Skip to comments.France's censorship demands to Twitter are more dangerous than 'hate speech'
Posted on 01/02/2013 4:09:36 PM PST by Theoria
Few ideas have done as much damage throughout history as empowering the government to criminalize opinions it dislikes
Writing in the Guardian today, Jason Farago praises France's women's rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, for demanding that Twitter help the French government criminalize ideas it dislikes. Decreeing that "hateful tweets are illegal", Farago excitingly explains how the French minister is going beyond mere prosecution for those who post such tweets and now "wants Twitter to take steps to help prosecute hate speech" by "reform[ing] the whole system by which Twitter operates", including her demand that the company "put in place alerts and security measures" to prevent tweets which French officials deem hateful. This, Farago argues, is fantastic, because - using the same argument employed by censors and tyrants of every age and every culture - new technology makes free speech far too dangerous to permit:
"If only this were still the 18th century! We can't delude ourselves any longer that free speech is the privilege of pure citizens in some perfect Enlightenment salon, where all sides of an argument are heard and the most noble view will naturally rise to the top. Speech now takes place in a digital mixing chamber, in which the most outrageous messages are instantly amplified, with sometimes violent effects . . .
"We keep thinking that the solution to bad speech is more speech. But even in the widest and most robust network, common sense and liberal-democratic moderation are not going to win the day, and it's foolhardy to imagine that, say, homophobic tweets are best mitigated with gay-friendly ones.
"Digital speech is new territory, and it calls for fresh thinking, not the mindless reapplication of centuries-out-of-date principles that equate a smartphone to a Gutenberg press.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
We’re pretty much in a race to see which Western county can disintegrate the fastest, aren’t we?
“”Digital speech is new territory, and it calls for fresh thinking, not the mindless reapplication of centuries-out-of-date principles that equate a smartphone to a Gutenberg press. “
Oh it should be interesting to see the response from the NYT.
“it’s foolhardy to imagine that, say, homophobic tweets are best mitigated with gay-friendly ones”
it’s faggotry to imagine that.
The French have the “surrender monopoly” already. Now they are going for the “intellectual corruption” award.
Well, the frogs voted in the George Orwell pigs and they are now in the process of getting a full-fledged marxist dictatorship.
I think that Hitler actually did win WW2 in many countries, though it was a delayed victory.
I’m starting to read Frederic Bastiat’s book “The Law”, written in the first half of the 1800’s. Mark Levin refers to this work as one that has to be read to understand what “law” should be.
I wonder if Hollande and his marxist political whores have ever read the best of the early French intellects on freedom and liberty? Apparently not!
Somebody needs to go door to door in that country and drag them out to the street and do something! The hair cut trick didn't work at all on these women.
You are correct, but I’m using MMXIII
on my checks. Let them try and stop me.
So what if the truth won’t win out in the free market of ideas? Only sophomores like Mill, ever thought they would, and though he remains popular I don’t think anyone believes him, really. It’s just that some version of the thought is buried deep within the enlightenment mindset, and like egalitarianism is simple enough to be both widely known and false.
Anyway, just becase the intellectual cream doesn’t rise to the top under lassiez faire, there is no reason to believe it would do any better under stricter state control. Have you ever met a government employee or read any writing produced by government? They aren’t any Voltaires (who wasn’t always or maybe even often right, but who can be read).
About outrageousness being amplified, it never made any sense that though the Internet is a cesspool and gentility is drowned out by genitalia, swearing, and comparisons to Hitler, its naysayers can’t recognize that people take it less seriously than real life. If you were to jump up and shout “eff you” in a boardroom, say, or rip off your clothes in front of a classroom of people, you’d lose your job, hurt your grades, and possibly be arrested. None of that is risked in a chatroom or on a forum, because it’s not as momentous a thing. Nobody much cars, and that is one of the good aspects of the Internet.
So because the “religion of peace” cuts throats, blows things up or riots in the streets, others should be censored?
So the problem is others, or the medium of communication, not those that are doing the bad things; and in fact we won’t even call out who they are, right?
The logic of socialists/liberals.
leftist totalitarians never change