• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Trump admin refuses to sign Christchurch pact to combat online extremism

Oct 25, 2017
1,368
London
#55
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.
 
Sep 21, 2018
426
#58
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
1,837
Seattle
#59
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.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,997
Clemson, SC
#62
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.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,368
London
#65
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?
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,997
Clemson, SC
#70
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.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,959
#71
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.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,425
USA
#74
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
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,771
#75
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.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,617
#78
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?!
 
#80
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
1,837
Seattle
#82
#86
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?
 
#97
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.