US Will Not Sign Christchurch Call Against Online Extremism (axios.com) 503
The U.S. will not sign onto the "Christchurch call to action" against online extremism expected to be released Wednesday, citing concerns that the pact would violate free speech protections in the First Amendment, the Washington Post reports. From a report: The document, negotiated by New Zealand and French officials as a commitment to study and stop the spread of online extremism that motivated the Christchurch mosque shootings earlier this year, is expected to be signed by Australia, Canada and the U.K., among others. It also has the support of major U.S. tech companies, including Facebook and Google, whose platforms were used to livestream and host videos of the attack.
Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe that could be determined if there was some sort of link to said accord. But that would require journalism.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of the problems in America are caused by radicalized people who see doing the right thing as a power-grab.
The denial of climate change comes from the same misguided people, and is caused by the same propagandists.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Interesting)
And sending em to the jail for speaking those things will just make the problem a hundred times worse.
The shooter himself was not your regular internet nazi, he was a man with the plan of making the countries do EXACTLY this shit to "accelerate the path to the disasters".
If anything, what you actually want to do is to defuse those people, see what they're actually saying and coming up with something that actually counters it, instead of just pointing at everyone and yelling nazi over and over again.
Re: (Score:3)
And sending em to the jail for speaking those things will just make the problem a hundred times worse.
The shooter himself was not your regular internet nazi, he was a man with the plan of making the countries do EXACTLY this shit to "accelerate the path to the disasters".
If that was his plan it was a dumb plan and fairly atypical for a terrorist.
What he (or a sane terrorist of his like) would have planned is to rile up other right wing extremists into similar attacks and to make Muslims feel unwelcome in "Western" nations and therefore slow Muslim immigration.
If anything, what you actually want to do is to defuse those people, see what they're actually saying and coming up with something that actually counters it, instead of just pointing at everyone and yelling nazi over and over again.
That's a terrible strategy.
You heard of Oxford-style debating [wikipedia.org]? Basically you take a vote before the debate, a vote after the debate, and the side who has gained more wins.
You know how to tell which side will win? The t
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice try, but suppressing video documenting an infamous crime is not the right thing to begin with, and theatening to imprison people over watching or distributing video is REALLY not the right thing. Not only is it wrong, but it's based on stupid magical thinking and it has almost nothing to do with addressing any real problem.
As for your point about people seeing things as power grabs, maybe that's because they ARE power grabs. If something has traditionally been considered OK, and somebody uses some event as an occasion to restrict that thing, that person is seeking to exercise power over others. That is a power grab to one degree or another. And in this case it's a silly one.
Now, if you want to talk about radicalizing people, I can't think of a very much better way to do it than to do things that make them nervous and look like power grabs to them, try to shut down all discussion of their perspective, and call them idiots.
So congratulations, you're doing a great job creating terrorists. And climate deniers. And making them into allies of one another.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the problems in America are caused by radicalized people who see doing the right thing as a power-grab.
"Doing the right thing" is the most poorly defined concept in all of history, and just as problematic.
Re: (Score:3)
The video has been classed as an "objectionable" publication, meaning watching it could carry a 10 year jail term
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who is the decision maker ? (Score:2, Insightful)
The usa has jailed people for viewing terrorism related stuff. You are just angry now because it is about white people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Also, I have read most of the manifesto (I am in the USA, no laws against that here).
My problem is is that if you take the manifesto at face value, NZ has fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The sponsor of this has been jailing people for simply viewing the video of the tragedy in their country.
The ultimate irony/hypocrisy being that the PM of NZ has herself admitted watching at least part of that video.
One set of rules for those who make the rules, another set for those who must simply obey. :-(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of t
Re: (Score:2)
America does limit speech, despite the 1st Amendment. There are laws governing access to certain media by age. Laws government the publication of state secrets. Laws governing copyright. Laws against true threats.
