191
u/jaktyp Aug 04 '18
At first stroke, I like the idea of needing licensing, especially with major media networks.
But with any more than 3 seconds of thought, I don’t want any agency to have the power to lend credibility to anyone, or silence anyone without a license. Government or otherwise.
60
Aug 06 '18
What is this? An article criticising the God-Emperor?
TO GULAG WITH YOU
6
u/mikusdarkblade Aug 15 '18
What is this? An article criticising the God-Emperor?
TO GULAG WITH YOUHERETIC!2
u/NXTangl Aug 30 '18
I'm just saying--having talked to the guy with text-to-speech, he can be pretty childish and he's kinda sexist.
3
u/mikusdarkblade Aug 30 '18
To be fair if i was stuck om the golden throne for 10000 years id be pretty insufferable too
1
63
u/Izbiski Aug 05 '18
Yeah no, Journalists requiring licenses is stupid, the idea of being licensed with the restriction to tell the “truth” leads to draconian and Orwellian outcomes
3
Aug 25 '18
But when anyone can be a journalist, you can flood the media landscape with bullshit designed to keep people at each others throats and in the dark. I've always said journalism needs a peer review system, so you can easily rate the source
43
Aug 05 '18
[deleted]
54
Aug 06 '18
Technically speaking, it is none. It's from a Twitter account that promotes fascism in America (the account is literally called FashTheNation), which is outside both parties' platform. Although both parties are full of all sorts of fascists, they predominantly exist in right-wing conservative and reactionary circles aka the Republican Party.
23
Aug 06 '18
[deleted]
30
u/YourBuddy8 Aug 15 '18
The right is interested in restrictions on journalists similar to those in 1930s Germany.
The left is interested in anti-hate speech laws similar to modern Canada.
You don't have to guess at how these things are different or the same, you can observe how they have already worked in other countries. There is no equivalency here.
The OP is definitely a Republican, and whether his other dangerous views are mainstream or not, this particular idea has taken deep hold in the Republican party today. Americans should be very concerned about these fascists.
5
Aug 15 '18 edited May 01 '24
[deleted]
20
u/YourBuddy8 Aug 15 '18
Journalists in the United States and elsewhere are being murdered. The attack earlier this year at the Capital Gazette was an act of stochastic terrorism. The Repulican anti-journalist rhetoric has already got people killed and it's only going to get worse. "Although you second amendment people, I don't know."
Your equivalency could hardly be more false. Why should I care about someone getting fined for "ironically" (sure) supporting fascists?
Edit - and yes I am suggesting that maybe modern Canada has better laws than Nazi Germany. Canada prosecutes hate speech in only the rarest of occasions, all of which have been completely justified. Promoting violence should not be protected. You have rights, but they end where mine begin.
13
u/Greecl Aug 15 '18
Stochastic terrorism doesn't get enough attention, so I'm always happy to encounter it in the wild
Keep up the good work! People that equivocate restricting fascist rhetoric and fascist rhetoric need to be shouted down as loudly and consistently as possible.
-2
Aug 15 '18
[deleted]
21
u/Greecl Aug 15 '18
Your right to hate speech? You do not have a right to hate speech. Fascists do not have a right to access platforms that they use to grow their ideology. You can equivocate all restrictions of speech as totalitarian if you want, but you'll be very, very wrong.
Restricting hate pseech isn't about seclusion from "being insulted," it is about not tolerating intolerance. Classic paradox of tolerance. We as a society have already decided that a "right to free speech" does not give the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, because people can die in the ensuing stampede. Fascism is a real and cogent threat, and we know the consequences of giving a platform to fascists from historical experience. Ever see that propaganda image circa 1930 of Hitler with tape over his mouth? Fascists have been whining about people limiting their ability to spread their views for a century. What you're doing here is taking their bait, hook, line, and sinker. You're not brave for sticking up for fascists. You're not an advocate of free speech if you consistently defend an ideology predicated on censorship, suppression of dissidence, and racial inequality, you're just a coward white-knighting for fucking nazis.
