Group supports censoring "hate speech"

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vermonter

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
416
"Racist blogs targeting minority groups in Australia are springing up on the web, but Google's Blogger, the service some are hosted on, refuses to take them offline, says an anti racism lobby group.

"Blogger is absolutely insensitive to complaints about racist and neo-Nazi content," said Brian Stokes, co-founder of FightDemBack!, a group that monitors the activities of racists, fascists and other such offenders operating in Australia and New Zealand.

Blogger, owned by Google, enables anyone to create a blog or online journal, and publish their thoughts online using internet space provided by Blogger.

Mr Stokes said his group had reported numerous discriminatory Blogger journals to Google, both through the "flag" button that appears on each blog and through an email form that Mr Stokes said was "buried in their site, very hard to find".

Mr Stokes said his appeals had fallen on deaf ears at Google. "



They're deleting things they don't want to hear, but it'd be hard to do if a lot of people go tell them how important free speech is.......

http://www.fightdemback.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=1
 
Tolerating hate speech is the price we pay for a free society. People have the right to state their opinions, and others have the right to decide if they agree - or want to listen in the first place.
 
01622.gif

Doesn't seem that far fetched. The Nazis were socialists too. National German Socialist Worker's Party.

The retards from the Democrat/socialist/communist left should remember that the next time they start calling anyone a 'nazi'.
 
A quote about the 1st Amendement from the website:

weezil (the author of the piece) said:
While Google won't shut down nazi slime like Weerdheym, he's still around to amuse us.

In his latest furious spew, pissing and moaning about this article in the SMH:

avoiceofsmegma wrote:
Exactly right - one good thing about the USA is the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech.


Australian nazis who think they have 1st Amendment rights are the living END. Laughing

Ol' smegma breath here hasn't worked out that you're not entitled to US 1st Amendment rights unless you're a US citizen if outside the USA and dealing with US law while expatriate, or if a non-citizen, located on US soil. Benny is neither.

Now, if Benny were posting tripe from an internet cafe in Hawaii, the rules would change... but Benny's still a nazi twat living in a cardboard box in Perth, trying to keep prospective employers from finding his name on the web... a game he's losing fast.
Click to expand...

Being Austrailian, he may not realize that the US Constitution does not grant right to US citizens, but rather protects the rights of all people. Even if he is not a citizen, the US government recognizes certain inalienable rights. Being a US company, Google can and should protect the rights of all its users.

If the Austrailian government wants to pass a law restricting the free speech of racists, that is their deal. When that day comes, the Aus police can go arrest all their rasists for violating the law, but Google will still have done nothing wrong.
 
Tolerating hate speech is the price we pay for a free society. People have the right to state their opinions, and others have the right to decide if they agree - or want to listen in the first place.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth! I don't want to hear what they have to say, I also don't have to hear what they have to say. Tis my right and choice. As long as I'm not restricted in expressing my opinions when the time comes, I say let them waste the bandwith.
 
If we dont support freedom of speech for those we dispise, we dont really support it at all.
Click to expand...
- Noam Chomsky

Honestly the KKK, Neo Nazis, West Bourogh Babtist Church, and the like disgust me. But I dont want to take away their rights. Picking and chosing who rights apply to leads to the edge of a slippery slope. I wish I could trust the government to fairly decide what bigoted hate groups to silence without trampling everybody elses rights, but then I wish I could trust the government in the first place.
 
Keep in mind that to many (especially those on the left) "Neo Nazi" = conservative, Republican, Libertarian and/or "pro gun".

Remember that the NRA supports gun "rights" because the proliferation of guns in society kills black people, gay people and "progressives".
 
Hate speech = what the left doesn't want to hear. Subversive speech = what hardcore right-wingers don't want to hear. Either way, its a form of silencing the opposition. I absolutely detest what plenty of people are saying. But there is a huge, uncrossable line between disliking a message and suppressing a message. Unfortunately, the hate speech crowd doesn't seem to understand that.
 
Being Austrailian, he may not realize that the US Constitution does not grant right to US citizens, but rather protects the rights of all people. Even if he is not a citizen, the US government recognizes certain inalienable rights. Being a US company, Google can and should protect the rights of all its users.
Click to expand...

Not any more due to our current President.
 
