Angry New Yorker |
|
|
Semi-Daily Rants from New York City's Angry Man
"As I know more of mankind I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly."
- Dr. Samuel Johnson, Boswell, Life of Johnson, Sept. 1783
Archives
Public Interest National Interest National Review New Criterion Commentary First Things The New Atlantis Foreign Affairs Am. Enterprise Hudson Review Policy Review OpinionJournal-WSJ City Journal American Prowler NY Observer News Washington Post Wall Street Journal C.S.Monitor New York Times Washington Times Financial Times Int'l Hrld-Trb Fox News NY Sun Blogs Tacitus Instapundit The Diplomad Right Wing News Tim Blair Belmont Club Little Green Footballs Powerline Iraq Related Blogs Command Post - Iraq IRAQ NOW... Jason Van S. Sgt. Stryker Digital WarFighter Boots on Ground Healing Iraq U.S.S. Clueless Iraq The Model/a> Iraq & Iraqi's Iraq at a Glance Geopolitics/Defense DefenseLink Defend America Jane's Stratfor Global Security Strategy Page DefenseTech Ctr. for Security Policy Economics/Finance Poor and Stupid Institutional Economics The Capital Spectator The Knowledge Problem Economic Principals The Chicago School SSRN Misc. Federalist Society FindArticles Law Adams Drafting How Appealing The Volokh Conspiracy Cyberspace Lawyer Blog Oyez JOLT Digest Founders' Constitution Eric Goldman's Tech & Mktng Law Blog ScotusWiki |
Wednesday, July 01, 2020
Well 2020... what can you say? I'm sure we'd all like a do-over to reset the clock back to 1/1/2020. But there's been so much to be "angry" about ongoing in NY it's hard to know where to start... so we'll start with something outside of NY. Namely, the growing rise to "ban" people from social media for hate speech. The other day Reddit banned President Trump on the basis of violating their ToS prohibiting "hate speech". We disagree completely. Or rather we agree 100% - so long as we get to decide what hate speech is... :) That's the general position, really, isn't it? I'm in favor... so long as I can control it. I think there’s justifiable reason for concern. It used to be that preferred counter to speech one didn’t like was to encourage more speech in the “marketplace of ideas” but social media has turned the marketplace of ideas into an MMC fighting octagon where two men enter and one man leaves. We understand such entities as private operations can set their own policies, but “hate speech” has no Constitutional foundation. There is no such thing under First Amendment jurisprudence and the govt can’t ban “hate speech” - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ As a thought experiment if some other social media outlet said they were going to ban people who posted – purely for argument’s sake – Black Lives Matter-related posts (on the hook that such groups have been involved in toppling statutes) because it fell under their specific definition of “hate speech” what would the reaction be and who is in a position to say their definition of hate speech is wrong, regardless of whether one agreed or not? They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Many are urging us to take the onramp.
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
