MAP Forum

Disclaimer: I do not support the xenophobic viwes of the people described. This historical example is used to demonstrate the effect of the first amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them and also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the Fourth of July. Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.

Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam, issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice.

This case became known as "Brandenburg v. Ohio" and became the legal standard in protecting the First Amendment. Even though this group of people held xenophobic views, the First Amendment protected their right to free speech and public assembly.

In turn, the MAPs Community has never had xenophobic views and has always categorically opposed any violence and advocated for voluntary and mutual inter-age relationships and for the Youth rights to privacy and the expression of their natural sexuality.

However, everyone has already forgotten what true free speech and tolerance are, we are considered worse than the KKK and terrorists, and all this is thanks to the hypocritical and lying media that created a moral panic.

Free Speech is one right I feel we still are (if barely) holding onto. MAP spaces are able to persist online so long as they don't host illegal content. BC has been running for almost 3 decades. Pro-c opinions, if they are just opinions, have not resulted in imprisonment as far as I know.

But you are right that in many circles we're seen as worse than Nazis. Even if free speech law holds, the spirit of free speech is becoming ever weaker. I was naively optimistic when Elon Musk bought Twitter with a goal of bringing back free speech. I didn't realize that while saying "free speech" from one side of his mouth he'd be censoring MAP content with the other. Free speech more and more simply means "speech that I like".

I think the difficulty is that no one wants to be called pro-censorship, because who would want to be called opposed to "freedom of speech" even if, in practice, you do believe in censoring work that corrupts public morals?

Fragment wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:01 am I was naively optimistic when Elon Musk bought Twitter with a goal of bringing back free speech. I didn't realize that while saying "free speech" from one side of his mouth he'd be censoring MAP content with the other. Free speech more and more simply means "speech that I like".

We do not call for breaking the law, on the contrary, we demand that the constitution and our civil and human rights be respected. Just as Martin Luther King demanded. What right does Twitter have to remove accounts based on membership in minority who have the same rights ? This is nothing less than a violation of the First Amendment and discrimination. MAPs always spoke only about voluntary and mutual relationships without coercion and violence.

Harlan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:33 pm

Fragment wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:01 am I was naively optimistic when Elon Musk bought Twitter with a goal of bringing back free speech. I didn't realize that while saying "free speech" from one side of his mouth he'd be censoring MAP content with the other. Free speech more and more simply means "speech that I like".

We do not call for breaking the law, on the contrary, we demand that the constitution and our civil and human rights be respected. Just as Martin Luther King demanded. What right does Twitter have to remove accounts based on membership in minority who have the same rights ? This is nothing less than a violation of the First Amendment and discrimination. MAPs always spoke only about voluntary and mutual relationships without coercion and violence.

I am neither American (nor a lawyer, for that matter). That said, my understanding is that the First Amendment binds the government -- it does not bind private actors, like Twitter. Accordingly, TWitter is free to discriminate as they see fit, with the proviso that they do not break other anti-discrimination laws. FWIW, I am not aware that being a MAP is to be a member of a legally-protected class, like race, ethnicity or gender. That is how they're getting away with it.

Harlan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:33 pm

Fragment wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 7:01 am I was naively optimistic when Elon Musk bought Twitter with a goal of bringing back free speech. I didn't realize that while saying "free speech" from one side of his mouth he'd be censoring MAP content with the other. Free speech more and more simply means "speech that I like".

We do not call for breaking the law, on the contrary, we demand that the constitution and our civil and human rights be respected. Just as Martin Luther King demanded. What right does Twitter have to remove accounts based on membership in minority who have the same rights ? This is nothing less than a violation of the First Amendment and discrimination. MAPs always spoke only about voluntary and mutual relationships without coercion and violence.

On the topic of Twitter/X, it is indeed ironic that the Thierry Breton letter threatening Elon Musk if Twitter/X were ever to publish harmful content related to a yet-to-happen interview between Musk and Trump. He is essentially telling Musk to comply with EU law. So here we have a non-elected Eurocrat, attempting to prevent a conversation between two US citizens. The conversation in question could be deemed to be part of Trump’s campaign, and thus of interest to all US citizens, so in one way, Breton could be accused of tampering with the US election.

The main point here is that this case highlights the rapidly increasing erosion of free speech within the collective West. The Breton letter is a prime example of how unaccountable globalist structures such as the EU are clamping down on communications between citizens, by creating new laws to limit and sanitise “free” speech. This may in turn, reduce the effectiveness of the Mu resource, if members feel obliged not to speak their mind for fear of reprisal.

A footnote, I further understand that the EU has since distanced itself from the Breton letter, suggesting it had not been “authorised for distribution” by the EU’s chain of command. So it looks as if Breton is in the process of being thrown under the bus by his colleagues. The US first amendment plus Musk combination is just too powerful. Unfortunately the EU will pick on smaller fry, and focus on its own citizens instead.

argosy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:58 pm I am neither American (nor a lawyer, for that matter). That said, my understanding is that the First Amendment binds the government -- it does not bind private actors, like Twitter. Accordingly, TWitter is free to discriminate as they see fit, with the proviso that they do not break other anti-discrimination laws. FWIW, I am not aware that being a MAP is to be a member of a legally-protected class, like race, ethnicity or gender. That is how they're getting away with it.

