the spreading of fake news may be to make it easier for people to sue over dishonest news reporting.  

Edited by Myles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
7 minutes ago, Myles said:

However, the only way to limit the spreading of fake news may be to make it easier for people to sue over dishonest news reporting.  

The big question with that is who gets to be the arbitrator of truth?  If I had the energy I could show you probably 50 instances of Trump proclaiming "fake news" when the news actually was true, and just to be balanced Benzagi was claimed to be about a youtube video and if the moronic "fake news" mantra had been created by Cambridge Analytica at that time Obama and company undoubtedly would have used it. ,  so we clearly cant trust the government to make that decision. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The big question with that is who gets to be the arbitrator of truth?  If I had the energy I could show you probably 50 instances of Trump proclaiming "fake news" when the news actually was true, and just to be balanced Benzagi was claimed to be about a youtube video and if the moronic "fake news" mantra had been created by Cambridge Analytica at that time Obama and company undoubtedly would have used it. ,  so we clearly cant trust the government to make that decision. 

 

Good point, but something needs to be done.   I agree that Trump has proclaimed "fake news" too often.   He was correct in several instances though.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Good point, but something needs to be done.   I agree that Trump has proclaimed "fake news" too often.   He was correct in several instances though.  

and I do agree that something needs to be done, I just cant seem to find any good short term options. 

Long term I cant help but believe that the key is education but we as a nation cant even agree on its importance so I dont see any progress being made anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

I don't have any real answer myself to give re: Fake news, I just think it's the new reality of the digital age. One problem that could be addressed is the fact that the education system stopped teaching critical thinking to young people. Then you have Millennials  who have grown up with powerful technology and they just trust what they see and read and subsequently are not so great at picking out a false narrative while older people still tend to be better at this and are more critical an thus a bit better at picking out a false narrative. Even that latter fact is changing because the technology to fake things is progressing so rapidly that bad actor can now basically take a picture of a person and audio of their voice and make a fake video of them saying anything the bad actor wants and it's becoming impossible to tell these are fakes. This is even becoming a military concern. In a few years you'll need AI to pick out the fakes, and even that might only be a temporary solution. We are entering this new reality and there is no going back.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
8 hours ago, Myles said:

It wouldn't be right to put "regulations" on Youtube news and not the other news outlets.   

I'm not one who likes people who sue over every thing.    I've never been part of a lawsuit.   However, the only way to limit the spreading of fake news may be to make it easier for people to sue over dishonest news reporting.  

I am talking about placing the same legal standard on youtube news wich already exists on mainstream news. Because your mainstream news is forced to publicly detract misinformation. YouTube news is not. YouTube news skirts this by falling under the guise of opinion piece. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

you tube is not responsible for contest, users who upload it are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
1 minute ago, aztek said:

you tube is not responsible for contest, users who upload it are.

You are not fully understanding my statement. 

And I use the term "youtube" news to cover anyone who uploads"reporting " to a video sharing platform under the guise of opinion piece.  Wich negates thier legal obligation to be accountable when they, "report" facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Kismit said:

You are not fully understanding my statement. 

And I use the term "youtube" news to cover anyone who uploads"reporting " to a video sharing platform under the guise of opinion piece.  Wich negates thier legal obligation to be accountable when they, "report" facts.

yes, that is pretty much it, that is the price you pay for free video sharing services. opinions pieces are just that opinions, not to be taken as hard fact news.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
10 minutes ago, aztek said:

yes, that is pretty much it, that is the price you pay for free video sharing services. opinions pieces are just that opinions, not to be taken as hard fact news.

Some people do though aztec. And as I said in a previous post, several times in the last week I have read posts by people happy to take the word of "youtube" reporters based on nothing but their word. 

If someone appears to be honest because they never have to retract lies, they are not actually honest. In fact they have less incentive to be honest. And yet we live in a world were people are willing to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Edit to add: in fact some people take it as more reliable than hard facts news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 hour ago, Kismit said:

Because your mainstream news is forced to publicly detract misinformation. YouTube news is not.

Our mainstream news only voluntarily 'retracts' whatever they want, here they are not 'forced' to do that. Freedom of the Press is enshrined in 'our' Constitution. i.e. no-one is forcing them as "News Organizations" to do anything. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Kismit said:

Some people do though aztec.

 

i'm sure some do. there will always be gullible people in the world, who believe anything, should your life revolve around them? there are some lies on YT, but there a lot more truth there. so let me figure what i want to believe myself, i do not need someone biased who thinks he knows better to do it for me.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
14 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Some people do though aztec. And as I said in a previous post, several times in the last week I have read posts by people happy to take the word of "youtube" reporters based on nothing but their word. 

If someone appears to be honest because they never have to retract lies, they are not actually honest. In fact they have less incentive to be honest. And yet we live in a world were people are willing to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Edit to add: in fact some people take it as more reliable than hard facts news.

that's how i feel about ufo/ alien reports by those who (to some) are supposed to be trustworthy within the ufo/ alien community, i.e:

the famous 'ufologists' who write books, make documentaries/ films etc etc!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't have any real answer myself to give re: Fake news, I just think it's the new reality of the digital age. One problem that could be addressed is the fact that the education system stopped teaching critical thinking to young people. Then you have Millennials  who have grown up with powerful technology and they just trust what they see and read and subsequently are not so great at picking out a false narrative while older people still tend to be better at this and are more critical an thus a bit better at picking out a false narrative. Even that latter fact is changing because the technology to fake things is progressing so rapidly that bad actor can now basically take a picture of a person and audio of their voice and make a fake video of them saying anything the bad actor wants and it's becoming impossible to tell these are fakes. This is even becoming a military concern. In a few years you'll need AI to pick out the fakes, and even that might only be a temporary solution. We are entering this new reality and there is no going back.

There was "fake news" written in cuneiform on stone tablets in ancient Mesopotamia. People act like this is something new. The lame term is just a political football used by leftists and rightists to tarnish each other's sources of information. If they see a live stream, that doesn't support their beliefs, they'll refer to observable reality as "fake news".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

the fact of life is, people lie, always have, always will.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
7 hours ago, Kismit said:

Some people do though aztec. And as I said in a previous post, several times in the last week I have read posts by people happy to take the word of "youtube" reporters based on nothing but their word. 

Are they, really? Or are they just pulling our legs?

I post vids so that people can see the whole and un-edited commentary instead of what the news is telling people. Similar to what you were trying to get at with looking for the full context on the Tweets that got that woman at the New York Times in so much trouble this week.

Funny thing about YouTube; it has that list of relevant vids on the right, and when a vid is really sensational, you can almost always find rebuttal vids there.

Both sides are well represented there. 

Quote

Edit to add: in fact some people take it as more reliable than hard facts news.

As we said in the military; there is always that 10%.

Their minds are not mine to police.

 

Up above.... yeah, my last post is too wordy, but I wanted to give attention to all your points.  It is the part at the bottom that matters. 

 

 

First they came for Alex Jones... and what comes next?

Free speech is hate speech

Debate is violence

Opinion is fact

Opposing opinion shouldn't be even humored

Government should have All the power.

 Welcome to the current year ladies and gentlemen

 

Edited by AnchorSteam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.