Trump admin refuses to sign Christchurch pact to combat online extremism

OtherWorldly

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
2,857
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/15/white-house-will-not-sign-christchurch-pact-stamp-out-online-extremism-amid-free-speech-concerns/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.154fe6bc2fec



Pact led by the NZ prime minister to eliminate spread of hate online

The United States on Wednesday broke with 18 governments and top American tech firms by declining to endorse a New Zealand-led response to the live-streamed shootings at two Christchurch mosques, saying free-speech concerns prevented the White House from formally endorsing the largest campaign to date targeting extremism online.
The “Christchurch Call," unveiled at an international gathering in Paris, commits foreign countries and tech giants to be more vigilant about the spread of hate on social media. It reflects heightened global frustrations with the inability of Facebook, Google and Twitter to restrain hateful posts, photos and videos that have spawned real-world violence.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron organized the call to action, part of Ardern’s international plea this year for greater social-media accountability. Along with New Zealand and France, countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom endorsed the document, as did tech giants including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter.
“We’ve taken practical steps to try and stop what we experienced in Christchurch from happening again,” Ardern said in a statement.
America’s top tech giants celebrated the call — a voluntary effort, not full regulation — as an important step toward tackling one of the Web’s biggest challenges. Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter issued a joint statement saying “it is right that we come together, resolute in our commitment to ensure we are doing all we can to fight the hatred and extremism that lead to terrorist violence.”
But the White House opted against endorsing the call to action, and President Trump did not join world leaders and tech executives in attending the gathering in Paris. In a statement, U.S. officials said they stand “with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online,” and support the goals of the Christchurch call to action. But the White House still said it is “not currently in a position to join the endorsement.”
A day earlier, as negotiations progressed, White House officials raised concerns that the document might run afoul of the First Amendment.
It is so obvious his base is fuelled by this hate
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,771
His whole party runs on hate and rhetoric. Honestly, they need it to strive in order to keep their party going strong.
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,791
He denounce and reject endorsements from hate groups he said, while actually sticking up for them at every turn. Lies with his mouth, truthful to himself with his actions. Trump is a monster. The non racist people that voted for him (well they look the other way to racism especially by voting him in) just don't want to see it.
 

Dyle

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,381
Wisconsin
Well of course, the_donald is one of his most important voting blocks

On an unrelated note, the way they have those glasses of water on little plates in that picture is odd to me, they aren't saucers and they seem like a weird fit for coasters, since placing the glass back onto the plate would produce more noise and disruption during the meeting than if it was made of most other materials. Can't say I'm a fan
 

Deleted member 32374

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 10, 2017
8,458
'Stand with the movement and support'
'Can't endorse at this time'

Sometimes I think that people in the Admin confuse saying and doing to a dangerous degree. Just like with the Equal rights bill..... classic.
 
Nov 9, 2017
287
Potentially inhibiting his ability to spread misinformation and say baseless shit would hurt his chances in 2020 so of course this asshole won't endorse this
 
Oct 28, 2017
721
Dublin
It’s actually so funny how you can tell almost every time which decision this administration will take. Think of the right thing to do, and they do the exact opposite, guaranteed. Except for like two times in the whole Presidency.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,093
Free speech on a private platform? Nah. This fucking ghoul just likes White mass murderers. These are the types of voters he needs
 

RoninZ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
622
I hate trump and everything he stand for, but wouldn't this run against the 1 amendment like the story said? If they can do something against hate speech without going after the amendment? Or is just bullshit that the 1st amendment would be potentially affected?
 

Billfisto

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,460
Canada
Literally just a bunch of Captain Planet villains. Just a bunch of cartoon characters getting their rocks off on being evil for evil's sake.

Where is the beloved first lady btw? Haven’t heard much of her recently.
The last body double probably fell in the sinkhole out back, and they're now looking for a body double for the body double.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,932
To be fair, if this would to anything at all it might revoke the orange's access to twitter.
 

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
6,987
White supremacist administration refuses to sign pact battling white supremacy?

I'm shocked.
 

lunarworks

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,405
Toronto
"A day earlier, as negotiations progressed, White House officials raised concerns that the document might run afoul of the First Amendment."

The First and Second Amendments are ultimately gonna be the death of America, aren't they?
 

Shadybiz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,856
"A day earlier, as negotiations progressed, White House officials raised concerns that the document might run afoul of the First Amendment."

The First and Second Amendments are ultimately gonna be the death of America, aren't they?
I am certainly no Constitutional scholar, but I’m looking at my Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution here. Under the section for the 1st Amendment, it is noted that in a Supreme Court opinion in Schenck v United States (1919), Oliver Wendell Holmes contended that the guarantees of free speech do not extend to the right to shout “Fire in a theater” and causing a panic.

...It’s 100 years later, and think the same opinion should apply to extremism/hate speech. Except in this case, the shouting is about the threat of Muslims, minorities, etc., where there is none.

Edit: I have been given some good information on this by a coupla posters on the 2nd page here; that Schenck case reference is fairly outdated.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
2,379
he's received critical support from right wing extremists, so this is a case of shitty, but unsurprising behaviour.