Mabey I should edit that to say "in theory, the US government recognizes certain inalienable rights.":rolleyes:

I know where they are comming from. When I was growing up here on the WA/ID border, the Aryan Nations were very active up in Hayden Lake (about 30mi). When I was in highschool they applied for a permit to march through town on Hitler's birthday (4/20) and the city council eventually accepted.
I was PISSED, I wanted to go to that march with a baseball bat anf bust some head. I thought, "these sick-o's are giving the whole region a bad name, there is no way they should be allowed to march."

It was latter that I learned what "Freedom" and "Tolerance" really means. Eventually the Aryan Nations got caught making threats and assualting some black people who live in the area and the NAACP and ACLU all sent up their lawyers and sued them for every penny they had. The compound was shut down and the Aryans in North Idaho were gone for good.

While it would have been great to prevent the AN from demonstrating, it would set an ugly precident. The little good it would do by suppressing hate speech in the short term could be vastly over-shadowed by the possibility of future abuses.
 
This site might qualify as 'neo-nazi' to some people. The Chomsky quote is very true. Carpediem's got a good post, too.
I don't see that some idiot's blog is an infringment on your rights, or anything to really concern yourself with. If you don't like it, you can either 1) debate with 'em or 2) ignore 'em. A lot of people get their kicks off of vitriol - and ignoring them can be devastating.
There must be a few hundred thousand blogs that I don't see eye-to-eye with. I just don't read 'em - be they Nazi, Communist, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian.

"Mr Stokes said that the owner of the Patriot Alliance Downunder blog was Ben Weerheym, convicted for being a getaway driver in a racist graffiti attack by neo-Nazi group Australian Nationalist Movement."
Getaway driver for graffiti artists? New one on me.
 
chomsky is not. He's the typical Jew hating, holocaust denying, socialist/communist, tyrant enabling leftist. In short he is the kind of person that prompted the framers to put the 2A into the Constitution in the first place.
 
Unfortunately, if we give the government the power to regulate hate-speech then that power will expand. So tolerating hate-speech is something we have to do if we want free speech at all.
 
chomsky is not. He's the typical Jew hating, holocaust denying, socialist/communist, tyrant enabling leftist. In short he is the kind of person that prompted the framers to put the 2A into the Constitution in the first place.
Click to expand...
Considering that Chomsky was born a Jew you may wish to revise the first two adjectives. Read this article.

From the article:
QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: My "agnosticism" is in print. I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. . .
Click to expand...
QUESTION: How would you account for that?

CHOMSKY: How would I account for it? I think partly that the Holocaust did have an effect. It brought out the horrifying consequences of anti-Semitism in a way that certainly is striking. I presume, I can't prove this, but there must be, at least I hope there is, a kind of guilt feeling involved, because the role of the United States during the Holocaust was awful, before and during. They didn't act to save Jews, and they could have in many respects. The role of the Zionist organization is not very pretty either. In the late 1940s there were plenty of displaced persons in the Jewish DP camps. Some survived. It remained awful, they stayed in the DP camps, in fact, for a while they were dying at almost the same rate they were under the Nazis. . .
Click to expand...
Can't comment on the last two, though. But I'm glad there is free speech for him, because if he isn't able to speak his mind, then why should I be allowed to?
 
I say let 'em rant. Most of the extremists just want attention anyhow. It's like the Nazis at gun shows. I shrug and say, "eh whatever". They're more or less 'social Nazis'. They all get together, talk about how great Hitler was, how the Holocaust 'never happened', how awesome the STG-44 was, then they go home and lead their lives (albeit a little more Nazi-ly) than the rest of us. I don't agree with their philosophy, but it's when you start suppressing these people's speech that they start getting wacky and blow stuff up. Let them vent, maybe they'll get sick of talking about Jews and Blacks and start a new hobby like knitting or tennis.
 
why are libbys so nazi-esque?

chomsky is not
Click to expand...

The only thing I could find on chumpsky and RKBA is he thought it was impossible to win a fight against a modern army ...so I guess he prefers we all just march quietly
into the camps.
 
I say let 'em rant. Most of the extremists just want attention anyhow. It's like the Nazis at gun shows. I shrug and say, "eh whatever". They're more or less 'social Nazis'. They all get together, talk about how great Hitler was, how the Holocaust 'never happened', how awesome the STG-44 was, then they go home and lead their lives (albeit a little more Nazi-ly) than the rest of us. I don't agree with their philosophy, but it's when you start suppressing these people's speech that they start getting wacky and blow stuff up. Let them vent, maybe they'll get sick of talking about Jews and Blacks and start a new hobby like knitting or tennis.
Click to expand...

