Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube ...

[TU Curmudgeon]

From NBC News

Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube, it was immediately attacked with hate speech.
​

A House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about the rise of white nationalism unleashed a wave of online hate speech, prompting YouTube to turn off chats on livestreams of the hearing.

“Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing,” YouTube announced on its Twitter account.

Several livestreams of the hearing on YouTube were bombarded with racist and anti-Semitic posts in the platform’s live chat feature just moments after the hearing began.

Those chats, which were hosted on the YouTube streams of news services such as PBS and the official stream for the House Judiciary committee, appeared unmoderated for all users.

Even though YouTube said the comments feature for the videos was eventually disabled, comments and chat features on other YouTube streams remained live through the morning. Those transcripts were riddled with racist and anti-Semitic abuse.

COMMENT:-

If you accept what some (well, at least one) people on DP have posted, then - since "racist and anti-Semitic abuse" is "protected speech under the First Amendment" then the only possible reason for those so-called "Lawmakers" to have held this do-called "hearing" is because they intend to trample on the constitutional rights of "good, upstanding Americans" to hate 'Blacks' and 'Jews'.

For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right. "YMMV"
​

 

[AmNat]

For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right.

Protecting political dissent (what leftists mean by the word "hatred") was the specific purpose of the 1A.

Also, the founders were white nationalists.

 

[apdst]

When's the hearing black nationalism going to take place?

 

[The Mark]

When's the hearing black nationalism going to take place?

Black nationalism isn't a threat.

 

[apdst]

From NBC News

Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube, it was immediately attacked with hate speech.
​

A House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about the rise of white nationalism unleashed a wave of online hate speech, prompting YouTube to turn off chats on livestreams of the hearing.

“Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing,” YouTube announced on its Twitter account.

Several livestreams of the hearing on YouTube were bombarded with racist and anti-Semitic posts in the platform’s live chat feature just moments after the hearing began.

Those chats, which were hosted on the YouTube streams of news services such as PBS and the official stream for the House Judiciary committee, appeared unmoderated for all users.

Even though YouTube said the comments feature for the videos was eventually disabled, comments and chat features on other YouTube streams remained live through the morning. Those transcripts were riddled with racist and anti-Semitic abuse.

COMMENT:-

If you accept what some (well, at least one) people on DP have posted, then - since "racist and anti-Semitic abuse" is "protected speech under the First Amendment" then the only possible reason for those so-called "Lawmakers" to have held this do-called "hearing" is because they intend to trample on the constitutional rights of "good, upstanding Americans" to hate 'Blacks' and 'Jews'.

For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right. "YMMV"
​

They sure as hell didn't create a thought police. It looks like the Democrats are going to try and remedy that.

 

[apdst]

Black nationalism isn't a threat.

Neither is white nationalism. But, you already knew that.

This is the usual socialist tactic intended to create a domestic enemy. Stalin and Hitler did the same thing.

 

[Risky Thicket]

When's the hearing black nationalism going to take place?

As soon as you and your klan run the government.

 

[apdst]

As soon as you and your klan run the government.

It appears your Klan is taking the reins.

 

[3leftsdoo]

From NBC News

Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube, it was immediately attacked with hate speech.
​

A House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about the rise of white nationalism unleashed a wave of online hate speech, prompting YouTube to turn off chats on livestreams of the hearing.

“Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing,” YouTube announced on its Twitter account.

Several livestreams of the hearing on YouTube were bombarded with racist and anti-Semitic posts in the platform’s live chat feature just moments after the hearing began.

Those chats, which were hosted on the YouTube streams of news services such as PBS and the official stream for the House Judiciary committee, appeared unmoderated for all users.

Even though YouTube said the comments feature for the videos was eventually disabled, comments and chat features on other YouTube streams remained live through the morning. Those transcripts were riddled with racist and anti-Semitic abuse.

COMMENT:-

If you accept what some (well, at least one) people on DP have posted, then - since "racist and anti-Semitic abuse" is "protected speech under the First Amendment" then the only possible reason for those so-called "Lawmakers" to have held this do-called "hearing" is because they intend to trample on the constitutional rights of "good, upstanding Americans" to hate 'Blacks' and 'Jews'.