I have a question for you, because I'm not an expert on US law. Is there any legal issue with distributing a video of people getting murdered? In the EU it would violate the human rights of the deceased and their families. There are special circumstances where it's possible but would not have cover
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not American, but even I know that the First Amendment has never meant that (with the exception of establishment of religion) it has never been interpreted as saying that the government can't have an opinion on any topic, or that it can't counter misinformation through means such as education and awareness raising.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the person made quite a strong argument; tone was bad, and took quite a bit away, but the underlying logic is sound. It really doesn't get stronger than points in the UN Constitution. On the 4th, the US government can't actually take the pamphlets & sign boards of someone on a street corner protesting & asking for the overthrow of the government. Posting on the interwebs is no different.
The _government_ should NOT be doing any of that, nor should they be setting a precedent nor hint a leaning toward such ideologies by signing onto "resolutions". This is NOT the US Government's space. They are restricted from banning ideas & discussions, however bad, unless actual harm has already happened for that specific instance (ie: fire in a theater; no judge will jail you if no one got hurt, unlike jaywalking where you can still be in trouble even if no one got hurt).
Whether the government is currently doing some of that right now is irrelevant.
On the flip side, there is no problem with various private entities determining what is "extreme" & "violent" and curtailing or taking measures to suppress such ideologies. I understand that other governments and social systems think differently, but for the US, it is very "unAmerican".
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want Trump to start passing resolutions to lynch all the immigrants? "Hey, it's not a law, it's just a resolution. So who cares if it's illegal?"
"It violates the constitution" is a really rock solid argument. If you want the US to pass this resolution, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "so what if it's illegal? It's just a toothless resolution".
Re: (Score:3)
(Didn't mod, but I think I'm one of the clowns you're looking for.)
The only way my government knows how to do anything, is through laws. If private citizens vow to encourage education, I am not threatened by that. But my government never encourages anything, and I don't think 2019 is the year we do it for the very first time in history. They (and by "they" I mean "We") would do something stupid, overbearing and forceful. Really, We would. We still have DMCA on the books, over 20 years later, and you have f
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Particularly troubling is that as soon as we liable someone a terrorist we can do whatever we want to limit their ability to participate in society. Facebook, et al are private companies and can do as they like. They don’t need government sign-off to do this. If Facebook wants to consider you an evil person you can always use something else. When the government does it the consequences are much more extreme.
Even if someone wants to stand in the public square and tell people to join ISIS that’s their right. If I don’t like it then I can stand in the public square and tell everyone that ISIS are a bunch of goat fuckers. The solution to speech that I don’t like is never censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the US would be barred from doing many of those because of the 1st amendment. Not sure how vague fluff words negate that.
How do you get a "free and open internet" with "action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate ... content".
Are words violent? Is the christchurch shooter manifesto "violent extremist content"? Does that mean it should be illegal? Is someone I disagree with a violent extremest? Is antifa subject to the same scrutiny? They are labeled by the FBI as a terrorist orga
Re: (Score:3)
Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
This is a very clear contradiction. dissemination of terrorist content is protected by freedom of expression. Otherwise you could never get the Anarchist Cookbook.
Contradictory nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
> Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
What does that MEAN, though? Because the way it's being implemented is to jail people for watching a video. I haven't viewed that video and I don't want to, but I don't see how banning it is going to stop people from murdering each other. I don't think a
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't put the lie to anything, because China occasionally pays lip service to freedom of expression, but we all know better. Extremism doesn't just need to be protected, it is the main thing that needs to be protected, because one or another of your fundamental rights as a human beings will always be outside the Overton window at any given time.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you want to edumacate the terrorists and discourage graphic media reporting? That will cause ratings to drop, people to develop critical thinking skills, and the populace not to be constantly afraid!
I mean, impinge freedom of speech! Yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
The "Christchurch call to action" specifically states: "All action on this issue must be consistent with principles of a free, open and secure internet, without compromising human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression."
Please explain how you can determine one person's speech is "extremist" speech, and not freedom of expression. Would this only apply to neo-Nazis? How about "comedians" who post pictures holding decapitated heads of world leaders?
Basically, how do you provide freedom of expression that also limits the ability of someone to say offensive things?
I am glad our Government is not signing on to this; this is simply jumping on, with both feet, the slippery slope to restricted speech.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The never-ending sliding scale of the left.
What's normal speech now can be labeled as hate speech in 10 years.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "OK" hand signal (Horrible, awful, disgraceful) is now a "white supremacy" symbol. But only for certain groups. Other groups can flash it no problem.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see the White Supremacy groups adopt the Chicago Cubs Stylized "C" as a symbol (Caucasian), just to piss off everyone in Chicago.
The problem with silencing certain forms of speech is twofold. It can be gamed (see my example above), and substitute speech will replace the banned speech, leading to increasingly fewer forms of communication. Example, You really can't say "retard" any longer without people getting upset, however it was a perfectly good word before (and still is). But now, we can't use that word, so we start using new words ... like "special" (with air quotes).
The point being, those that think they are changing anything are only fooling themselves. Speech needs to be free from interference. Even speech we don't like, which is the kind that needs the most protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfettered freedom of speech can also be gamed, as Facebook has routinely demonstrated. So, we need a third option.
Re: (Score:3)
> You really can't say "retard" any longer without people getting upset,
That's fucking retarded.
Didn't South Park make fun of this stupidity in S19E8?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It even goes beyond just what is spoken. For example, David Webb [politicon.com] is a nationally syndicated conservative radio commentator. He was called out by CNN's Areva Martin [arevamartin.com] about his white privilege [usatoday.com], because he was taking the conservative stance. Never mind that Webb is black.
Now what a person says automatically creates a biased image in their mind. Only "white men" can be conservative... And thus, to shut down "white supremacy" you just need to shut down conservative discussion and opinions. Because - white privilege, even if you're black.
Re: (Score:2)
The "OK" hand signal (Horrible, awful, disgraceful) is now a "white supremacy" symbol. But only for certain groups. Other groups can flash it no problem.
It's been a while since I dove but I do wonder if every SCUBA diver ever is now considered a racist, as the OK sign in several variations is part of the standard means we communicate status and intent. (https://www.sportdiver.com/scuba-diving-hand-signals-every-diver-should-know)
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:4, Informative)
The OK hand signal is used unironically by white supremacists. That means two things:
- If someone uses that symbol in a context where it would seem to suggest support for white supremacy, they are probably a white supremacist. Or, at the very least, a 4chan edgelord.
- If there is any danger of you being mistaken for a white supremacist, maybe because you are hanging around other white supremacists for some reason or because of the things you say, it's probably best to avoid making that gesture.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech, everything to do with idiots and actual white supremacists.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently racists do not like having their cover blown, how is that working out for you?
I agree, he is likely communist sympathizer, especially with a handle like that it is telling.
Re: (Score:2)
Separate space for every race.
On US college campuses it's not the people with a European ancestry demanding racial segregation. The rainbow flag is clearly in support of racial segregation whoever is demanding it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok when non-whites want segregation. What are you a racist?
Re: (Score:3)
Is my post hate speech? Satire? The bullshit term "Troll"
Trolling. In exactly the sense of the word that led Slashdot to offer it as a moderation option.
You could have made the same point without being a cunt.
(If it helps, this is flaming)
Easy algorithm (Score:2, Interesting)
If the speech advocates violence against others because of their beliefs and not their actions, then it's hate speech.
For example, hating all Jews because of some fairy tales and advocating their extermination, is hate speech.
On the other hand, calling for other Palestinians to fight Israel's apartheid policies and their excessive use of force and their tendency to steal land from Palestinians and justify it because of "security", then that's a call to defend the downtrodden and those who are themselves be
Not so easy (Score:2)
If the speech advocates violence against others because of their beliefs and not their actions, then it's hate speech.
So what if someone were to advocate arresting and jailing (which is technically a form of violence) people up who believe that western civilization should be destroyed and its citizens killed? I might disagree with that statement on the grounds of freedom of conscious (providing this was only a belief and there were no actions taken against us in the west) but I would never regard this idea as "hate speech".
That's the problem with laws against hate speech. They are designed to target truly vile individu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I understand now.
Really? Why didn't you demonstrate that understanding in the rest of your post then?
At no point did the person to whom you replied suggest, recommend or support gassing anybody, whatever their head gear.
It is actually possible to both criticise Israel for its illegal actions in the illegally occupied territories and also reject genocide.
Try it, you might find it enlightens you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why ban speech, that already exists, take it to court and ban it there, each and every time.
Just make social media sites and the corporations behind them criminally and civilly liable for the work they publish on a for profit basis. Simply declare real name social media platforms legal liable as 'PUBLISHERS' of that content. Do that, and they will become a whole lot more careful.
This could be claimed to curtail free speech but pseudonym sites could remain as inherently with an imaginary name, an imaginar
Re: (Score:2)
The US leads the world in online growth because it protects web sites from being liable for things customers post.
A senator proposed what you suggested, and his reason can be summarized as facebook "doesn't hide what the government wants them to hide", so the government will take away their safe protections.
This is government censorship, when laws are motivated by politicians twisting the arms of citizens to adhere to speech codes. The SC has overturned seemingly constitutional laws before when it discover
Re: (Score:2)
Hugh Mongous is an absolute mad lad.
Re:Who is the decision maker ? (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the actual cal https://www.christchurchcall.c... [christchurchcall.com] then you will see that they do not say that anything should be banned that is not already so.
Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
So they are not forcing any governments to ban stuff, just that each country actually applies the laws, on the Internet, that they already have. Nothing more.
Doesn't sound like anyone is (Score:2)
So far the only real action I could find is facebook is banning streamers for 30 days after 1 infraction. The only trouble I see with this is abuse. A YouTube I like, Cult of Dusty, lost his Facebook & Twitter accounts to anti-SJW trolls after he pushed back on the YouTube atheist community's shift in that direction (seriously, 2/3rds of t
Re: (Score:2)
The people do not decide. The politicians find rage points and ban speech in an ever-growing pool of topics.
How well did allowing politicians to ride to power over censorship rage points work out for Europe last century?
We have no historical evidence for long-term survival of free countries. They tend to fail by authorizing "emergency" powers that are then never given back. Because The Peoole demanded it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at almost all the social media companies. They all either shadowban you or outright ban you. A recent example is a Christian stating the obvious with his beliefs. The post had nothing hateful or bigoted about it, but he was banned. Yet, the muslim social media biggies constantly call for the death of Jews, homosexuals, etc. and there is zero backlash. Ever wonder why a muslim bakery is never approached by homosexuals wanting a cake baked? It would likely not end well for them.
Re: (Score:2)
This being Texas, you see all manner of things flying from people's houses, windows, garages, flagpoles
bullets normally, right? :)
But seriously, how did you wind up with a HOA?
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech needs to stay free. Regardless of one nut.
good (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd argue that plenty of mainstream speech is even deadlier extremist speech, for example in the USA our government and media spread propaganda to attack those that didn't attack us, destabilize governments, support oppressive regimes, etc.
Worse by far than most "hate" speech in terms of body count of innocents and those maimed or put into destitution.
Re:You think we don't know you're a nazi? Lol? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the pretzel logic in the world cannot hide that the Christchurch terrorist and quite a number of US terrorists were the product of the rightwing extremist bubble on the internet. Yes, we should be careful, but it was correct to go after Islamic terrorist propaganda, and it is just as correct to go after rightwing terrorist propaganda.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
false, Christchurch terrorist self-radicalized, came to hate islam and THEN started to contribute and engage with various groups
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
International accords are often international conglomerate power-grabs.
Some of you folks in Europe can relate, it's like one day you went to bed in your own country and woke up in the EU......
More or less a trade agreement right?
Re: (Score:2)
The other 8 however.....
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the text:
https://www.christchurchcall.com/call.html
Here's some of the stuff it means if a government signs on:
"Accelerate research into and development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels, drawing on expertise from academia, researchers, and civil society."
Is this something you want the federal government doing?
How about:
"Develop effective interventions, based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes, to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content."
There's a bunch of stuff there about "terrorist and violent extremist content", but obviously no legal definition.
There's also a bunch of conditions whose only interpretation is "governments will fund giant technocracies to develop... stuff".
Give credit where due (Score:4, Insightful)
I also think slashdot handles this better than any other site I have used - allowing anonymous commenting, leaving offensive posts up, but requiring you to push a button to see them.
I disagree because it's specific and does nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Originally, I was on your side but after actually reading what they would be agreeing to, [christchurchcall.com] I disagree that it would infringe on free speech because it explicitly states it would be for shoring up, "terrorist and violent extremist content". You may claim that is vague but in fact it has some very specific legal definitions per the FBI and DHS.
Additionally, had the White House agreed, there would be no additional action by the government beyond encouraging companies to keep things in check which is arguably f
Re:I disagree because it's specific and does nothi (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell me who gets to determine what is and isn't violent and extremist content? Today people are being called Nazis for having the same political opinions they had half a decade ago. You can't make legally binding agreements on such loose wording. The agreement in effect gives the signatories a blank check to censor anything they deem extremist.
Re: (Score:2)
What this really boils down to is the current US President doesn't want to take any actions that may upset his supporters.
Really?
Have you noticed what Twitter and Facebook and Google and Apple have been doing to Conservative accounts they don't agree with recently?
It ALL boils down to, if this legislation were agreed to, who decides what speech is okay and what isn't okay. And that in any context is unacceptable.
Re:I disagree because it's specific and does nothi (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is that on many campuses today the concept that words are violence has started to gain credibility.
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
By redefining violence to include speech with which you disagree you effectively give free reign to censor anything. While I'm certainly opposed to things like 'beat that guy up', the term has been redefined to include hate or offensive speech. With hate speech having become a dog whistle for right of center speech your effectively giving someone the right to shut down a large portion of the populations free speech rights. That's the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." --Desmond Tutu [wikiquote.org]
Stay classy, America!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you were just a libertarian who voted liberally? To some, Free speech is only important when you are the underdog trying to get your voice heard. Once you feel you're the majority its time to quash and oppress anyone who contradicts or disagree's with you. This is the basis of fascism, but don't tell them that, they think being part of a group labeled ANTIFA makes them exempt from behaving fasciously. There has been quite the power-grab lately with all abandon to the 'principle's claimed to value. New
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not libertarian, because there are too many problems that can't be solved without coordinated action. However, I basically agree in that I've realized most of what passes for liberalism is not people fighting for common sacrifice for greater c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know when liberals abandoned the principle of free speech and conservatives embraced it,
Both of them have. They just both want to censor something different.
It changes every 5 minutes. I have friends on both sides of the spectrum, and they all seem to want to censor someone. My right-ish family wants to FaceBook to censor ISIS terrorist propoganda, celebrities who take a knee at football games, and I forget what the most recent example was. My left-ish friends want to censor anything that they think is too violent, like the videos of the Christchurch killing. I forget which side wanted to
Liberals didn't (Score:3)
The right wing has a very large, very well funded media apparatus whose job is to make their constituents feel like they're under continuous attack. Once somebody believes they're under attack you can talk them into damn near anything if you offer to protect them.
Take a look at who actually runs the gov't and you'll find it's overwhelmingly right wing, especially where it matters like in Economics. For example, the same Goldman Sachs folks have been running our Treasury and setting economic
Re:Give credit where due (Score:5, Insightful)
Direct and immediate threats or imploring to violence. That's a far cry from generic hate speech.
Remember the purpose of the First Amendment isn't that there is some great value in every last word some jackass barfs out. The real value is in denying the government one of the tools of tyrrany: censorship.
Re:Give credit where due (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it's quite that simple. The left wing embraced free speech when it was their speech being attacked by the religious right (see Larry Flynt and Lenny Bruce for good examples of this). The right wing embraced free speech when it when the far left identity-politics millennials started attacking them.
It's an odd reversal. But it shows that truly embracing free speech, instead of just only wanting what YOUR SIDE wants is a political position itself.
As always, this isn't a left vs right issue. Those against free speech then and now are the extremists. Right wing religious whackos and televangelists never represented the mainstream right. Antifa using violence to deplatform right-wing speakers do not represent the mainstream left. These are people consumed by their ideologies,
It's a good thing to have an idea. It's a very bad thing when an idea has you.
This is why the First Amendment is so important to freedom. We don't want the assholes from either side deciding what counts as "extremist hate speech that much be banned".
Yep ... USA should never sign such things.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Our rules for free speech and free press stem from documents put together long ago ... our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Most countries in the world have their own standards which are typically far less forgiving than ours, but I find we've already made plenty of exceptions for speech that's deemed a risk of causing physical harm to others (the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in crowded theaters and so on).
We're good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots have been telling me that my whole life. "You'll think differently when you grow up.". "You'll think differently when you have to work for a living.". "You'll think differently when you have children.". And no, I never have.
Our classic depiction of Lady Justice depicts her holding the scales while wearing blindfold, because justice (and the law behind it) should not be based on emotional decisions, but on logic. It's sad to see so many people that not only don't understand this, but try to specif
US gov cannot act absent incitement to violence (Score:3)
Right... (Score:2)
How to solve all these issues... (Score:2)
Lets all become homeless and unemployed.... there lowest common denominator solution across the board. Now isn't that better than the widdeling down slowly to get to the point called despotism?
Don't fool yourself (Score:2, Troll)
If this accord had specific language about "muslim extremism", Trump would approve that shit in a heartbeat.
He's afraid that if he does anything to slow down the bloodthirsty white supremacist domestic terror groups that it would shrink his base.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US signing would be the US government signing those rights away. The agreement hasn't been finished yet and nobody knows yet what it says so preliminary signing something you can't read isn't a good idea. It has input from Google and Facebook and a bunch of single-issue organizations, that alone should tell you nothing good will come from it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad world where the idea of free speech is treated as a joke. Politics is downstream from culture and it sounds like you are promoting a culture that has absolute disdain for free speech. I am surprised you didn't throw in a freeze peach at least once.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice misquote. He made it clear in that interview that he was not referring to neo-Nazis or white supremacists (or what he referred to as the alt-left) in that group of 'good people'.
Trump says enough daft things that you really should stop damaging your credibility by failing to understand what he does say.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the law gets used to silence all criticism of mainstream politicians - like Tlaib and Omar keep claiming Islamophobia whenever you quote them directly.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Out of what 7-8 billion people on earth how many of them will actually see it?
Documentation of crimes has been happening since the beginning of mankind.
It is happening today and it will happen tomorrow.
Just because a person doesn't understand that doesn't mean some dweeb should be given free reign over what I say or do.
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming... You mean like live fucking TV? I was scouring around for webcams of NYC after the first plane hit, and they were all jammed or outright gone, but I was sure as hell able to see the second plane hit the tower live, without Mark Zuckerberg's drones deciding whether it was "objectionable content."
Re:The Kiwi Solution is Pure Cowardice (Score:4, Insightful)
Those are some fun assertions, but you aren't backing them up with evidence.
Here's a fact that you might draw an assertion from, rather than just making them up from thin air: In 2016, there were approximately 21.7 homicides committed in the US per million people. The same statistic for Canada is 3.5.
Why does the US produce more than six times as many hand gun homicides per-capita? How much of this difference is due to gun control, social support programs, and just a different way of thinking about violence?
As a gun-owning Canadian, I honestly don't feel that the controls on my ownership and use are onerous compared to my reduced threat of harm from gun violence. Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it's funny, but your argument is entirely false. MOST mass shooters and terrorists buy their guns legally and easily, even within a short time period before their actions. Very few fabricate their weapons if any, statistically.
So the idea that cracking down on easily-obtained high-caliber/capacity weapons is somehow not going to affect these home-radicalized nutters is already false.
I will say that, as an owner of multiple firearms who thinks US gun control laws are horribly relaxed, the latest announcement from Harris that, should she be elected president, she would issue an executive order making the importation of AR-15 style firearms illegal made me laugh. She (and no one in her campaign) apparently doesn't realize that the vast majority of them are produced domestically. There are too many people on the left in the "guns r scary" crowd to make actual, effective proposals on gun
Re:Seven Spirals has never shot anyone, he's a fag (Score:4, Informative)
The AR15 isn't deadlier than other guns out there, it is just one of many, many semi auto rifles available. It is popular for a few reasons: it looks badass if you are into that sort of thing (the term is "an iconic firearm"). But most importantly it is a standardized and highly modular design, with parts being compatible between brands and available from many 3rd party manufacturers. Every part of the gun can be swapped out and replaced without special tools or skills (you'll need the barrel wrench which can be had for a couple €), so you can start with an inexpensive basic firearm and pimp it to your taste or fine-tune it to suit your particular need, at a relatively low cost. Easy to see why it's popular.