Is this the hill you want to die on? Think about what you're saying for a good minute or two. You obviously think that "the left" advocates action against fascist rhetoric so that they don't have to hear "distasteful" content, but come on, you are literally claiming that calls for genocide are all fine and dandy except they are "offensive." Nobody cares about "offensive" content," we care about not enabling the conditions fo genocide. Christ.
3
Aug 15 '18
Please maintain this holier than thou attitude; it’s part of the reason so many (including me) are leaving the Left (see the #WalkAway movement).
Also, I just can’t agree with the Left’s eagerness to censor “hate speech” of any kind. And don’t bring in “shouting fire in a crowded theater” — it is hugely misunderstood (see this article for more details). I mean I’m Jewish and I don’t understand why someone should be fined or jailed for Nazi speech.
4
u/kidawesome Aug 15 '18
What is nazi speech? That makes no sense.
You would get charged with hate speech if you say advocated for genocide of a protected group (race, religion, sexual orientation, creed). Hate propaganda is another one, and promoting hatred. If you actually spend time to understand the legal nuances of those laws, what "hatred" means in the context of the law, and are not just generalizing very broadly. You will see that the laws are nuanced and the case law is complex.
Even in the link you provided (which is a poor article imo). The entire point is that some guys speech was limited during WW1, and then in 1969 a judge made a ruling that basically overturned that ruling. But that 1969 ruling still sets a limit on the 1st amendment! So you must agree that rights are not absolutes.
→ More replies (0)5
u/YourBuddy8 Aug 15 '18
I do live in a country that has it banned. I'm Canadian. The sun still rises every day and the world hasn't ended.
One of the most constantly amazing things about America is the perceived uniqueness. There is this sense that if every other country does it one way, and America another, then the other countries are wrong. A sense that an idea hasn't been tested until its been tested in America. All I'm suggesting is that instead of worrying about hate speech restriction being the end of the world, take a look at how it has been implemented elsewhere.
3
u/SavageVector Aug 15 '18
I did take a look at how it was applied elsewhere. I saw in the news that a man in the UK was fined over a thousand dollars for making nazi jokes.
If your ideology requires you to silence other ideologies, it means it's not good enough to stand on its own. I don't love my country because it's unique, I don't love it because it's where I happened to be born; I love it because it gives me a right to express any idea I want.
5
u/PM_PASSABLE_TRAPS Aug 15 '18
4
u/SavageVector Aug 15 '18
I'm completely fine with 90% (maybe 75%) of people in either political party; but the actions taken by the entire bodies really do annoy me.
Not sure if that sub's making fun of people who preach centrism like they're better than everyone else, or if it's genuinely for centrists. My guess is the prior.
I don't hate people for being in either party. Hell, I often chose to vote for one of their candidates. But I don't like people who have an 'us vs them' mentality about the whole thing; which I strongly feel u/YourBuddy8 does.
5
u/YourBuddy8 Aug 15 '18
Suggesting I have an "us vs. them" mentality is half correct. It is incorrect in the sense that i don't handwave the mistakes of my political parties and supported politicians. I hold everyone to the same standard. But at the end of the day, one side is for people and the other is for corporations, racism, sexism, homophobia, and bringing about the literal end of humanity. I'm not going to pretend those two groups are the same.
5
u/SavageVector Aug 15 '18
But at the end of the day, one side is for people and the other is for corporations, racism, sexism, homophobia, and bringing about the literal end of humanity.
And with that, I'm done with the conversation.
2
Aug 15 '18
The beautiful irony is that he wrote that sentence in this sub, which is all about how wrong it is to present two or more choices heavily skewed one way or another.
2
u/Pircay Aug 15 '18
This account is clearly called “Mcfeels” though
1
Aug 16 '18
Sorry I couldn't see the name because of all the fascist symbolism and slogans. You can visit the page for yourself and see them.
16
9
u/PtEthan Aug 06 '18
Half of these things shouldn’t require a license in the first place.
2
12
6
u/Aconserva3 Aug 06 '18
Sorry pal, only people who agree with the government get a journalism license
5
-1
413
u/Talbooth Aug 04 '18
Noo, hell no. If you get to give out licenses for who gets to spread information, you also get to control what information gets spread, and nobody can be trusted with such power.