• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump won't sign international agreement to combat online extremism

RaleBulgarian

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
45,415
Reaction score
30,546
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No surprise. A free and easy win for Trump, but he’s too interested in stopping negative (and true) stories about him and propping up other assholes who think/act like him.

“In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House praised the call to action in the name of Christchurch being spearheaded by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron.”

"The United States stands with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online in the strongest terms," the White House said, but added that it is "not currently in a position to join the endorsement."

That makes the U.S. an outlier. Allies including the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Italy, India, Germany and Spain are all listed as signing on to the effort. Numerous technology giants are involved as well, including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.

In its statement, the White House suggested that First Amendment concerns were stopping the Trump administration from joining in the agreement.“. This from the same administration that daily attacks journalists, Dem Party Officials, and others exercising their freedom of speech.

“We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press," the statement said. The White House later tweeted that the administration is "fighting for free speech online," and urged people who feel they've been censored because of "political bias" to share their stories on the White House's website.
They must be referring to another administration.
White House says it won'''t sign international agreement to combat online extremism
 
The reasoning is screwed up but I do agree our free speech rights would prevent such laws to be enacted by our government. Private digital platforms could follow the guidelines if they choose without concerns over violating the Constitution.
 
Chillfolks said:
The reasoning is screwed up but I do agree our free speech rights would prevent such laws to be enacted by our government. Private digital platforms could follow the guidelines if they choose without concerns over violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Not a law, a promise to commit to eradicating hate speech and extremism online, and several big U.S. companies have already signed on to the agreement.

“The big picture: 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.”
U.S. will not sign Christchurch call against online extremism - Axios

There is no logical excuse for not joining.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not a law, a promise to commit to eradicating hate speech and extremism online, and several big U.S. companies have already signed on to the agreement.

“The big picture: 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.”
U.S. will not sign Christchurch call against online extremism - Axios

There is no logical excuse for not joining.
Click to expand...


We can't join until Trump proves he can go two months without retweeting a white nationalist's posts.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not a law, a promise to commit to eradicating hate speech and extremism online, and several big U.S. companies have already signed on to the agreement.

“The big picture: 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.”
U.S. will not sign Christchurch call against online extremism - Axios

There is no logical excuse for not joining.
Click to expand...

Except of course it goes against one of our founding principles. It's a meaningless pledge, that is unenforceable at the federal level.

A better alternative would be having social media platforms sign on, not the government.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not a law, a promise to commit to eradicating hate speech and extremism online, and several big U.S. companies have already signed on to the agreement.

“The big picture: 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.”
U.S. will not sign Christchurch call against online extremism - Axios

There is no logical excuse for not joining.
Click to expand...

As anyone who supports the First Amendment of the US Constitution knows, there is no such thing as "hate speech." It is also acknowledged that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK do not respect the individual right to free speech. So there is no way the US will ever be a party to suppressing our constitutionally protected individual right to free speech.
 
Chillfolks said:
The reasoning is screwed up but I do agree our free speech rights would prevent such laws to be enacted by our government. Private digital platforms could follow the guidelines if they choose without concerns over violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Private companies can violate the US Constitution at their whim, but also at their peril, as Facebook and Twitter are finding out. Americans don't like it when private companies deliberately violate their rights and they tend to vote with their feet. Facebook and Twitter have been losing thousands of customers over the last couple years, and new alternatives to those services have been popping up, and I expect that trend to continue as long as they continue to censor conservatives.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No surprise. A free and easy win for Trump, but he’s too interested in stopping negative (and true) stories about him and propping up other assholes who think/act like him.

“In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House praised the call to action in the name of Christchurch being spearheaded by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron.”

"The United States stands with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online in the strongest terms," the White House said, but added that it is "not currently in a position to join the endorsement."

That makes the U.S. an outlier. Allies including the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Italy, India, Germany and Spain are all listed as signing on to the effort. Numerous technology giants are involved as well, including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.

In its statement, the White House suggested that First Amendment concerns were stopping the Trump administration from joining in the agreement.“. This from the same administration that daily attacks journalists, Dem Party Officials, and others exercising their freedom of speech.

“We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press," the statement said. The White House later tweeted that the administration is "fighting for free speech online," and urged people who feel they've been censored because of "political bias" to share their stories on the White House's website.
They must be referring to another administration.
White House says it won'''t sign international agreement to combat online extremism
Click to expand...

Trump has attacked people he disagrees with by disagreeing with them...not by passing laws that stop people from speaking their minds. That is what the 1st Amendment is all about.

Perhaps some Americans should read that Amendment again. They seem to have lost sight of what it means.
 
Glitch said:
Private companies can violate the US Constitution at their whim, but also at their peril, as Facebook and Twitter are finding out. Americans don't like it when private companies deliberately violate their rights and they tend to vote with their feet. Facebook and Twitter have been losing thousands of customers over the last couple years, and new alternatives to those services have been popping up, and I expect that trend to continue as long as they continue to censor conservatives.
Click to expand...

Private companies cannot violate the 1st Amendment because it doesn't apply to them.

But you are correct in that private companies are affected by their customers...or lack of customers.
 
I can't betray that segment of supporters
 
Chillfolks said:
The reasoning is screwed up but I do agree our free speech rights would prevent such laws to be enacted by our government. Private digital platforms could follow the guidelines if they choose without concerns over violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Without saying if I'm making a claim, why don't you make a case for yours? What specific interpretations of the "free speech right[]" conflict with which portions of this agreement? And if you don't know what each says, how could you possibly conclude that any action in favor of this agreement against a U.S. citizen would violate the right to free speech?
 
Mr Person said:
Without saying if I'm making a claim, why don't you make a case for yours? What specific interpretations of the "free speech right[]" conflict with which portions of this agreement? And if you don't know what each says, how could you possibly conclude that any action in favor of this agreement against a U.S. citizen would violate the right to free speech?
Click to expand...

The First Amendment exists specifically to protect that speech with which we disagree. Which is why there is no such thing as "hate speech." The only limits to speech in the US are slander/libel, incitement to violence, or advocating an armed insurrection. All other speech is protected. Furthermore, it is well established that the US is the ONLY nation that actually protects free speech. There is no such thing as free speech in New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Canada, the UK, or anywhere else on the planet - outside of the US. For 228 years the US has been the only nation on the planet that actually protects the individual right to free speech.
 
Glitch said:
As anyone who supports the First Amendment of the US Constitution knows, there is no such thing as "hate speech." It is also acknowledged that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK do not respect the individual right to free speech. So there is no way the US will ever be a party to suppressing our constitutionally protected individual right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Free speech has never been absolute. Try shouting bomb in an airport and see where the 1st amendment gets you.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No surprise. A free and easy win for Trump, but he’s too interested in stopping negative (and true) stories about him and propping up other assholes who think/act like him.

“In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House praised the call to action in the name of Christchurch being spearheaded by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron.”

"The United States stands with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online in the strongest terms," the White House said, but added that it is "not currently in a position to join the endorsement."

That makes the U.S. an outlier. Allies including the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Italy, India, Germany and Spain are all listed as signing on to the effort. Numerous technology giants are involved as well, including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.

In its statement, the White House suggested that First Amendment concerns were stopping the Trump administration from joining in the agreement.“. This from the same administration that daily attacks journalists, Dem Party Officials, and others exercising their freedom of speech.

“We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press," the statement said. The White House later tweeted that the administration is "fighting for free speech online," and urged people who feel they've been censored because of "political bias" to share their stories on the White House's website.
They must be referring to another administration.
White House says it won'''t sign international agreement to combat online extremism
Click to expand...

Call me cynical, but I bet if this had been a US-initiated move Trump would be preening, not vacillating.
 