Banning it will achieve exactly nothing. People - including those intent on doing harm - will simply switch to a different rifle, probably less "scary" in appearance but exactly as deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
I will say that, as an owner of multiple firearms who thinks US gun control laws are horribly relaxed, the latest announcement from Harris that, should she be elected president, she would issue an executive order making the importation of AR-15 style firearms illegal made me laugh. She (and no one in her campaign) apparently doesn't realize that the vast majority of them are produced domestically.
So what, you're saying is that she's going to take steps to reduce gun violence and support domestic manufacturing?
Re: (Score:2)
So what, you're saying is that she's going to take steps to reduce gun violence and support domestic manufacturing?
Actually, the best thing for increased domestic production of AR style rifles is to have a Democratic president. The market got flooded towards the end of Obama's presidency-especially after Trump was elected- and the prices dropped to about 1/3 of what they were even 5 years ago. A Democrat wins in 2020 and I guarantee you you will see a spike in both prices and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
She (and no one in her campaign) apparently doesn't realize that the vast majority of them are produced domestically.
She probably does realize, that's why it's effective. She can make her base feel good without actually doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to ask permission, it's not a right. The 2nd amendment is clear. And our current laws are in DEEP violation of it, but no one has the balls to say it... because "guns r scary". I do, and will continue to say it. And I'll vote any asshole out who tries to take my right away. End of story.
And I'll vote any asshole (let's be honest, you have to be an asshole to be a politician) in that realizes that with rights come a duty to exercise those rights responsibly, which apparently a lot of Americans are unable to do so on their own. So I guess I cancel you out.
Re: (Score:2)
NRA Fairy tales people. Fairy tales. Propaganda parent left out the shooter at a FUCKING MILITARY BASE! . "Soft target" my fucking ass - parent is an idiot. [wikipedia.org]
To be fair, military bases on US soil are actually soft targets. Besides some MPs, gate guards, and guards around some restricted facilities no one is really walking around with a gun. You're more likely to run into someone armed at the mall than you are at a military base, and a lot of them are so big it would probably take 5-10 minutes just for armed security to get there-in the recent Colorado school shooting the first cop was there in 2.
Re: (Score:2)
The first is to raise the barrier to access firearms. That's something as simple as mandatory training for firearm owners covering firearm laws, firearm safety, safe storage practices, and basic handling and proficiency/marksmanship.
Some of the more recent school shootings were people who essentially stole the guns from legal owners. Once again, people who are bound and determined to commit heinous crimes don't care about the rules and regulations. It also does nothing to curb the vast majority of gun deaths which stem more from gang problems than anything to do with guns themselves. Also, do you require mandatory training for any of your other rights; no free speech or free press for you unless you take a class first?
Personally I t
Re: (Score:3)
The first is to raise the barrier to access firearms. That's something as simple as mandatory training for firearm owners covering firearm laws, firearm safety, safe storage practices, and basic handling and proficiency/marksmanship.
Some of the more recent school shootings were people who essentially stole the guns from legal owners.
So, someone somewhere was storing their firearms incorrectly or inappropriately. This is why education is important. Keep firearms locked up, keep ammunition separate from firearms, etc. Basic safe practices that keep firearms from people who shouldn't have them and, as I said, would help prevent a significant number of accidental firearm deaths as well. Perfect is the enemy of good, and firearm regulation is one place where even incremental improvements can make a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, et. al. have ZERO legal obligation to provide you with a platform for your message
Some people think that might have to change. As agent Smith said: "What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak?", you should ask yourself what good free speech is if you are unable to make yourself heard? Until recently that wasn't much of an issue. 50 years ago, regular people all enjoyed the same access to publish on news platforms as everyone else: pretty much none. A few decades ago the playing field was leveled, where anyone with access to a computer could get their opinion heard equally.