SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the right-to-speak-but-not-to-be-heard dept.
[Seconding-Ed note: This story is likely to be contentious. In the interests of helping set the tone, I would like to start off by quoting H.L. Mencken:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Further, this quote which has appeared in various phrasings and attributions:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
To mind's eye, I must be willing to accept against my own words and actions any that I would wish to see imposed upon another. --martyb]
YouTube Restores Far-Right Channels After Appeal
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The channels of two prominent far-right YouTubers have been re-instated after the video-sharing site said it made a mistake in removing them. Initially, YouTube gave no reason for changing its decision and just said it had made a "wrong call". Later, it said that while many people found the channels "deeply offensive", they had not broken its rules. The decision came days after YouTube's chief executive said YouTube had to be open to hosting "controversial" ideas.
YouTube removed several channels and accounts this week, claiming they had broken its hate speech policies. Among them was a channel run by white nationalist Martin Sellner and an anonymous British YouTuber known as The Iconoclast. Mr Sellner was reportedly in contact with the man who allegedly carried out the Christchurch mosque shootings in March this year that killed 51 people. Austrian police are investigating his links to the attack. He denies any involvement in the shooting.
Both men protested about the closure of their YouTube channels on social media. They shared information sent to them from YouTube, which said they had "repeatedly" broken its guidelines. On Thursday, YouTube reversed its decision and reinstated the two channels. Several other far-right channels that YouTube banned this week remain unavailable.
An explanation for the change of heart came on Friday. Farshad Shadloo, YouTube's global product policy communications lead, said that after a "thorough review" it had decided that the channels had not broken its rules. "We realise that many may find the viewpoints expressed in these channels deeply offensive," he said. Mr Shadloo added that YouTube had recently updated the way it handled "hateful content".
Earlier this week YouTube boss Susan Wojcicki wrote in a letter to video-makers that YouTube must remain an "open platform". She said the desire to welcome all kinds of views had to be balanced against a "responsibility to protect the community".
"A commitment to openness is not easy. It sometimes means leaving up content that is outside the mainstream, controversial or even offensive," she said. "Hearing a broad range of perspectives ultimately makes us a stronger and more informed society," she claimed.
'I am Talking Directly to You': US Attorney Delivers Powerful Rebuke to White Nationalists
The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio on Thursday announced new federal charges against a self-avowed white nationalist accused of threatening to commit an attack on a local Jewish community center. James Reardon, who attended the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was arrested last week after authorities said he posted the threat on Instagram. U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman said Reardon has now been charged with one count of making threats as authorities continue their investigation into Reardon and whether he my have any accomplices.
Of course, not so much that, but what Herdman said after that.
"I am talking directly to you," Herdman said at a news conference announcing the charges. "The Constitution protects your right to speak, your right to think, and your right to believe. If you want to waste the blessings of liberty by going down a path of hatred and failed ideologies, that is your choice."
Herdman continued, evoking the sacrifices made by U.S. service members in World War II against Nazism, as well as those who marched for civil rights throughout U.S. history.
"Thousands and thousands of young Americans already voted with their lives to ensure that this same message of intolerance, death, and destruction would not prevail - you can count their ballots by visiting any American cemetery in North Africa, Italy, France, or Belgium and tallying the white headstones," Herdman said. "You can also recite the many names of civil rights advocates who bled and died in opposing supporters of those same ideologies of hatred. Their voices may be distant, but they can still be heard."
"The Constitution may give you a voice, but it doesn't guarantee you a receptive audience," Herdman added.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @01:45AM (2 children)
The Roman Empire fell to foreign ideas and foreign people, naming Christianity and the Germans. The Romans had widened "Roman" to be almost anyone, and it ceased to be an ideal to be part of. Just like the American Empire today.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday August 31 2019, @02:33AM
Rome, you should know, started out as foreigners. Whether we accept the Aeneas story, or that of Romulus and Remus, foreigners. And Rome grew by attracting exiles, people kicked out of their own communities for various crimes, and thus early Rome was predominately male. So they Raped the Sabines. Romans were the original incels, I guess. But then, they expanded. They never had an idea of a "natus", a tribal or ethnic identity. And when they fell, it was because they became jerks, and tried to manipulate the grain markets and invented bitcoin. Had nothing to to with the universality of Roman citizenship, or the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, or even the Vandals and the Lombards.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:00AM
The Roman Empire didn't fall due to foreign ideas and foreign people. It grew from a collection of mud huts to an Empire because it was so flexible in accepting foreign ideas and people.
Conquered tribes were not forced to give up their worshiping of their own deities. Instead, the Romans were happy to incorporate these deities in their own pantheon in one form or another. The Romans simply worshipped Greek (and Egyptian) scientists, philosophers and teachers, while considering Celts and Gauls with proper training to be superior soldiers.
That changed with the election of Christianity as the official religion, but things started to go downhill with the abolishment of the system of Senate and regularly changing Consuls for monarchy, under the form of an Emperor. Those were 2 structural elements. A third structural element was simply logistical overstretch, which started with the wretched Julius Caesar. A fourth factor was the old adagium that it's not wise to fight a war on multiple fronts -- knowledge which dates back to the Persians.
In short, too large an area to govern with a too rigid political and philosophical (religious) system, and too vulnerable communication lines: none of which was helped with the first Christian emperor moving the capital from Rome to Constantinopel.