[ohCh6zos]

Galileo wasn't really under house arrest. All he had to do was recant.

The comparison seems apt because while the magnitude of the punishment is out of proportion the refusal to yield to orthodoxy by taking the simple way out is similar.

[socialismisok]

Babylon Bee isn't under house arrest. This analogy is absurd. They weren't allowed to target hate towards a specific, named individual on their Twitter account. Everything else they were saying was more or less ok.

And they still had plenty of other outlets, including their very successful website.

This is like a single book publisher telling Galileo, "we won't print this one page, but the rest of the book is ok".

[readthenotes1]

If I recall correctly, they were suspended for saying that that specific named individual one man of the Year award.

That doesn't seem very hateful, although it may seem derisive. There is a difference.

Did it go beyond that?

[socialismisok]

It's hateful in the sense that it's very derisive in the culture of the target and Babylon Bee has a large enough audience that the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result.

Reach and influence are important, because they impact the magnitude of what a derisive comment can do to a target.

You saying, "lol, man!" In your living room has no reach, it won't cause harm. The Bee saying it has huge reach, and when aimed at a specific minority individual can lead to serious harm.

[caeril]

> derisive in the culture of the target > the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result.

Obvious and simple solution here:

1. Allow people to say whatever offensive jokes they want.

2. Keep banning the actual problem: those who make the targeted threats.

The entire concept of "incitement" is ridiculous. We have agency. Nobody can force me to go threaten someone. Go after the ones who commit actual harm, not the ones who make jokes.

[socialismisok]

This is true for you and me, but when we're dealing with the laws of large numbers I can guarantee there are folks who are not able to understand that these are "just jokes".

Looking at what the families of Sandy hook victims suffered at the hands of mentally ill viewers of Alex Jones is heartbreaking. When you have an audience of millions, I believe you have a responsibility to be intentional about what you publish, because you know that someone might take you very seriously and do awful things.

Sure, we can catch the people who make threats often enough, but the damage has already been done. It's far better to ask folks to be considerate and intentional about who they target, rather than try and sweep up the wreckage of someone's life after the fact.

[chudmeister]

None of these authoritarian excuses matter. They can say what they want about who they want now.

[socialismisok]

Moderation is not authoritarianism.

[xigoi]

If you use moderation as a tool to push your ideology, sure it is.

[nemo44x]

They targeted a public person who exists at the upper echelons of power and privilege. For a group of people so obsessed with comedy only “punching up” it’s ironic to see the justification.

[space_fountain]

Did they target her or did they target the idea of being trans?

> where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman

> We have still chosen to give the award as his self-identification has no bearing on the truth

If you attack a successful member of a minority group based on their minority you still aren't punching up, sorry.

[fknorangesite]

> Did they target him

Her.

[space_fountain]

Gah, but thanks

[space_fountain]

They didn’t have to say their tweet was wrong right? Just that it violated their rules, which it did