[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

[Charlia]

The First Amendment applies in the constitution here.

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.

Mhm. To clarify further, this is a website made by an Australian. (If I'm remembering correctly. I'm pretty sure I am.) It wasn't made by an American. It isn't owned by an American. Nor is it run by an American. Therefore, the First Amendment really doesn't apply at all.


From the FAQ:

It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

[Gandoor]

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.

Mhm. To clarify further, this is a website made by an Australian. (If I'm remembering correctly. I'm pretty sure I am.) It wasn't made by an American. It isn't owned by an American. Nor is it run by an American. Therefore, the First Amendment really doesn't apply at all.

Also, even IF the above were true. the First Amendment means that the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you, a private establishment, such as this forum, can still censor you.

[Salandriagado]

The First Amendment applies in the constitution here.

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.

Also, it's not an organ of the government, so isn't bound by the first amendment. Also, the first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have your speech hosted by others.

[USS Monitor]

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.

Mhm. To clarify further, this is a website made by an Australian. (If I'm remembering correctly. I'm pretty sure I am.) It wasn't made by an American. It isn't owned by an American. Nor is it run by an American. Therefore, the First Amendment really doesn't apply at all.


From the FAQ:

It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

Yeah, Max is Australian, and it's a privately-owned website. 1st amendment doesn't guarantee the right to post on NS.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Why should we be tolerant of Nazis?

Why should we be tolerant of people who want to crack down on free speech? One minute it's "hate speech", the next it's all forms of dissent. Once you start, you can't stop.

Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

Not allowing neo Nazis a platform to spread their noxious views is as bad as advocating genocide?

Because the only thing the Nazis did was genocide, very smart!

Never said that. Although it was a rather significant part of their platform.

And clearly those definitions need to be expanded.

No they really do not.

So you think people should be able to call for mass murder of ethnic groups they feel are 'inferior'?

I can't tell if you're really this obtuse or if your just trolling. Minoa is clearly arguing for the rules to be amended to include hate speech.

I have mild dyslexia so calling me obtuse would fall under hate speech.

I have dyslexia too. It isn't an excuse for making fallacious arguments.

You want to incite hatred against minorities?

yeah vro thats exactly it you got me

Well it's funny people like you only care about freeze peach when it's neo nazis that are affected.

Can you not fucking read? They want to ban HATE SPEECH not disagreement.

Once they ban hate speech, they'll begin trying to ban all forms of political opposition.

Not letting edgelords post racist shit on forums will lead to Stalin-esque purges?

Translation: I want to be able to shitpost with impunity.

You know nothing about me yet here you are making claims like this.

That was in response to your 'translation' of Minoa's post. Can't take shit, don't fling it.

[Phydios]

Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.

Also, it is equally fallacious to assume that a slippery slope will not occur. If we start banning speech just because some people consider it hateful, where do we end? Everyone will be offended by something. The logical end of such a policy is banning all speech that offends the people in power. And since Max Barry wants stupid and extremist views to be brought into the open where they can be publicly ripped to shreds, rather than stay unharmed in the shadows, I don't think that NS will be prohibiting the nebulous category of "hate speech" anytime soon.

[Soyouso]

Um, guys? There's a number of Nazis and white nationalists on here who didn't get banned for being 'offensive'. NationStates hasn't gone on a purge of their accounts. They're allowed on here if they don't try to argue for genocide or break the other rules in a debate. Communists can have their views if they aren't advocating genocide as well, they're not being favored on here. Same goes for literally all other beliefs - if it's not calling for genocide or other harm or breaking other rules, you're allowed to debate for it. NationStates is actually being really fair to Nazis compared to many other sites.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.

Audioslavia disagrees.

Also, it is equally fallacious to assume that a slippery slope will not occur. If we start banning speech just because some people consider it hateful, where do we end? Everyone will be offended by something.

Again, banning calls for genocide and avocation of Nazism will not lead to mass censorship. You're being absurd.

The logical end of such a policy is banning all speech that offends the people in power.

Bullshit.

And since Max Barry wants stupid and extremist views to be brought into the open where they can be publicly ripped to shreds, rather than stay unharmed in the shadows, I don't think that NS will be prohibiting the nebulous category of "hate speech" anytime soon.

So you condone Nazis then?

[Phydios]

Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.

Audioslavia disagrees.

While finding sources from moderators to support my claim that advocating genocide is actionable, I found this thread, which jogged my memory of you. The replies to your thread still hold true. Here are two different moderators saying that advocating genocide is actionable:
viewtopic.php?p=31891903#p31891903
viewtopic.php?p=31892574#p31892574

As for your accusations that Audioslavia believes genocide to be okay and that I support Nazism, those won't be getting any further response. As Monitor said in the linked thread, there is a distinction between allowing and promoting. And as NERVUN said, "Discussion threads are to bring up topics for, well, discussion. They are not platforms for players to try and re-argue a ruling which they disagreed with. Let's make sure we stick to generalities, not specific rulings."

[Twilight Imperium]

So you condone Nazis then?

Yup, you caught us. By allowing people to speak more freely, we're just like the Nazis.

[USS Monitor]

Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.

Audioslavia disagrees.

This is referring to a specific ruling. The purpose of discussion threads is not to rehash individual rulings.

[Kennlind]

Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

And calling for genocide is on a whole other level than "hate speech."

So you think people should be able to call for mass murder of ethnic groups they feel are 'inferior'?

Call for it all they want. It's freedom of speech, let them hold views like that. We live in the 21st century, they'd be lucky to make it into elected office.

I have dyslexia too. It isn't an excuse for making fallacious arguments.

If you can't make a point without saying something uncivil, don't even bother trying to make your point?

Well it's funny people like you only care about freeze peach when it's neo nazis that are affected.

Really sad how much you take free speech for granted. I support free speech for EVERYONE. If you're trying to insinuate I'm a neo-nazi or sympathize with them, I REALLY recommend you read my signature.

That was in response to your 'translation' of Minoa's post. Can't take shit, don't fling it.

If you perceived it as shitposting then accept my apology.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Audioslavia disagrees.

While finding sources from moderators to support my claim that advocating genocide is actionable, I found this thread, which jogged my memory of you. The replies to your thread still hold true. Here are two different moderators saying that advocating genocide is actionable:
viewtopic.php?p=31891903#p31891903
viewtopic.php?p=31892574#p31892574

And yet they would not warn or reprimand Aelex for calling for the deliberate targeting of civilians..

As for your accusations that Audioslavia believes genocide to be okay and that I support Nazism, those won't be getting any further response.

If you don't then just say you don't. Unless of course...

As Monitor said in the linked thread, there is a distinction between allowing and promoting. And as NERVUN said, "Discussion threads are to bring up topics for, well, discussion. They are not platforms for players to try and re-argue a ruling which they disagreed with. Let's make sure we stick to generalities, not specific rulings."

Don't worry, I wont be question the Mods authority after this post. They already know I'm a heretic anyway.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

And calling for genocide is on a whole other level than "hate speech."

Hence why it shouldn't be allowed on NS

So you think people should be able to call for mass murder of ethnic groups they feel are 'inferior'?

Call for it all they want. It's freedom of speech, let them hold views like that. We live in the 21st century, they'd be lucky to make it into elected office.

The way things are going right now I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I have dyslexia too. It isn't an excuse for making fallacious arguments.

If you can't make a point without saying something uncivil, don't even bother trying to make your point?

Calling an argument fallacious is uncivil?

Well it's funny people like you only care about freeze peach when it's neo nazis that are affected.

Really sad how much you take free speech for granted. I support free speech for EVERYONE. If you're trying to insinuate I'm a neo-nazi or sympathize with them, I REALLY recommend you read my signature.

I just find it odd that you types only seem to defend alt right trolls and shitposters. Where were you freeze peach warriors when Kathy Griffin was attacked or when Trump attacked the Ceaser play?

That was in response to your 'translation' of Minoa's post. Can't take shit, don't fling it.

If you perceived it as shitposting then accept my apology.

I must admit. I was not expecting an apology. In spite of everything else, you get kudos from me for that.

[The Lone Alliance]

Don't worry, I wont be question the Mods authority after this post. They already know I'm a heretic anyway.

No you're just someone who can't tell the difference between War and genocide.

[Frisbeeteria]

We're going around in circles at this point, and I don't think I've seen any new arguments in a page or two.

If anyone has anything NEW to add to this (not a rebuttal of previously-rebutted posts), you've got a day to post. We'll post something modly and lock the thread at that time.

[USS Monitor]

I just find it odd that you types only seem to defend alt right trolls and shitposters. Where were you freeze peach warriors when Kathy Griffin was attacked or when Trump attacked the Ceaser play?

Those things didn't happen on NationStates, so they aren't relevant to our moderation policies. If it came up in NSG, I imagine some people would defend Kathy Griffin or the people who made the Caesar play.

[Minoa]

We're going around in circles at this point, and I don't think I've seen any new arguments in a page or two.

If anyone has anything NEW to add to this (not a rebuttal of previously-rebutted posts), you've got a day to post. We'll post something modly and lock the thread at that time.

In my opinion, the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech by name in the OSRS. Other than that I accept that my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good intentions. However, I am not impressed that some have taken to see it as a referendum on my beliefs on the forum, despite the fact that quite a lot of us in the UK see hate speech differently than the US.

[Frisbeeteria]

the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech in the OSRS.

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

[Varayusha]

I'm still waiting for Yortium Allanstan -- or, indeed, anyone -- to respond to my request for fixed goalposts that can actually be debated. And at the rate this thread is going, the lock will come in first.

[Minoa]

the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech in the OSRS.

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

Hi, I think I can wrap up the discussion now, which was highlighted by the phrase "my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good understandable intentions" in response to recent incidents regarding hate speech on the internet in general.

I take it that existing rules should be sufficient for dealing with hate speech at this time, and the consensus is that the forum rules are sufficient to deal with hate speech at this time, through other rules regarding trolling, flaming, etc.

-- Minoa.

[Ethel mermania]

the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech in the OSRS.

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

Good, thanKS.

[Ethel mermania]

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

Hi, I think I can wrap up the discussion now, which was highlighted by the phrase "my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good understandable intentions" in response to recent incidents regarding hate speech on the internet in general.

I take it that existing rules should be sufficient for dealing with hate speech at this time, and the consensus is that the forum rules are sufficient to deal with hate speech at this time, through other rules regarding trolling, flaming, etc.

-- Minoa.

Hopefully that is not the understanding. We are fine as it is, is the understanding. No additional rules or different interpretations are require on this site at this time.

[Minoa]

Hi, I think I can wrap up the discussion now, which was highlighted by the phrase "my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good understandable intentions" in response to recent incidents regarding hate speech on the internet in general.

I take it that existing rules should be sufficient for dealing with hate speech at this time, and the consensus is that the forum rules are sufficient to deal with hate speech at this time, through other rules regarding trolling, flaming, etc.

-- Minoa.

Hopefully that is not the understanding. We are fine as it is, is the understanding. No additional rules or different interpretations are require on this site at this time.

I had to write it in my own words to avoid plagiarising, but what you said is one way of saying what I am also trying to say.

[Kennlind]

Hence why it shouldn't be allowed on NS

I didn't say it should be...

The way things are going right now I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Golden Dawn are the most relevant fascist party in Europe and they received just 7% of the vote and 17/300 seats in the Hellenic Parliament.

Calling an argument fallacious is uncivil?

I was referring to you calling me obtuse and referring to what I said as shitposting.

I just find it odd that you types only seem to defend alt right trolls and shitposters. Where were you freeze peach warriors when Kathy Griffin was attacked or when Trump attacked the Ceaser play?

They both had the rights to do what they did??