LMAO :D I suddenly got this vision of some shaved headed guys sitting around in front of a fire place knitting swastika quilts :D
I know what you're talking about. Most self proclaimed neo-nazis are basically the WWII version of a Treky. Instead of dressing up as Klingons, they dress up like SS troopers. I think some people just get really bored in life. But hey, as long as they aren't infringing on my rights, I just don't care.

Hate Speech... What is Hate Speech. Hate Speech is a particular branch of "Politically Incorrect Speech" and Political Correctness is Thought Control.

If we were to allow congress to make laws preventing "Hate Speech" suddenly any social/political statement that isn't praising the government or echoing media induced pop culture ideology, would become "Hate Speech".

I hear that in some nations it is illegal to publicly deny the holocaust. And I know in some countries that you can be sued for publicly denying the holocaust on the grounds that you are minimizing the suffering of some Jew's ancestors, and thus have caused him emotional damage. But here's the funny thing about holocaust denial, there is denial, doubt, and skepticism. It's all denial.

What this mean is that you must say "all stories regarding the holocaust by all Jews are 100% true". If you say anything else, you're a holocaust denier. A true Holocaust denier would say "all holocaust stories by all Jews are completely untrue."

I, and any reasonable person would take the attitude that "Most holocaust stories, stated by most Jews, are mostly true". That, in many countries would be Hate Speech, and Holocaust denying (two separate laws).

So again, you invent a law that takes away someone’s right to say or believe something that might hurt someone else’s feelings and suddenly every thing you say suddenly falls into that Politically Incorrect, non-government approved speech.

Besides, if flat earth theorists can use the internet to try to convince people the earth is flat, and religious people can use the internet, television, and radio, to tell me there is this invisible man up in the sky, and his name is God…Then why can’t social misfits wearing swastikas tell me some really old historical event is less than true?

If you are not free to state your feelings and opinions, regardless of how unbelievable and stupid they are, than you are not a free man.

If you don’t want to hear about Christ; don’t go to church. If you don’t want to hear about guns; don’t go to a gun show. If you don’t want to hear about how evil non-white races are; don’t go to a clan meeting. Realize that people are going to have opinions that differ from yours; that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong, and it doesn’t necessarily make them bad. And remember, it is only human nature to believe all opinions outside of your own are wrong, and those who hold those opinions are stupid/evil.
 
Politically correct speech controls political speech.
Hate speech controls private speech.

I tolerate neither. I do not accept the validity of the two categories. You control speech or you don't. The meaning of hate depends upon who writes the definition which can and will change.
 
The only thing I could find on chumpsky and RKBA is he thought it was impossible to win a fight against a modern army ...so I guess he prefers we all just march quietly into the camps.
Click to expand...

Chomsky is an Anarcho-Syndicalist and thus believes that an organized, militant labor movement (in the U.S., for example, the Industrial Workers of the World) can overthrow the institutions of government and capitalism through their power as producers of the country's goods and services. He looks to the example of Spain from 1936-1939 when the CNT (an Anarchist labor union) and the FAI (an Anarchist political organization) held Barcelona and the surrounding area against Franco and the Fascists. During this time they developed anti-authoritarian social structures that were, of course, crushed when Franco took over.

Getting back to the original article, I find it odd that no one seems to have drawn a distinction between the public and private sector. The article didn't say that people were trying to get the government to stop this, it says that the pressure was on a private business, i.e. Google. In order to equate that with government censorship, you'd have to reject the right to private property to some degree. That is, you'd have to say that Google has a moral duty to use their property in a certain way, regardless of what they want to do. Judging by the number of Conservatives, Libertarians, and Objectivists here, I don't think that's somewhere y'all want to go.
 
the

only thing I could find on chumpsky and RKBA was that he was fatalistic.
I used to kind of like his stuff, when I was a young pot smoking punk rock anarchist.

I still am kind of an anarchist, but I vote conservative.

I looked up chumpsky and rkba and all he had to say was that we can't win.
(so we don't "need" guns)

To me, that is a poor excuse for letting the nazi's win and a poor excuse for not fighting back if attacked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top