Glitch said:
As anyone who supports the First Amendment of the US Constitution knows, there is no such thing as "hate speech." It is also acknowledged that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK do not respect the individual right to free speech. So there is no way the US will ever be a party to suppressing our constitutionally protected individual right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Rubbish; Britain is as committed to freedom of expression as any civilized country. What we will not countenance, however, is hate speech and incitement to violence. That, sir, is basic common-sense. You are currently hosting one such person who was imprisoned here for exactly those reasons, and whom you wanted extradited: Abu Hamza al-Masri - Wikipedia
A right is a privilege, not carte blanche for the incitement of violence or an excuse for its lethal consequences. I don't recall any protests from your administration that this poor victim's rights were abused in Britain.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
As anyone who supports the First Amendment of the US Constitution knows, there is no such thing as "hate speech." It is also acknowledged that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK do not respect the individual right to free speech. So there is no way the US will ever be a party to suppressing our constitutionally protected individual right to free speech.
Click to expand...

And, of course, anyone who supports the Second Amendment knows there is no such thing as "hate weapons". Those countries do not respect the individual right to own guns.

Hence, they are subjected to oppressive civility and peace, which we are free of.
 
Chillfolks said:
Except of course it goes against one of our founding principles. It's a meaningless pledge, that is unenforceable at the federal level.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee use of all internet platforms to spread hate and extremism. And yeah, it’s a pledged agreement, not a law.
Chillfolks said:
A better alternative would be having social media platforms sign on, not the government.
Click to expand...
Many social media platforms have already signed on.

Glitch said:
As anyone who supports the First Amendment of the US Constitution knows, there is no such thing as "hate speech." It is also acknowledged that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK do not respect the individual right to free speech. So there is no way the US will ever be a party to suppressing our constitutionally protected individual right to free speech.
Click to expand...
Who says there’s no such thing as hate speech? Somebody better tell Trump, because he’s a major contributor of it. Agreeing to join other countries in working to eliminate hate speech and extremism in no way suppresses anyone’s right to free speech. Individuals never have had the right to say whatever they want on social media platforms.

Mycroft said:
Trump has attacked people he disagrees with by disagreeing with them...not by passing laws that stop people from speaking their minds. That is what the 1st Amendment is all about.
Click to expand...
Again, not a law.
Mycroft said:
Perhaps some Americans should read that Amendment again. They seem to have lost sight of what it means.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some Americans should read the user agreements of the social media platform/s they utilize.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No surprise. A free and easy win for Trump, but he’s too interested in stopping negative (and true) stories about him and propping up other assholes who think/act like him.

“In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House praised the call to action in the name of Christchurch being spearheaded by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron.”

"The United States stands with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online in the strongest terms," the White House said, but added that it is "not currently in a position to join the endorsement."

That makes the U.S. an outlier. Allies including the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Italy, India, Germany and Spain are all listed as signing on to the effort. Numerous technology giants are involved as well, including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.

In its statement, the White House suggested that First Amendment concerns were stopping the Trump administration from joining in the agreement.“. This from the same administration that daily attacks journalists, Dem Party Officials, and others exercising their freedom of speech.

“We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press," the statement said. The White House later tweeted that the administration is "fighting for free speech online," and urged people who feel they've been censored because of "political bias" to share their stories on the White House's website.
They must be referring to another administration.
White House says it won'''t sign international agreement to combat online extremism
Click to expand...

Operative statement: "continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press,"


Very important to fight against the Totalitarian State dreamed of by liberal Progressives, and maintain the principles of freedom our Founding Fathers died to secure.
 
ocean515 said:
Operative statement: "continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press,"
Click to expand...
Coming from the same people who routinely attack the press, calling them “enemies of the people”, and suggesting the NFL players who kneel should have their citizenship revoked is really rich.
ocean515 said:
Very important to fight against the Totalitarian State dreamed of by liberal Progressives, and maintain the principles of freedom our Founding Fathers died to secure.
Click to expand...
Our “principles of freedom” do not, and never have, guaranteed the freedom to say whatever we want on social media platforms. I suggest to those upset by the idea of curbing hate speech and extremism online that they read the user agreements for the social media platforms they utilize before ignorantly ranting about “their rights”.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Coming from the same people who routinely attack the press, calling them “enemies of the people”, and suggesting the NFL players who kneel should have their citizenship revoked is really rich.