For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right. "YMMV"
​

Seriously?

Of course "hatred" is protected speech.

 

[AGENT J]

From NBC News

Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube, it was immediately attacked with hate speech.
​

A House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about the rise of white nationalism unleashed a wave of online hate speech, prompting YouTube to turn off chats on livestreams of the hearing.

“Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing,” YouTube announced on its Twitter account.

Several livestreams of the hearing on YouTube were bombarded with racist and anti-Semitic posts in the platform’s live chat feature just moments after the hearing began.

Those chats, which were hosted on the YouTube streams of news services such as PBS and the official stream for the House Judiciary committee, appeared unmoderated for all users.

Even though YouTube said the comments feature for the videos was eventually disabled, comments and chat features on other YouTube streams remained live through the morning. Those transcripts were riddled with racist and anti-Semitic abuse.

COMMENT:-

If you accept what some (well, at least one) people on DP have posted, then - since "racist and anti-Semitic abuse" is "protected speech under the First Amendment" then the only possible reason for those so-called "Lawmakers" to have held this do-called "hearing" is because they intend to trample on the constitutional rights of "good, upstanding Americans" to hate 'Blacks' and 'Jews'.

For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right. "YMMV"
​

no new laws are needed as far as i can see. Facebook, twitter, you tube are all free to ban, block, sensor who ever they want :shrug:
hate speech is definitely 1A but that has nothing to do with twitter, facebook etc...

now those companies should be willing to work WITH authorities though for anybody posting terrorist threats though

 

[trouble13]

I would be curious to read the comments to see what they deemed as racist and what was so egregious that they decided to shut down all comments. It would seem to me that this the exact kind of event that we should all want open and honest dialogue between people about.

I am not inclined to just assume that what Google (who is openly biggoted) deems to be racist or inappropriate, necessarily is. They have a track record of shutting down speech they don't agree with and justify it with false accusations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[The Mark]

Neither is white nationalism. But, you already knew that.

This is the usual socialist tactic intended to create a domestic enemy. Stalin and Hitler did the same thing.

Actually, white nationalism IS a threat.

It's the main reason for mass shootings and terrorism in the USA lately.

 

[AmNat]

Actually, white nationalism IS a threat.

It's the main reason for mass shootings and terrorism in the USA lately.

This is a good example of a "big lie". A falsehood which people believe because it is so often repeated.

 

[apdst]

Actually, white nationalism IS a threat.

It's the main reason for mass shootings and terrorism in the USA lately.

:lamo

The San Bernadino shooter and the Jacksonville shooters were white nationalists?

What the guy who stole a U-haul truck this week and planned to run people down wit it?

The newspaper shooter in Maryland was pissed off at the newspaper.

The shooter in Aurora Illinois was black.

Stop spreading lies.

How white nationalists have you encountered recently? I haven't seen any.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Protecting political dissent (what leftists mean by the word "hatred") was the specific purpose of the 1A.

Also, the founders were white nationalists.

Karl Popper:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Nationalists loom large in the historical record as those who willingly suspend the permission of their brethren to listen to rational opposing arguments. They are notorious for teaching them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Nationalists have a body count numbering in the millions.
Nationalists invaded America, nationalists invaded Europe, nationalists lynch Americans of color and rape their children.
Nationalists attempted to exterminate Native Americans. Nationalists are white nationalists but nationalists may be of any race or color, as evidenced by the Japanese nationalists who also invaded America, and most of Asia.
Nationalism is hallmarked by intolerance.

We are under NO obligation to tolerate the intolerant.

Now go ahead and show me the liberal body count so far in America. How many people have been murdered by liberals in this country?
Show me the Hippie Holocaust and the liberal detention facilities. Show me the liberal ad hoc insurgent militias.

Your entire argument is a sloppy and misguided illusion, fed by well funded revisionists.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Seriously?

Of course "hatred" is protected speech.

Once hatred has a documented body count, it is no longer simple hatred anymore.
It is criminal evidence left by an insurgent mercenary army.

Left unchecked, such hatred eventually becomes institutionalized and state sponsored.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Protecting political dissent (what leftists mean by the word "hatred") was the specific purpose of the 1A.

