Someone should remind Mr. Vanaman about Section 512(f) before he takes legal action. I'd imageine Mr. Kjellberg has the resources to follow it through.
While I knew exactly (more or less) what I meant when I wrote it, it seems that you and at least one other user don't see what I'm trying to say. Whether that's because I didn't do a clear enough job of explaining my position, or because you (and at least one other person) aren't reading for context, I'm not sure. But allow me to clarify (if my follow up comment did not clarify enough).
I never said people have the right to hurt anybody to shut them up. If you would read the entire comment, you'd (hopefully) see that's what I'm trying to say. In fact, I said that people who try to hurt people to shut them up are, and I quote myself above, "savages."
Yes, I agree, the law is written in a way such that if you're the first one to throw a punch, you're assaulting. If you're the recipient of the assault, you have the right, under the law, to defend yourself. But if you use lethal force to respond to non-lethal force, you're going to have a hard time defending that in court, both the federal and moral.
If I were in a situation that threatened my life, or the life of my family, I would do what I could to get out of the situation. Any reasonable person would. But I wouldn't go above and beyond that. If someone threw a rock at me, I would not drive my car over them. That's just absurd. I'd remove myself from the situation, because I'd rather live another day than leverage my right to use up to an including lethal action and further endanger my own life.
I don't speak for the site. I don't speak for anybody other than me (and while I don't appreciate people speaking for me, I understand that the nature of internet conversation leaves so much up to individual interpretation). Allow me to state in as clear of words as I may, so there remains absolutely no confusion of the matter:
IF YOU PUNCH SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, YOU ARE A LOUSY HUMAN BEING.
That being said:
IF YOU KILL SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY THREW A ROCK AT YOU, YOU ARE ALSO A LOUSY HUMAN BEING.
My end point in my original comment is one that I think we should all realize, and I hope you can agree it's far from evil (and it applies in protests, riots, and internet comments): we're all people, we're all individuals, and (unless there's more advanced AIs than I realize) we're all human beings with feeling and opinions and well, mostly good inclinations (albeit, some of us have bad motivators).
Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...
Stormcloud, a presumably racist web publication, wrote an article about the victim of the car incident. In response, GoDaddy, their host and registrar cancelled their hosting account for violating their TOS wrt hate speech. Stormcloud then went to Google Domains to transfer, but were declined on similar grounds.
I'm sorry I was not more clear. I had thought the context would be enough to convey my opinion.
The heck that I am saying is this: it's wrong to escalate the situation. It's wrong to use violence to respond to ideas. It's wrong to use deadly force to respond to non-life threatening violence.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say what you're accusing me of having said (I'll re-read it to make sure I didn't accidentally leave out a word or something, but what you're accusing me of was very, very, very far from my intent). I definitely don't condone violence, and especially don't condone escalation of the situation.
What I was trying to say is this: If A punches B because B believes C, that gives no right to B to kill A. I believe that B has a right to retaliate in kind (even if I think it's wrong), but think the better course of action is to be the bigger person and let them have their baby-tantrum (provided it does not endanger anybody). Basically, I think the best action is to take the least violent approach to mitigate the situation.
Heck, I'm a proponent of turning the other cheek, but I know how hard it is when you've been punched in the face.
Tim, thank you so much for this post. Since Charlottesville, I've been having so much trouble trying to put words to the feelings I've had about how yes, we still need to protect free speech, even when shit like this happens.
The people who respond to speech with violence are terrible. They're damaging their cause by implicitly stating that they have no counter argument to the idea they are in opposition too. If it just turned into a fist fight, I would have said, "that's what happens when you punch people, they hit back."
However, hitting people with cars is not the same as hitting them with fists. Killing someone who just wants to hurt you into silence is not an appropriate response. This is far worse, as instead of meeting your opposition with equal inverse force (e.g., retaliatory punches) you have then upped the ante. This is the worst thing you can do to someone who has already shown that they're willing to escalate violence. At that point, the end result is who's willing to go too far first. Not somewhere I want to be.
In an episode of Stuff you Should Know, "How Dictators Work" they discussed that historically, the entities that were resisted hardest ended up getting more credibility, and thus, more power. While I think that anybody who wants to tote White Nationalist or White Separatism or Nazism or racism or any of these other flawed ideologies, I would treat them like I would a toddler throwing a tantrum: don't reward the negative behavior with attention. Treat it like a threat, and it becomes a threat; treat it like a group of idiots with misguided ideas, then it'll just remain that.
The best cure for stupid is education, not shame or violence. Combat ideas with ideas. If things get violent, GTFO. And always remember: no matter what side of the aisle you're on, your group is made up of a bunch of individual people. Some are basically good people (albeit, with bad ideas), so don't confuse the ideas with the human who claims to have them.
Worth noting is that (a) Fox 8's wonderful fact checker typoed his name. He's actually Eric. (b) GIPEC stands for "Global Intellectual Property Enforcement Center", and (c) this quote from the article is the most troubling to me: "Feinberg said he’d like to see the Internet regulated in a way similar to what you see for broadcast TV."
We need to get rid of the whole notion of "copyright" for characters. It's so hand-wavy it's not even funny. In what universe does a character exist as a fixed and tangible work? (A: a fictional one)
I'm just saying, this is total BS. There's no reason why they have to charge (even if it's just $6) for this. I'm fully capable of listing the appropriate DMCA agent on my website, which, presumably, people wanting to make a DMCA claim against, are visiting.
On the post: It Doesn't Matter How Much Of An Asshole You Think Someone Is, That's No Excuse To DMCA
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re:
While I knew exactly (more or less) what I meant when I wrote it, it seems that you and at least one other user don't see what I'm trying to say. Whether that's because I didn't do a clear enough job of explaining my position, or because you (and at least one other person) aren't reading for context, I'm not sure. But allow me to clarify (if my follow up comment did not clarify enough).
I never said people have the right to hurt anybody to shut them up. If you would read the entire comment, you'd (hopefully) see that's what I'm trying to say. In fact, I said that people who try to hurt people to shut them up are, and I quote myself above, "savages."
Yes, I agree, the law is written in a way such that if you're the first one to throw a punch, you're assaulting. If you're the recipient of the assault, you have the right, under the law, to defend yourself. But if you use lethal force to respond to non-lethal force, you're going to have a hard time defending that in court, both the federal and moral.
If I were in a situation that threatened my life, or the life of my family, I would do what I could to get out of the situation. Any reasonable person would. But I wouldn't go above and beyond that. If someone threw a rock at me, I would not drive my car over them. That's just absurd. I'd remove myself from the situation, because I'd rather live another day than leverage my right to use up to an including lethal action and further endanger my own life.
I don't speak for the site. I don't speak for anybody other than me (and while I don't appreciate people speaking for me, I understand that the nature of internet conversation leaves so much up to individual interpretation). Allow me to state in as clear of words as I may, so there remains absolutely no confusion of the matter:
IF YOU PUNCH SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, YOU ARE A LOUSY HUMAN BEING.
That being said:
IF YOU KILL SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY THREW A ROCK AT YOU, YOU ARE ALSO A LOUSY HUMAN BEING.
My end point in my original comment is one that I think we should all realize, and I hope you can agree it's far from evil (and it applies in protests, riots, and internet comments): we're all people, we're all individuals, and (unless there's more advanced AIs than I realize) we're all human beings with feeling and opinions and well, mostly good inclinations (albeit, some of us have bad motivators).
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re:
The heck that I am saying is this: it's wrong to escalate the situation. It's wrong to use violence to respond to ideas. It's wrong to use deadly force to respond to non-life threatening violence.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say what you're accusing me of having said (I'll re-read it to make sure I didn't accidentally leave out a word or something, but what you're accusing me of was very, very, very far from my intent). I definitely don't condone violence, and especially don't condone escalation of the situation.
What I was trying to say is this: If A punches B because B believes C, that gives no right to B to kill A. I believe that B has a right to retaliate in kind (even if I think it's wrong), but think the better course of action is to be the bigger person and let them have their baby-tantrum (provided it does not endanger anybody). Basically, I think the best action is to take the least violent approach to mitigate the situation.
Heck, I'm a proponent of turning the other cheek, but I know how hard it is when you've been punched in the face.
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
The people who respond to speech with violence are terrible. They're damaging their cause by implicitly stating that they have no counter argument to the idea they are in opposition too. If it just turned into a fist fight, I would have said, "that's what happens when you punch people, they hit back."
However, hitting people with cars is not the same as hitting them with fists. Killing someone who just wants to hurt you into silence is not an appropriate response. This is far worse, as instead of meeting your opposition with equal inverse force (e.g., retaliatory punches) you have then upped the ante. This is the worst thing you can do to someone who has already shown that they're willing to escalate violence. At that point, the end result is who's willing to go too far first. Not somewhere I want to be.
In an episode of Stuff you Should Know, "How Dictators Work" they discussed that historically, the entities that were resisted hardest ended up getting more credibility, and thus, more power. While I think that anybody who wants to tote White Nationalist or White Separatism or Nazism or racism or any of these other flawed ideologies, I would treat them like I would a toddler throwing a tantrum: don't reward the negative behavior with attention. Treat it like a threat, and it becomes a threat; treat it like a group of idiots with misguided ideas, then it'll just remain that.
The best cure for stupid is education, not shame or violence. Combat ideas with ideas. If things get violent, GTFO. And always remember: no matter what side of the aisle you're on, your group is made up of a bunch of individual people. Some are basically good people (albeit, with bad ideas), so don't confuse the ideas with the human who claims to have them.
On the post: Response To Facebook Video Of Murder Is The Call For An Actual 'Godwin's Law'
On the post: Legal Threats By Charles Harder & Shiva Ayyadurai Targeting More Speech
On the post: Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
On the post: Every Website Needs To Re-register With The Copyright Office, Who Can't Build A Functioning System
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 98: Is There A Better Way To Pick A President?
Re:
On the post: Actual Creators Of Email Not At All Happy The Fake Creator Of Email Got Paid For His Bogus Claim
Re:
On the post: Actual Creators Of Email Not At All Happy The Fake Creator Of Email Got Paid For His Bogus Claim
Re: Re: Re: Easy to dispell
On the post: As The Cubs Head To The World Series, The Team Is Also Raging Against Single-Word Trademarks
Don't Forget
This rabbit hole just turned into a hollow earth.
On the post: The Clinton Campaign Should Stop Denying That The Wikileaks Emails Are Valid; They Are And They're Real
Re:
On the post: Judge Rejects 'Rioting' Charge Against Journalist For Reporting On Protestors, But Prosecutor Still Looking For New Charges
On the post: Media Bias And The Death Of Intellectual Honesty, Doubling Down
Re:
On the post: Obama Promises 'Proportional' Response To Russian Hacking, Ignores That We Started The Fight
Proportional Response
If I had uninvited people coming into my house, I'd buy a better lock instead of breaking into theirs.
Next >>