Yea private companies can restrict what is on their platforms as they see fit. Certain speech CAN be restricted from the gov't hence why in the US we have libel and slander laws. I cannot for example go into a crowded theater and scream fire for example.

Strato wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 7:34 pm
[...]

The main point here is that this case highlights the rapidly increasing erosion of free speech within the collective West. The Breton letter is a prime example of how unaccountable globalist structures such as the EU are clamping down on communications between citizens, by creating new laws to limit and sanitise “free” speech. This may in turn, reduce the effectiveness of the Mu resource, if members feel obliged not to speak their mind for fear of reprisal.

I have long held that free speech is to be found solely on the Darknet. As long as a 'controversial' site is hosted on the clearnet, there are always going to be those who wish to silence you. Within the last year several long-standing sites that published/hosted sexually-oriented fiction have instituted bans on posting/hosting fiction where the characters are underage. At least two of these sites were shutdown by their hosting company on that basis. Their service was eventually restored, but only after promising their hosting companies that they would no longer deal with stories with underage characters.

Who put the hosting companies up to this? Damned if I know. If some of them are acting this cowardly now, you can just imagine how they'll begin behaving if Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is repealed. Without a safe harbor, anything the least bit questionable is going to be dropped like a hot potato.

ZeroXJoker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 8:43 pm

argosy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:58 pm I am neither American (nor a lawyer, for that matter). That said, my understanding is that the First Amendment binds the government -- it does not bind private actors, like Twitter. Accordingly, TWitter is free to discriminate as they see fit, with the proviso that they do not break other anti-discrimination laws. FWIW, I am not aware that being a MAP is to be a member of a legally-protected class, like race, ethnicity or gender. That is how they're getting away with it.

Yea private companies can restrict what is on their platforms as they see fit. Certain speech CAN be restricted from the gov't hence why in the US we have libel and slander laws. I cannot for example go into a crowded theater and scream fire for example.

We also have a universal declaration of human rights, which also states that all people have the right to freedom of thought and belief, dissemination and association based on it.

Psychiatry and psychology acknowledge that it is impossible to change attraction, and any MAP remains a MAP on lifetime , and therefore has the right to equal presence on any platform.

Although we know very well that these papers did not matter during the negative attitude towards blacks and homosexuals, which they all seem to have already forgotten.

argosy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:20 am

Strato wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 7:34 pm
[...]

The main point here is that this case highlights the rapidly increasing erosion of free speech within the collective West. The Breton letter is a prime example of how unaccountable globalist structures such as the EU are clamping down on communications between citizens, by creating new laws to limit and sanitise “free” speech. This may in turn, reduce the effectiveness of the Mu resource, if members feel obliged not to speak their mind for fear of reprisal.

I have long held that free speech is to be found solely on the Darknet. As long as a 'controversial' site is hosted on the clearnet, there are always going to be those who wish to silence you. Within the last year several long-standing sites that published/hosted sexually-oriented fiction have instituted bans on posting/hosting fiction where the characters are underage. At least two of these sites were shutdown by their hosting company on that basis. Their service was eventually restored, but only after promising their hosting companies that they would no longer deal with stories with underage characters.

Who put the hosting companies up to this? Damned if I know. If some of them are acting this cowardly now, you can just imagine how they'll begin behaving if Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is repealed. Without a safe harbor, anything the least bit questionable is going to be dropped like a hot potato.

Talking of hot potatoes being dropped, I note the UK police are now threatening US citizens, and by implication anyone anywhere in the world, with arrest in order to limit the spread of harmful misinformation.

From WaPo of August 10:

'London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well. “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.

One key aspect that makes this apparent crackdown on social media particularly shocking to critics is that the British government is threatening to extradite American citizens from the U.S. to be jailed in the U.K. for violating their rules about political speech online.

A Sky News reporter asked Commissioner Rowley to further explain his warning, arguing that high profile figures have been “whipping up the hatred,” and that “the likes of Elon Musk” have been getting involved. She then asked what the police force’s plan will be “when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind the keyboard who may be in a different country?”

Rowley answered by telling the reporter, “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.” “You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material,” he said. “All of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are taking — who are causing the problems for communities.”

Elon Musk has made headlines for criticizing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s response to the riots over the past week, suggesting the UK is headed toward “civil war.” He also responded to a video of someone allegedly arrested for offensive online comments with a question, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” Starmer’s spokesperson said there was “no justification” for Musk’s comments, adding that social media companies “can and should be doing” more to combat misinformation, the BBC reported. He added that such companies “have a responsibility” to stop the spread of criminal activity and limit misinformation.'

Forgive the length of the above extract, but having read it, I could well imagine the current UK government categorising pro-pedophilia discussion as misinformation, harmful to society, and thus subject to arrest warrants. Is anyone else here concerned about Rowley's warning in relation to the debates we engage in on this forum?