[hayleyest]

She has 2.8 million followers. There were 2.4 million Nazi volunteers. The scale of what is possible has changed. It's not an inn with 28 farmers. It's not a statehouse with 280 citizens. It's not a gathering around a microphone of 2800 people. It's not a stadium of 28,000. It's not a gigantic congregation of 280,000. It's 2.8 million that listen to her every time she posts. Night or day. Around the clock. She's Always In Their Heads. Both axis of this graph have changed. Any law based around some mid 1900's pre-internet context of how people gathered and how the police might keep an eye on it, are bunk. Pure and utter bunk. In 2.8 million people there will be someone who will act. And as the article states, many times they get away with it. She's inciting hate crimes. That we won't do anything about it is insane. She sits on a buffer of "well, it wasn't me". Crime bosses do that too. Why do we allow it? It seems insane that any civil society would allow that.

[bruceb]

What kind of censorship do you propose?

[hmcq6]

There are already laws against defamation, incitement to violence, and hate speech.

What is being proposed in the article is that Libs of tiktok is inciting terrorism (or terroristic threats). This isn't a new type of censorship.

So the question isn't "what type of new censorship do you propose?" but "does this behavior meet the threshold to be considered behavior we've already collectively deemed illegal?".

[bruceb]

"There are already laws against...hate speech." As this is a US context, I am curious what specific laws against "hate speech" you think are in existence?

[dekhn]

https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=four&lin...

422.7. Except in the case of a person punished under Section 422.6, any hate crime that is not made punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine, if the crime is committed against the person or property of another for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with that other person’s free exercise or enjoyment of any right secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States under any of the following circumstances, which shall be charged in the accusatory pleading:

[bruceb]

This link has nothing about speech.

[dekhn]

yes but 422.6 has been used to arrest folks who were making racist speech, but IIUC he was extradited back to Colorado on another charge first.

[GloomyBoots]

Florida recently passed HB 269 in which acts that are generally uncontroversially categorized as speech were criminalized. There are also anti-BDS laws, etc.