Our “principles of freedom” do not, and never have, guaranteed the freedom to say whatever we want on social media platforms. I suggest to those upset by the idea of curbing hate speech and extremism online that they read the user agreements for the social media platforms they utilize before ignorantly ranting about “their rights”.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.

Example. You're attacking people for exercising their right to be critical of a press they believe is biased and corrupt. Would you like to have anyone who does that silenced?


In the case of Facebook, 1/3rd of the human race uses it and sister operations, to communicate on a daily basis. Ponder that. 1/3rd of the human race.

Should such a universal source of human communication be allowed to manipulate what people see?


That's the big question of the day.
 
ocean515 said:
I think you're missing the point.
Click to expand...
I’m certain you’re missing the point of countries and businesses trying to curtail hate speech and extremism online that has lead to, or significantly contributed to many acts of violence around the world..

Not all speech is protected speech, and privately owned companies like Facebook have the right to control what is allowed on their platforms.

ocean515 said:
Example. You're attacking people for exercising their right to be critical of a press they believe is biased and corrupt. Would you like to have anyone who does that silenced?
Click to expand...
Wrong and disingenuous comment. I criticized the Trump administration’s blatant hypocritical comment that they are “continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press”. Threatening to revoke someone’s birthright American citizenship over a nonviolent protest is the very antithesis of supporting freedom of expression. So is threatening to change libel laws to eliminate any negative press for Trump and his administration.

As long as Trump, Sanders, Miller, and others in the current administration spread lies, disinformation and hatred, I very sincerely hope the press and other public figures continue to speak out against their garbage.

ocean515 said:
In the case of Facebook, 1/3rd of the human race uses it and sister operations, to communicate on a daily basis. Ponder that. 1/3rd of the human race.

Should such a universal source of human communication be allowed to manipulate what people see?
Click to expand...
1/3 of the human race use Facebook and/or it's other platforms. Got it.

Privately owned company entitled to regulate (not manipulate) its content. Got that too.
 
I would be happy if all these countries signed on to ban the ridiculous and useless term hate speech
 
Chillfolks said:
The reasoning is screwed up but I do agree our free speech rights would prevent such laws to be enacted by our government. Private digital platforms could follow the guidelines if they choose without concerns over violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
Without saying if I'm making a claim, why don't you make a case for yours? What specific interpretations of the "free speech right[]" conflict with which portions of this agreement? And if you don't know what each says, how could you possibly conclude that any action in favor of this agreement against a U.S. citizen would violate the right to free speech?
Click to expand...

Glitch said:
The First Amendment exists specifically to protect that speech with which we disagree. Which is why there is no such thing as "hate speech." The only limits to speech in the US are slander/libel, incitement to violence, or advocating an armed insurrection. All other speech is protected. Furthermore, it is well established that the US is the ONLY nation that actually protects free speech. There is no such thing as free speech in New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Canada, the UK, or anywhere else on the planet - outside of the US. For 228 years the US has been the only nation on the planet that actually protects the individual right to free speech.
Click to expand...

It may have sounded clever to give me a lecture, but you completely avoided answering the question. When I say "interpretations" I do not mean "person on internet says things are true because they have said they are true". I mean, cite language from the agreement and cite SCOTUS precedent it disagrees with specifically. I don't think any single one of you actually read the agreement and has a case or ten in mind interpreting the 1st that conflict with some portion of that agreement.

The reason I ask is to draw out the obvious: the people opining are only doing so based on having seen the term "free speech" and the fact that Trump apparently doesn't want to sign the agreement. These are not sufficient bases for analysis. They're perfect for BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom