EFF: Silencing 'The Daily Stormer' Threatens Free Expression

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world."

Pretty much, and since Charlottesville, there's been a non-stop purging going on of sites that are alt-right or support free expression. Here's a list:

https://kek.gg/i/df29q.jpg

It's what TOR says about The Daily Stormer that really slays me, though. "We are disgusted, angered, and appalled by everything these racists stand for and do...But we can't build free and open source tools that protect journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary people around the world if we also control who uses those tools."

Their platform is used by terrorists, child-molesters, pedos, and all manner of criminals, yet it's the 'white nationalists' they speak up against while mealy-mouthing the rest. Priorities.
 
Of course a organization that has always had an all white board is gonna defend white supremacists.. There is no slippery slope here. These companies can set a hard line of not supporting literal nazis and violent white supremacists. I don't see the EFF making comments in support of ISIS having websites. Not one group defending these people would ever defend it if it was ISIS or any other group. Tells you all you need to know
 
In the US, our citizens have the constitutional right to be on the wrong side of society and to speak about it. Otherwise, no one gets to express themselves.

Essentially, our citizens have the right to be ignorant, to be bigots, and sociopaths of the highest order. Their ignorance and wrongheadedness is protected and they are allowed, under the right conditions, to express and demonstrate their ignorance.

They are allowed to have a voice. However, the most effective means to "quiet" them is to simply ignore them. Let them share their ignorance with each other. Soon, even they will tire of their own distorted and twisted message.
 
BOO. The site has content which is clearly in violation of the TOS. A private company can set whatever TOS they choose to adhere to. Freedom of speech means the GOVERNMENT can not silence you, but a private company has no responsibility to host any type of speech they disagree with.
 
As I said in the Cloudflare thread, some rules about discussing GRAPES have been temporarily stretched in threads like this because the topic itself is in the vineyard. That said, you all have very little leeway in proceeding. You've been given a little rope. Don't hang yourselves with it. First, last, and only warning
 
Freedom of Speech does not include a platform to speak from.
You have the right to express yourself and others have the right to contradict.
So one can expect to be shouted down or have others not be willing to listen to you.
None of the above is censorship.
 
As the article clearly states, EFF isn't talking about the LAW of freedom of expression, but the PRINCIPLE of it. As the Internet is a global thing, it doesn't adhere to just one nation's laws. They argue if the internet is supposed encapsulate the idea and principle of freedom of speech, then it's a bad precedent for a few of the big players to act like their word is law.
 
As usual the EFF is several steps beyond where I am on the issues that they focus on. That's probably where they should be as advocates.

I am also in total sympathy to a company or person who doesn't want to give a hateful racist a soapbox. I disagree that driving these idiots underground is helpful. I like them out in the open where their foolishness is apparent and easy to refute.

Unfortunately once a company acting as an internet service provider starts to regulate the content of their customers it will always be pressured to continue to do so. Many of the larger internet companies have taken steps that are repressive towards views that they don't support and are concerning.

The best solution is probably to have much more competition for these services so that no company is forced to host content that they do not want to and an individual company's refusal of service would not really restrict anyone's ability to communicate with others. (Also the broader market would benefit.)
 
"The Daily Stormer is a website devoted to the alt-right"

Come on...

These days, the media consider anyone who voted for Trump "alt-right", and by extension a Nazi.
 
Nazis have absolutely no rights. They gave them up when they decided that they are better than any one living being.
 
Andrew Anglin called a dead woman fat, and stated that he didn't care about her death. The Daily Stormer has been committed to non-violence for the 4+ years they were online. This was literally in their mission statement, forum rules and plastered all over other parts of their website. The comparisons to ISIS made by so many others are completely ignorant and utterly ridiculous. White advocacy, in no matter how vile, sick, or childish form it comes, is not terrorism, nor is it violent.

This has been a very sad week for the Internet. You people who are cheering this on are one day going to be victims too. The people of Silicon Valley who run these companies should not have this much power. No one should. This is going to backfire in a major way. Zuckerberg is going to run for President someday soon. Good luck opposing him when he and his buddies control the minds of the majority of the electorate. A couple of powerless, made-believe "neo-nazi" losers with too much free time have been made out to be evil geniuses while true evil is slowly taking over our world and building a hidden prison around us all.
 


I personally don't care about Nazis, as they're such a minuscule proportion of the population as to be, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. The only reason we ever hear about them is because they're given a disproportionate amount of airtime by the media.

Legally speaking, you're wrong, of course, as they have they have the same rights as you and me, despite how abhorrent they are.
 
Not only is this legally wrong, as pointed out, this type of thinking often backfires. If you're going to say Nazis have no rights, one could infer you are considering Nazis as inferior. If you're considering Nazis as inferior, then are you not in a way calling yourself superior to another living being? By your argument, doesn't that mean that you have just given up your rights?

