The issue is who's in charge of deciding it's hate speech?
There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.
There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.
If you want to get a bit of data on how "moderate, or careful, or measured" they are, note that the pro-deplatforming crowd characterizes Ben Shapiro -- a devout adherent of Judaism, a consistent critic of the Alt-Right, and a primary target of the Alt-Right according to the SPLC -- as "Alt-Right." That's just one example. There are lots of examples. Labeling is being used as an intellectually dishonest weapon enabling censorship and suppression.
he's engaged in hate speech several times - some nice examples here:
>If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life.
>Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock
Thanks for the examples! The 1st is a criticism and throwing shade at particular behaviors. I had a colleague who did that with his pants. Who was from rural Michigan, BTW. Might I ask what your justification for saying it's "hate speech?" Are you by any chance trading in racial stereotypes? (This is a danger of ideologies like Intersectionality which obsess over identities like race.)
The 2nd is nationalism. Sure, you can criticize him for that, but it's not "hate speech."
Thanks for the examples of how arbitrary "hate speech" can be.
The 2nd is not just nationalism. It's also racist. In right-wing Israeli politics, there is obviously a lot of overlap between nationalism and racism.
Nevertheless, I would oppose the idea of de-platforming Ben Shapiro. I don't trust the people making the decisions, and I don't want them to become the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable speech in our society. Sure, today they may de-platform someone I dislike, such as Ben Shapiro, but tomorrow, they may de-platform someone I like.
Activists don't deplatform anyone; the platform owners do. Activists merely use their Free Speech to lobby, much like the ones being deplatformed are generally doing for their own ideas.
Activists don't deplatform anyone; the platform owners do. Activists merely use their Free Speech to lobby
Really, that makes no difference to the effect on Free Speech.
much like the ones being deplatformed are generally doing for their own ideas.
Which is an activity which is enshrined and constitutionally protected. Really, any website which claims to be a "platform" and enjoy the protections of that status needs to be called to account. If they are going to act as publishers with editorial input, they should be held to account for that as well.
There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.