The reaction to her social media "regulation" comments was as bad than her imprecise comments. But that's not her real sin. She sounded like a Democrat.
First, I’m leery of any person or organization deciding what constitutes “intimidation, threats, incitement”, etc. The whole notion of “hate speech” is offensive, as it is necessarily not well defined; it’s purely subjective. As such, I would oppose any limits on public speech. Quite frankly, if a reader can’t tell the difference between “we should kill ___” and “I hate ___”, for instance, that reader should probably settle for romantic fiction instead. People can spout their hatred or ignorance all they like; those with more sense can ignore, correct, or expose them, but not shut them up.
Second, it makes no difference whether anyone writes anonymously; the point is to address the substance, not the author. Remember, even authors of legitimate, reasonable arguments can face recriminations and worse for expressing the “wrong” opinions, as determined by ... well, whom, exactly? Merrick Garland?
Third, requiring media platforms to monitor and perhaps censor speech turns them into enforcement agencies. Worse, untrained enforcement agencies — who directs them, who decides the procedures to be followed? Indirectly, some government entity is ordering them to do the dirty work of spying on and silencing citizens. That’s totally unacceptable in a supposedly free, constitutional republic with balanced, divided powers, and should be resisted with all our might.
Last, no legal regimen will ever guard effectively against vitriol, porn, or media fostered child abuse. Same as with predatory financial schemes — a scam is exposed, Congress acts, eventually, but by that time a new class of scammers has figured out new ways to cheat not covered by whatever the new rules are, while ordinary, legitimate businesses labor under a heavier burden of regulations. It’s nuts; delusional! Accept reality: only we ourselves are our own best guardians; nobody else has our interests at heart to the degree we do. Let the buyer beware!
Inside every rule-making do-gooder is a tyrant itching to impose his or her priorities on the rest of us. Don’t let them!
As an aside, I found that poll excerpt frustratingly misleading when it asked about “non-citizens”. Legal immigrants aren’t citizens, but have, and are certainly entitled to, the same protections as US citizens. The distinction isn’t whether or not they’re citizens, but whether or not they have a right to be here in the first place. Illegal aliens (they’re not “immigrants”; immigration is a legal process), by definition, don’t; they’re invaders, and have no rights whatsoever. The question was poorly worded, perhaps intentionally, to elicit a desired response. Ignore those replies.
Terms like "incitement" and "intimidation," among others, are legal terms of art. Courts can and frequently do ultimately determine whether lines have been crossed, but I would agree that social media companies aren't very good at it.
We'll see if the courts are much better. The January 6th fiasco tells me they're even worse. And any legal system that allows Antifa & BLM thugs to destroy federal buildings, burn infrastructure, beat up and kill people, while jailing for two years or more, without trial, people who may have done nothing worse than trespass, with permission of the constabulary meant to prevent that, is a sham.
For the record: Donald J Trump's speech that day could not reasonably be interpreted as "incitement". So we'll see if the courts grow any brains. And will they compensate those illegally held without trial? I'm not holding my breath. That series of events did a lot to undermine my faith in our legal system, as we have abandoned the Constitution. Then came the unconstitutional lockdowns, closures, and mandates, all smacking of totalitarian regimes, undermining that faith even more. But we're supposed to worry about what some idiot posts on line?
Meanwhile, elections may have been stolen, but we're not allowed to know whether the blatant cheating and legal violations changed the outcomes. In part because the Stupid Party thinks it was only about Trump, whom they loathe, so they've done nothing meaningful to prevent the next steal. And in larger part because the entire political establishment, including judges and media, have essentially prohibited any discussion of that question while refusing to consider evidence.
So I don't want to hear about legal definitions of "incitement" or "insurrection", or "threats" -- those have become partisan political labels of convenience.
At some point, there may be a real insurrection. I fervently hope not, as it won't be pleasant, nor will it resemble the mostly peaceful demonstration of January 6, 2021.
As Mr Johnston says, lots to digest here.
First, I’m leery of any person or organization deciding what constitutes “intimidation, threats, incitement”, etc. The whole notion of “hate speech” is offensive, as it is necessarily not well defined; it’s purely subjective. As such, I would oppose any limits on public speech. Quite frankly, if a reader can’t tell the difference between “we should kill ___” and “I hate ___”, for instance, that reader should probably settle for romantic fiction instead. People can spout their hatred or ignorance all they like; those with more sense can ignore, correct, or expose them, but not shut them up.
Second, it makes no difference whether anyone writes anonymously; the point is to address the substance, not the author. Remember, even authors of legitimate, reasonable arguments can face recriminations and worse for expressing the “wrong” opinions, as determined by ... well, whom, exactly? Merrick Garland?
Third, requiring media platforms to monitor and perhaps censor speech turns them into enforcement agencies. Worse, untrained enforcement agencies — who directs them, who decides the procedures to be followed? Indirectly, some government entity is ordering them to do the dirty work of spying on and silencing citizens. That’s totally unacceptable in a supposedly free, constitutional republic with balanced, divided powers, and should be resisted with all our might.
Last, no legal regimen will ever guard effectively against vitriol, porn, or media fostered child abuse. Same as with predatory financial schemes — a scam is exposed, Congress acts, eventually, but by that time a new class of scammers has figured out new ways to cheat not covered by whatever the new rules are, while ordinary, legitimate businesses labor under a heavier burden of regulations. It’s nuts; delusional! Accept reality: only we ourselves are our own best guardians; nobody else has our interests at heart to the degree we do. Let the buyer beware!
Inside every rule-making do-gooder is a tyrant itching to impose his or her priorities on the rest of us. Don’t let them!
As an aside, I found that poll excerpt frustratingly misleading when it asked about “non-citizens”. Legal immigrants aren’t citizens, but have, and are certainly entitled to, the same protections as US citizens. The distinction isn’t whether or not they’re citizens, but whether or not they have a right to be here in the first place. Illegal aliens (they’re not “immigrants”; immigration is a legal process), by definition, don’t; they’re invaders, and have no rights whatsoever. The question was poorly worded, perhaps intentionally, to elicit a desired response. Ignore those replies.
Terms like "incitement" and "intimidation," among others, are legal terms of art. Courts can and frequently do ultimately determine whether lines have been crossed, but I would agree that social media companies aren't very good at it.
We'll see if the courts are much better. The January 6th fiasco tells me they're even worse. And any legal system that allows Antifa & BLM thugs to destroy federal buildings, burn infrastructure, beat up and kill people, while jailing for two years or more, without trial, people who may have done nothing worse than trespass, with permission of the constabulary meant to prevent that, is a sham.
For the record: Donald J Trump's speech that day could not reasonably be interpreted as "incitement". So we'll see if the courts grow any brains. And will they compensate those illegally held without trial? I'm not holding my breath. That series of events did a lot to undermine my faith in our legal system, as we have abandoned the Constitution. Then came the unconstitutional lockdowns, closures, and mandates, all smacking of totalitarian regimes, undermining that faith even more. But we're supposed to worry about what some idiot posts on line?
Meanwhile, elections may have been stolen, but we're not allowed to know whether the blatant cheating and legal violations changed the outcomes. In part because the Stupid Party thinks it was only about Trump, whom they loathe, so they've done nothing meaningful to prevent the next steal. And in larger part because the entire political establishment, including judges and media, have essentially prohibited any discussion of that question while refusing to consider evidence.
So I don't want to hear about legal definitions of "incitement" or "insurrection", or "threats" -- those have become partisan political labels of convenience.
At some point, there may be a real insurrection. I fervently hope not, as it won't be pleasant, nor will it resemble the mostly peaceful demonstration of January 6, 2021.
PS -- Kelly, I sincerely wish you a happy, peaceful, fulfilling Thanksgiving.
Despite all my grumbling, I know we have much for which to be thankful. And I believe still that this is the greatest country on earth, warts and all!
Frank
Agree and amen! I always appreciate your comments and insights. Thanks for sharing them.