This may be a fairly loose interpretation, granted, but this same downward spiral has captured countless people through the ages. Nearly every example of ethnic, cultural, or religious superiority in history started with one group calling out the crimes of another.


C'mon people. We're not discussing the value of Nazi ideology here. We're discussing the pros and cons about whether it's a good idea to the principle of free expression to completely shut off viewpoints you find abhorrent.
 
I'd like to thank Tom's for keeping the discussion civil.
I'm like most here. There are plenty of sites I consider morally wrong, along with the media cherry picking. The site in question is one of them.

But to set a Precedent like this will put us down a path that could be impossible to recover from. If at all!

If I don't like your policy, product, or show... I go someplace else, hold on to my wallet, and change the channel.
 
If it was that easy, Stormer would be up and running again, and not just on the dark web. When all avenues to the internet are controlled by private entities, then free speech really IS being stifled.

The point of this article is, where does it end? There was the guy in Germany demanding twitter do more to censor comments saying "they forced me to see this". As if he didn't have the option of not obsessively reading the comments.

What's scary here is anyone to the right of Antifa is considered a "Nazi" by some. So according to Ommidam, all you have to do is call someone a "Nazi" to silence them. Sounds like the Salem Witch Trials. I don't want my rights determined by a group of black masked Cultural Marxists. This is going to eventually lead to war if the left doesn't stop.
 


Sorry but the Constituion of the United States and the United Nation says otherwise. Whether they are 'vile human beings' or not, they still have a right to free speech in the real world. Even if they are portraying themselves are better than X race.
Remember the famous quote of "I might find your speech vile but I will fight and DIE for your right to say what you want to say!"
No group should be silenced no matter how vile. In fact the best thing to do would be to keep them in the public eye and allow their speech so we know what the hell they are doing!
 


Good point. I was going to bring that up but numerous people said "I was misstating the law" and "That is special because homosexuals are a protected class by our laws!"
Sorry but protected class or not, the Constitution says that the laws of the land have to be equally applied. Therefore under that decision that you brought up? Yes, CloudFlare and GoDaddy could be required to host for the Daily Stormer.
When I saw that decision in that case about the cake baker, my boss (defense attorney) and I went "Really? That opens a hell of a can of worms!"
 
You cannot deny service to a gay person for the same reason you cannot deny it to a black person or a woman, it is an inherent part of the person. Unless you want to argue racists are born that way, in which case you further validate the case for not discriminating against a person because they are gay.

The right wing media has pushed the story that liberals think all conservatives are nazis, I think Paul Ryan is ignorant and selfish but not a nazi, I think Jeff sessions is a racist and backwards but not a nazi. So don't try and say liberals are painting all the right as nazis, that idea has been painted by the right itself to manipulate and blind people like you. I can point you to plenty of conservatives "right of Antifa" who do not agree with Trump for a variety of reasons (Jennifer Rubin, Ana Navarro, Evan McMullin, etc..). They are true conservatives, unlike the ignorants and racists that have co-opted much of this so-called presidency so far.
 
This suppression seems like a really bad idea to me. If this flies, I could see something like the following occur:

Republican owner of an ISP informs all of his Democrat customers that they'll no longer be server on his ISP since he doesn't like their ideology.
 
I see no problem with that, almighty capitalism would take care of an ISP willing to exclude half or more of a customer base anyways. In many states you can fire or not hire based on political ideology.
 


Unfortunately, one of the actors here is Google. Not sure if straight capitalism applies.
 
The problem, as I see it, is oversight. Who makes the distinction of what is or is not hate speech? Is it completely left to the individuals in charge of the websites, without any rules or equality? The racists are disgusting, but isn't it equally disgusting for a US senator to say that she wishes the President of the United States to be assassinated? Whether you agree with the president's political agenda or not, that's very bad, and she's still there. Who makes the distinction?
 
If you believe in free speech then you have to respect the rights of everyones free speech.

That includes a private orginization exercising their free speech by deciding what their service can and cant be used for.

Trying to supress these crazy nazi scum is wrong. I STRONGLY disagree with their message, but i believe in free speech. I dont have the right to say they dont have the right to express themselves.

But saying a private business has to support them is also wrong. Then you are violating their free speech.

Tor's stance is the correct one. If they believe in everyone having open protected speech, then they would be wrong to silence one group, regardless of how sick and twisted they are. As long as that groups actions are legal that is.

Its a very grey area for google. They are just so massive, that it starts to transcend the exercise of their free speech when they try to control how speech is used on their platform. When you start to influence a massive chunk of the world with your platform, i beleive you have a duty to make it as open as possible. Even if that means allowing the nazi scum on it.

Mabye the line in the sand regarding a private companies rights to control how their platform should be used in regards to free speech should be if a company has public stock. If they have public stock, then they should have a duty to fully protect the full rights of the public, including free speech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom