“Free-speech is killing us.” (But violent crime is lower than ever)

Posted by $ Solver 9 months, 1 week ago to Politics
6 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Another chicken little call based on a lie.

“In a New York Times op-ed headlined "Free Speech Is Killing Us," Marantz writes that "noxious speech is causing tangible harm." Citing the ideologically motivated killings in Charlottesville and El Paso, he warns that something must be done to prevent extremist speech from continuing to inspire violence.”

“Today the U.S. has greater protections for free speech and less violence. The Supreme Court has recognized increasingly fewer exceptions to the First Amendment over the last several decades. The result has not been an increase in violence: The violent crime rate has plummeted since the early 1990s.”


Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by exceller 9 months, 1 week ago
    "Or the private sector could pitch in on its own. Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly. Or he could replace Sheryl Sandberg with Susan Benesch, a human rights lawyer and an expert on how speech can lead to violence. Social media companies have shown how quickly they can act when under pressure. After every high-profile eruption of violence—Charlottesville, Christchurch and the like—tech companies have scrambled to ban inflammatory accounts, take down graphic videos, even rewrite their terms of service. Some of the most egregious actors, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, have been permanently banned from all major platforms."

    Now that would do a lot of good: replacing Sandberg at FB. Zucker will never go for it though.

    As the article alludes, this would take deep gov regulatory intervention which is never a good idea.

    I came across attempts to penalize hate speech. Who decides where to draw the line? A safe bet is that Islamic imams are spreading hatred by the landslide: start with them.

    Or better yet: are the democrats bone chilling hatred toward the president would qualify? I certainly think so. There is no limit to where they go.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 9 months, 1 week ago
      Why stop at just “hate speech?” Why not “hate expression.” How about those hate inducing collective based symbols activists wear representing the deaths of 100 million people.
      “Hate thought” also needs to be eliminated!”
      (To a growing number, this “logical” progression is not sarcasm)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by exceller 9 months, 1 week ago
        "Hate expression"...good term.

        There have been several incidents where someone walking on the street was shot b/c he/she made eye contact and the look was considered "disrespectful".

        Never look anyone in the eye when you walk on the street.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo