Trump admin refuses to sign Christchurch pact to combat online extremism

Korigama

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,138
Of course, they would never condemn the very trash who adore this administration for being just like them.
 

Akira86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,518
at this point why are people even bothering to ask the Rump assmin to do anything?

just skip over them until 2020.
 

Mindwipe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,764
London
The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution.

Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
 

Isilia

Member
Mar 11, 2019
807
US: PA
The first amendment encompasses anything people please it to.

The wording of their statement says it all.
 

Bleu

Member
Sep 21, 2018
1,068
sounds logical.

The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution. Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
Bullshit.
It calls for no new laws, just read it.
https://www.christchurchcall.com/christchurch-call.pdf
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,244
The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution.

Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
It’s not vaguely worded. It doesn’t recommend anything beyond being support of voluntary industry(social media) standards and the government offering information on how to spot propaganda by extremists as well as sharing info about credible threats to other governments.
 

Landy828

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,242
Clemson, SC
The pact is very vaguely worded, has the potential to be widely abused by abusive governments, and calls for states to pass laws on speech online which have a pretty bad track record of success. And the White House is ultimately correct that they would not pass the US constitution.

Trump is a shitshow, but ultimately it is difficult to see how any American government could have signed the pact as is, ever.
Did you get this info from Fox News?

Newsflash, they're nothing but propaganda and lies. Just an FYI.
 

Idolvo

The Fallen
Jan 25, 2018
5,022
Of course Trump is refusing to sign this, he fucking endorses white supremacists.

Fuck Trump.
 

Mindwipe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,764
London
It’s not vaguely worded.
Lol not vaguely worded.

It doesn’t recommend anything beyond being support of voluntary industry(social media) standards and the government offering information on how to spot propaganda by extremists as well as sharing info about credible threats to other governments.
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".

So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
 

Freakzilla

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
4,630
Was it ever even proven that the attacker wansntone of those very fine people on both sides???

/s
 

Landy828

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,242
Clemson, SC
It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".
I'm fine with them "considering" measures. If things are done correctly, that "considering" would be well discussed and implemented.

(granted Trump would just ban anyone that is pro progress and good while hanging out with Racists....I mean "good people")

Not American. Heck, Fox News is banned in the UK.
I'd love to see it banned here.
 

Jag

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,629
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.
Oh dear lord. Holmes was staunchly anti First Amendment in Schenck and upheld the conviction of someone who used speech to protest conscription and US involvement in WWI

Please use Brandenburg v. Ohio in the future. It's just more constitutionally responsible.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. . . . A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.
This is the important bit to remember:
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
And fuck Trump to high hell for not supporting this because he knows his base is made up of these scumbags.
 

ImperatorPat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,457
USA
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.
That court case was overturned decades ago.

A reminder: “shouting fire in a crowded theater” at the time of that decision meant a presidential candidate advocating resistance to the military draft could be jailed. Those days are long past in the USA - that decision was overturned in 1969 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
 

Shadybiz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,856
Oh dear lord. Holmes was staunchly anti First Amendment in Schenck and upheld the conviction of someone who used speech to protest conscription and US involvement in WWI

Please use Brandenburg v. Ohio in the future. It's just more constitutionally responsible.



This is the important bit to remember:


And fuck Trump to high hell for not supporting this because he knows his base is made up of these scumbags.
Ah, thank you for that! I will indeed bookmark that one.
 

Lethologica

Member
Oct 27, 2017
838
Not surprising in the least since most of that admin came from that ilk. They aren't going to condemn their own family. Only others.
 

Dude Abides

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,168
Lol not vaguely worded.



It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".

So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
Bah gawd, someone might "consider" something "consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law" and then where will I be able to see PewDiePie pay people to say kill the Jews?!
 

riverfr0zen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,930
Manhattan, New York
Lol not vaguely worded.



It literally says governments will "consider regulatory or policy measures".

So non-vague you've missed critical points of it's text?
As others have said, it's "will consider" not "will implement". It may seem like just a stone throw away if you look at it purely logically, but you have to understand that there is a heavy distance between the two in reality because of how these types of things operate. Like, it would be a huge deal if the wording was changed from "consider" to "implement", a real historical moment.

Seems like this kind of hand-wringing for something that has not even fully started is kind of missing the forest for the trees, which at this point is to get a conversation started with everyone around this rising problem. We're being poorly served since now we don't have a voice in this movement.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,244
Apr 17, 2019
650
Viridia
This.... seems like something that warrants massive reactions from the US general public no? How's it looking over there?
My impression was that any mentions of terrorism should get a visceral reaction from Americans, at least way more than a 2 page thread on Era.

.....is it because it's the wrong skin color again in Christchurch?
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,052
Man that party is going to be something else... I see people running through the streets celebrating for a week straight. Only a matter of time.
 

bricewgilbert

Member
Oct 27, 2017
786
WA, USA
I've said it in every one of these threads but trusting the major tech companies to be able to responsibly censor without impacting the left is a fool's errand. Considering how big and integral to people's lives some of them are they barely register as private. Government probably wouldn't be great either in it's current form but I can imagine one where it was.
 

andymoogle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,150
Google signed this... Yeah, I don't believe for a second that they will ever give a shit about Nazis using their platforms unless it hurts them financially.