[ianferrel]

What about: "The US and Western Europe should attack ISIS soldiers", or "Convicted murderers should be executed by the state". Both of those statements are condoning and encouraging harming others. Should they be removed?

Can you not see the impossibility of regulating which speech is justified, and which is not?

[rm_-rf_slash]

The difference is proximity and legitimacy. One can say ISIS should be bombed but that's a matter of war, declared by one's state, and is therefore considered legitimate. It's also far different from posting "Someone should stab these immigrants down the block living in state housing."

Yes it's hypocritical and arbitrary when considering that we are all humans, but that is simply how law and society stratifies speech worthy of regulation. I don't think it's impossible at all.

[illumen]

Yes, it's not impossible. It happens all the time already.

The HN system which allowed people to downvote you is limiting your speech. Facebook removing posts about sex is limiting your free speech.

I find it really perverse that people are ok with banning people talking about sex, but are fine with them calling for murder.

Take a guess which society has tens of thousands of murders, and millions in prison? The one that takes away free speech about sex, but protects people calling to kill immigrants.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Venturing a guess, but any angry/jealous/frustrated person can murder another, while it takes two to tango, so to speak.

[such_a_casual]

I have sex with myself every day.

[isolate]

It's not limiting free speech unless the government is asking for or compelling it.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

[nokcha]

>It's not limiting free speech unless the government is asking for or compelling it.

The First Amendment applies only to the government, but the principle of freedom of speech is broader. Large corporations, especially those that effectively operate as common carriers (e.g., ISPs), are rightfully criticized if they block speech due to its viewpoint. Facebook has a legal right to censor speech on its own website, but others have the right to criticize Facebook for doing so, and the principle of freedom of speech is a valid reason for such criticism.

[CM30]

So at what point does a private business become a 'common carrier'? Because pretty much everyone agrees a business can chuck someone off the premises for just about any reason, and most internet forums and communities end up being more about 'what the owner wants to allow' rather than anything else.

Do you suddenly lose the right to tell people what they're allowed to say or do if your community becomes popular? How about if it's the leading resource in a field of study, or half the population end up using it?

Because this is what's bugging me about these arguments. Why can a community like a forum, mailing list, Usenet group, Slack group or subreddit choose what people can say and block comments for any reason, but say, Facebook gets criticised for the same thing? They're all communities, they're all privately owned...

[illumen]

The freedom of speech applies when other people than the government are calling for it to be stopped.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example does not say "it only applies to when a government are restricting those rights".

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

[isolate]

Only the government can provide legal rights. Human rights are ideals, not actual things.

Regardless, the real point is that property rights trump free speech rights. You can't come over to my house and say whatever you want, because it's private. And I'm pretty sure the UN DoHR says the same thing.

And further, given the leftist thing that it is, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the UN DoHR also says people have the right not to be on the receiving end of speech that incites violence towards them, a.k.a. hate speech. So... property rights > hate speech rights > free speech rights.

[orangecat]

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the UN DoHR also says people have the right not to be on the receiving end of speech that incites violence towards them

Article 12 prohibits "attacks" against "honour and reputation", which is vague enough to justify all sorts of "hate speech" prohibitions. (And ridiculous libel laws like in the UK).

[adventured]

You can easily separate the concepts via the initiation of force.

The murderer is the initiator. ISIS is the initiator.

Example: "The US should murder the Japanese people and nuke all of their cities immediately." Japan isn't an aggressor, hasn't invaded anyone, isn't slaughtering the people of some country they're trying to annex (ISIS). Calling for a response to to the initiation of violence, is not the same as calling for the initiation of violence. If you remove these blatant lines, you can never differentiate on a legal basis who is the victim and who is the perpetrator in acts of eg crime.

[mrtree]

That is so damn relative. Don't you see it?