Isn't "political dissent" what "rightists" (whatever that means) label "hatred" when it is directed at their fair-haired latest love object?

Also, the founders were white nationalists.

The Founding Fathers were also "progressives" and "liberals" as well as "traitors" - if you want to go by the dictionary definitions of those words.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When's the hearing black nationalism going to take place?

Which has what to do with the facts of what happened?

Oh, I know, the fact is that we should all pretend that it didn't happen.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Black nationalism isn't a threat.

It is if you are a "White Nationalist".

Why one of "Those People" might move into your neighbourhood or drink out of the same water fountain that you do so that you get cooties.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They sure as hell didn't create a thought police. It looks like the Democrats are going to try and remedy that.

Actually, if you look at what the "Patriots" did to those who expressed opinions contrary to theirs, "not creating a thought police" gets a bit iffy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

no new laws are needed as far as i can see. Facebook, twitter, you tube are all free to ban, block, sensor who ever they want :shrug:
hate speech is definitely 1A but that has nothing to do with twitter, facebook etc...

now those companies should be willing to work WITH authorities though for anybody posting terrorist threats though

Exactly how would a "terrorist threat" (assuming that it was along the lines of "Because of __[fill in the blank]__ all good __[fill in the blank]__ should __[fill in the blank]__ and I'm more than willing to help them do it.") NOT be "protected speech"?

Why is throwing darts at a picture of the President of the United States of America grounds for the police to question someone? (Yes, that has actually happened.)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Actually, white nationalism IS a threat.

It's the main reason for mass shootings and terrorism in the USA lately.

If not, then it's closing fast on "I'm going to send a message that the fact that I can't get laid is causing me to have issues." (at least in the "Wholesale Mass Murder" league).

 

[Oborosen]

From NBC News

Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube, it was immediately attacked with hate speech.
​

A House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about the rise of white nationalism unleashed a wave of online hate speech, prompting YouTube to turn off chats on livestreams of the hearing.

“Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing,” YouTube announced on its Twitter account.

Several livestreams of the hearing on YouTube were bombarded with racist and anti-Semitic posts in the platform’s live chat feature just moments after the hearing began.

Those chats, which were hosted on the YouTube streams of news services such as PBS and the official stream for the House Judiciary committee, appeared unmoderated for all users.

Even though YouTube said the comments feature for the videos was eventually disabled, comments and chat features on other YouTube streams remained live through the morning. Those transcripts were riddled with racist and anti-Semitic abuse.

COMMENT:-

If you accept what some (well, at least one) people on DP have posted, then - since "racist and anti-Semitic abuse" is "protected speech under the First Amendment" then the only possible reason for those so-called "Lawmakers" to have held this do-called "hearing" is because they intend to trample on the constitutional rights of "good, upstanding Americans" to hate 'Blacks' and 'Jews'.

For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right. "YMMV"
​

Welcome to the internet kids. Remember, if you're going to play in the rain. Then bring a coat and golashes, as well as a helmet apparently.

I've seen some of the comments as they came out on two separate streams. This is just trolling, nothing more, nothing less. But I bet there're going to plenty of people that will use this as their own little spring board into the whole "we need more censorship online and white nationalism is a dangerous threat" arena.

 

[AGENT J]

Exactly how would a "terrorist threat" (assuming that it was along the lines of "Because of __[fill in the blank]__ all good __[fill in the blank]__ should __[fill in the blank]__ and I'm more than willing to help them do it.") NOT be "protected speech"?

Why is throwing darts at a picture of the President of the United States of America grounds for the police to question someone? (Yes, that has actually happened.)

What? lol I have no idea what you are asking but terrorist threats are not protected speech threats can land you in hot water

 

[Oborosen]

Once hatred has a documented body count, it is no longer simple hatred anymore.
It is criminal evidence left by an insurgent mercenary army.

Left unchecked, such hatred eventually becomes institutionalized and state sponsored.

So with that analogy, both sides of the political isle in the united states, in fact all political groups should be scrutinized as such, or outright banned. Because all of them have their own hate that they speak, on a nearly constant basis.