True, but even after the massacre if the context is, "We approve of this" rather than, "This is what the evil terrorist did" then I believe it's actionable because it's going to create a chilling effect on the target individual or group, i.e. 'tis a form of censorship.
And if the guy in this case hadn’t been an open White supremacist, how would you feel about his jail sentence?
Outraged. Context is everything, Stephen.
Because I believe his being brought to trial has a smidge more to do with his White supremacy than his sharing the Christchurch video.
Because you're correct, it totally is about his white supremacy. That is the context in which it was shared. There's a world of difference between "I am Phillip Arps and I approve this message" and "This is what the evil murderer did, folks."
Terrorism is a form of censorship, i.e. it can and does terrify people into conformity. If censorship is harmful, terrorism is harmful in the same way that censorship is in addition to the damage done to people and property.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
The footage was the terrorism as the idea was to terrify Muslims. How comfortable would you be living next door to this jerk and the people he gleefully shared the video with?
As I said, terrorism is the ultimate censorship. That's what it's for.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
while he may be a jerk, he hasn't actually hurt anyone
From Steve G's post:
But this footage is itself part of an act of terrorism. That is different from e.g. the footage of the twin towers, which was shot by observers. This is footage shot by the terrorist. Spreading this video is his goal. He's just plead not guilty so that he has the chance to draw even more attention to his acts. Every time the video is shared, his act of terrorism increases in size. The primary goal of sharing it is to recruit others to his cause and inflict more damage on his victims; even those who themselves share it without this goal are furthering his.
The purpose of terrorism isn't to kill people, otherwise it'd just be murder, plain and simple. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, i.e make people feel fearful.
Terrorism, i.e. inspiring fear in people, is in itself a harm. It chills speech and expression in the exact same way as censorship does because it is the ultimate act of censorship. Imagine being a Muslim in Christchurch knowing that your neighbours were gleefully sharing that video around saying that the killer had the right idea. Who would issue the counter-speech? You'd keep quiet, keep your head down and dress in Western clothes to minimise the risk of abuse by your neighbours since expressing your faith would put you at risk.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
While Steve G confessed to wanting to silence the man, AC, he did turn around and say "But that isn't how justice or our country should work..."
Here's the question: how does society benefit from letting people run around spreading hate? Is there any benefit at all?
The "Use counter-speech" brigade haven't got a solution to a one-sided situation where the hate speech spreader is not getting hammered for being a jerk. They only ever use those cases where the jerk got put in his place as examples.
This is why I always say: any philosophy predicated on a best case scenario is ultimately doomed to failure.
You're not ready to hope for the best till you're prepared for the worst.
I'm not, but then I was involved in the anti-ACTA movement where the people were involved. Nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union were more skeptical of its benefits than those that were not.
Re: Re: Re: What A Shame... That Poland takes the side of PIRATE
Brussels doesn't rule the UK, it's a parliamentary democracy. That people don't engage en masse in the democratic process is the problem, so I can understand your confusion.
Re: Re: What A Shame... That Poland takes the side of PIRATES.
Article 13 does nothing to defend creators. Nothing. Please feel free to explain exactly what it does in detail if you believe otherwise. I create cartoons and blog posts, etc. No protection under Article 13 for me!
Brexit is stalled while the EU waits for Britain to get its act together. While it's being ruled by a clown car pile-up, AKA the Tory party, they'll be kept waiting. Tories don't like reality much.
In a world where everything must be owned, I daresay Genius will be using its apostrophe type choices to spell out "Red Handed" as the copyrighted item.
^This. The idea of taking on the gubmint with whatever firearms the law allows you to possess is intrinsically stupid. You can't win, the odds are against you.
The solution to unsatisfactory government is to engage politically. They're still afraid of being SOPA'd.
Seriously the epicness of the fail and stupidity in Big Harry's post is ridiculous!
Okay, fine, Big Harry. You let us know when the tyranny has reached peak awfulness and you and your Walmart machine gun are going to put it all right. I need some notice to get the popcorn in so I can watch you be declared a terrorist and taken down in real time.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but even after the massacre if the context is, "We approve of this" rather than, "This is what the evil terrorist did" then I believe it's actionable because it's going to create a chilling effect on the target individual or group, i.e. 'tis a form of censorship.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re:
And if the guy in this case hadn’t been an open White supremacist, how would you feel about his jail sentence?
Outraged. Context is everything, Stephen.
Because I believe his being brought to trial has a smidge more to do with his White supremacy than his sharing the Christchurch video.
Because you're correct, it totally is about his white supremacy. That is the context in which it was shared. There's a world of difference between "I am Phillip Arps and I approve this message" and "This is what the evil murderer did, folks."
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
When the goal is to terrify your friends and neighbours by indicating that you're on board with such activities, it totally should be.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Terrorism is a form of censorship, i.e. it can and does terrify people into conformity. If censorship is harmful, terrorism is harmful in the same way that censorship is in addition to the damage done to people and property.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
The footage was the terrorism as the idea was to terrify Muslims. How comfortable would you be living next door to this jerk and the people he gleefully shared the video with?
As I said, terrorism is the ultimate censorship. That's what it's for.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
while he may be a jerk, he hasn't actually hurt anyone
From Steve G's post:
But this footage is itself part of an act of terrorism. That is different from e.g. the footage of the twin towers, which was shot by observers. This is footage shot by the terrorist. Spreading this video is his goal. He's just plead not guilty so that he has the chance to draw even more attention to his acts. Every time the video is shared, his act of terrorism increases in size. The primary goal of sharing it is to recruit others to his cause and inflict more damage on his victims; even those who themselves share it without this goal are furthering his.
The purpose of terrorism isn't to kill people, otherwise it'd just be murder, plain and simple. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, i.e make people feel fearful.
Terrorism, i.e. inspiring fear in people, is in itself a harm. It chills speech and expression in the exact same way as censorship does because it is the ultimate act of censorship. Imagine being a Muslim in Christchurch knowing that your neighbours were gleefully sharing that video around saying that the killer had the right idea. Who would issue the counter-speech? You'd keep quiet, keep your head down and dress in Western clothes to minimise the risk of abuse by your neighbours since expressing your faith would put you at risk.
Now do you understand?
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
While Steve G confessed to wanting to silence the man, AC, he did turn around and say "But that isn't how justice or our country should work..."
Here's the question: how does society benefit from letting people run around spreading hate? Is there any benefit at all?
The "Use counter-speech" brigade haven't got a solution to a one-sided situation where the hate speech spreader is not getting hammered for being a jerk. They only ever use those cases where the jerk got put in his place as examples.
This is why I always say: any philosophy predicated on a best case scenario is ultimately doomed to failure.
You're not ready to hope for the best till you're prepared for the worst.
On the post: Polish Government's Legal Challenge To EU Copyright Directive's Article 13/17 Remains Shrouded In Mystery, But Details May Not Matter
Re: Re: Re: What A Shame... That Poland takes the side of PIRATE
Indeed. I'm still waiting for the response to my question: how exactly does Article 13 protect creators?
I'm not going to get one.
On the post: Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech
Re: Public Access
LOL! Props to Kavanaugh for his opinion and judgement. I think he called it right.
On the post: Polish Government's Legal Challenge To EU Copyright Directive's Article 13/17 Remains Shrouded In Mystery, But Details May Not Matter
Re: Re: What A Shame...
I'm not, but then I was involved in the anti-ACTA movement where the people were involved. Nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union were more skeptical of its benefits than those that were not.
On the post: Polish Government's Legal Challenge To EU Copyright Directive's Article 13/17 Remains Shrouded In Mystery, But Details May Not Matter
Re: Re: Re: What A Shame... That Poland takes the side of PIRATE
Brussels doesn't rule the UK, it's a parliamentary democracy. That people don't engage en masse in the democratic process is the problem, so I can understand your confusion.
On the post: Polish Government's Legal Challenge To EU Copyright Directive's Article 13/17 Remains Shrouded In Mystery, But Details May Not Matter
Re: Re: What A Shame... That Poland takes the side of PIRATES.
Article 13 does nothing to defend creators. Nothing. Please feel free to explain exactly what it does in detail if you believe otherwise. I create cartoons and blog posts, etc. No protection under Article 13 for me!
Brexit is stalled while the EU waits for Britain to get its act together. While it's being ruled by a clown car pile-up, AKA the Tory party, they'll be kept waiting. Tories don't like reality much.
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: There's Nothing Inherently Suspicious About Running From The Police
Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on si
I see there's been no response to this. There's not going to be one, is there?
On the post: Dumbest 'Gotcha' Story Of The Week: Google, Genius And The Copying Of Licensed Lyrics
Everything Must Be Owned
In a world where everything must be owned, I daresay Genius will be using its apostrophe type choices to spell out "Red Handed" as the copyrighted item.
Butter the popcorn, people, this should be fun!
On the post: Polish Government's Legal Challenge To EU Copyright Directive's Article 13/17 Remains Shrouded In Mystery, But Details May Not Matter
What A Shame...
...that only the Polish government is standing up for its citizens. When are others going to join them?
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: There's Nothing Inherently Suspicious About Running From The Police
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = gui
^This.
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: There's Nothing Inherently Suspicious About Running From The Police
Re:
^This. The idea of taking on the gubmint with whatever firearms the law allows you to possess is intrinsically stupid. You can't win, the odds are against you.
The solution to unsatisfactory government is to engage politically. They're still afraid of being SOPA'd.
On the post: Appeals Court To Cops: There's Nothing Inherently Suspicious About Running From The Police
Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt on sight.
What, again with this? http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2016/02/come-revolution-good-luck-with-that.html
Seriously the epicness of the fail and stupidity in Big Harry's post is ridiculous!
Okay, fine, Big Harry. You let us know when the tyranny has reached peak awfulness and you and your Walmart machine gun are going to put it all right. I need some notice to get the popcorn in so I can watch you be declared a terrorist and taken down in real time.
On the post: Huawei Now Using Patent Claims To Demand $1 Billion From Verizon, As The US Tries To Chase Huawei Out Of The US Market
Re: And what we are talking about..
Read the Powell Memorandum. It explains all this crap.
On the post: Pepe The Frog Creator, Infowars Both Claim Victory After $15k Copyright Settlement
Re: Techdirt drinking the Koolaid?
A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it a reliable chronometer, does it?
Next >>