DOJ sues Virginia for removing non citizens from the voter rolls

[webfact]

Ex-U.N. chief Annan tells Facebook to move faster on hate speech

By David Ingram

 

FILE PHOTO - The Facebook logo is shown at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California, U.S. May 26, 2010. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith/File Photo

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief Kofi Annan told Facebook Inc on Thursday that it should consider establishing a special team to respond more quickly to threats of sectarian violence in countries such as Myanmar that are at high risk.

 

Facebook, the world's largest social network, is under pressure from authorities and rights groups in many countries for its role in spreading hate speech, false stories and government-sponsored propaganda.

 

Annan, appearing on stage before an audience of Facebook employees, was asked by Facebook Chief Product Officer Chris Cox if he had a recommendation for the company to help protect elections.

 

He responded that Facebook should look for societies where people are likely to put out "poisonous messages," and then monitor the language there.

 

Facebook could "organise sort of a rapid response force, rapid reaction group, who can be injected into a situation, when you see it developing, so that they can try to see what advice they can give the electoral commission or those involved," Annan said, according to a live broadcast of the event.

 

Facebook says it has more than 7,500 workers who review posts for compliance with its rule book.

 

It some countries, though, it acknowledges it is short-handed. It said last month that it needed more people to work on public policy in Myanmar.

 

U.N. human rights experts investigating a possible genocide in Myanmar said in March that Facebook had played a role in spreading hate speech in the country. Nearly 700,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar into Bangladesh since insurgent attacks sparked a security crackdown last August.

 

Annan headed a commission that last year recommended to the government of Myanmar, a majority Buddhist country, that it avoid excessive force in the crisis.

 

Since then, social media may have made the crisis worse, he told Facebook employees.

 

"If indeed that was the case, was there a point somewhere along the line when action could have been taken to disrupt the dissemination of the messages? These are issues that you may need to think through," Annan said.

 

Cox replied: "That's something we're taking very seriously."

 

(Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-04

[ezzra]

14 minutes ago, webfact said:

Annan headed a commission that last year recommended to the government of Myanmar, a majority Buddhist country, that it avoid excessive force in the crisis.

Only in Myanmar? what about Syria, Yemen, N. Korea? are they all ok

there not worth mentioning? the genocide in the above countries

are by far shadowing what is happening to the Rohingya people...

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, ezzra said:

Only in Myanmar? what about Syria, Yemen, N. Korea? are they all ok

there not worth mentioning? the genocide in the above countries

are by far shadowing what is happening to the Rohingya people...

Because the commission he headed was specifically tasked with adressing the abuses being perpetrated in Mayanmar.

 

[John1012]

Can someone please define HATE SPEECH?   If someone calls me a myopic old fart, and this offends me, is this hate speech? Even if it is true, my eyesight is not 100%, I am 71 and I fart. It still offends me, so must be hate speech.....Is hate speech an utterance of the facts that are politically or theologically  unacceptable and offensive to some people?

[MajarTheLion]

Translation: UN goon isn't satisfied with the current level of silencing those who don't toe the leftist, globalist line.

 

[MajarTheLion]

3 hours ago, John1012 said:

Can someone please define HATE SPEECH?   If someone calls me a myopic old fart, and this offends me, is this hate speech? Even if it is true, my eyesight is not 100%, I am 71 and I fart. It still offends me, so must be hate speech.....Is hate speech an utterance of the facts that are politically or theologically  unacceptable and offensive to some people?

That's easy. "Hate speech" is when a person doesn't comply with the leftist, globalist agenda and dares to voice a dissenting opinion.

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, John1012 said:

Can someone please define HATE SPEECH?   If someone calls me a myopic old fart, and this offends me, is this hate speech? Even if it is true, my eyesight is not 100%, I am 71 and I fart. It still offends me, so must be hate speech.....Is hate speech an utterance of the facts that are politically or theologically  unacceptable and offensive to some people?

No. 

 

It’s spreading hate based on a person’s gender identity, creed, sexual orientation, colour, nationality or ethnicity.

 

To name but a few. 

 

There are are those who would say hate is a political view or only found in certain groups. 

 

The truth is much sadder. 

 

Bigots are everywhere and willing to exploit hate and fear to advance their agenda. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Expatthailover]

Unfortunately the current POTUS has made hate speech a cornerstone of his persona to reflect the demographic of those he panders to.

Irony is had he any intellect whatsoever his own wife would be languishing in a refugee holding cell.

Mind it beats beem slobbered over by that fat lump

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

That's easy. "Hate speech" is when a person doesn't comply with the leftist, globalist agenda and dares to voice a dissenting opinion.

No it isn’t.

 

Straw man!

[CharlesSwann]

5 hours ago, John1012 said:

Can someone please define HATE SPEECH?   If someone calls me a myopic old fart, and this offends me, is this hate speech? Even if it is true, my eyesight is not 100%, I am 71 and I fart. It still offends me, so must be hate speech.....Is hate speech an utterance of the facts that are politically or theologically  unacceptable and offensive to some people?

Hate speech is whatever hurts the feelings of the insecure and frail-minded.

[John1012]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

 

It’s spreading hate based on a person’s gender identity, creed, sexual orientation, colour, nationality or ethnicity.

 

To name but a few. 

 

There are are those who would say hate is a political view or only found in certain groups. 

 

The truth is much sadder. 

 

Bigots are everywhere and willing to exploit hate and fear to advance their agenda. 

You have not defined what hate is....I know what anger is, I know what envy is, I am not sure what love is...

Hate 

verb

feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone/something).

noun

intense or passionate dislike.

 

So to express a personal opinion inferring that I dislike something/someone could be construed as 'hate speech', if the object of my dislike is weak enough to be offended by my opinion?(even if my opinion is based  of supposedly factual information). I personally intensely dislike the action of grown men having intercourse with pre-prubescent young children, of either sex....but if I associate this depravity with any known figure it seems to classed as hate speech. Is this because I am offending someone who thinks that this is normal behaviour?  I personally have never felt intense or passionate dislike for anything,  except cruelty to animals or bullying, but then it is replaced by sadness that the perpetrators of these actions  are classed as humans and are allowed to continue to coexist with the rest of humanity. 

[Bluespunk]

21 minutes ago, John1012 said:

You have not defined what hate is....I know what anger is, I know what envy is, I am not sure what love is...

Hate 

verb

feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone/something).

noun

intense or passionate dislike.

 

So to express a personal opinion inferring that I dislike something/someone could be construed as 'hate speech', if the object of my dislike is weak enough to be offended by my opinion?(even if my opinion is based  of supposedly factual information). I personally intensely dislike the action of grown men having intercourse with pre-prubescent young children, of either sex....but if I associate this depravity with any known figure it seems to classed as hate speech. Is this because I am offending someone who thinks that this is normal behaviour?  I personally have never felt intense or passionate dislike for anything,  except cruelty to animals or bullying, but then it is replaced by sadness that the perpetrators of these actions  are classed as humans and are allowed to continue to coexist with the rest of humanity. 

I described hate speech in paragraph 2. 

 

That is what was asked for by you. 

 

That is what the OP is about. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Bluespunk

[John1012]

10 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I described hate speech in paragraph 2. 

 

That is what was asked for by you. 

 

That is what the OP is about. 

Thank  you.

 

Illegal hate speech", is broadly defined by the European Commission as "incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin".

 

Providing one does not incite violence but only expresses a personal opinion then this is not hate speech? Or is the basic premise of freedom of personal expression now defunct (providing that the expression of the opinion is not libellous or slanderous and is based on factual information)?  If this is the case then the fundamental basis of our society is being eroded, freedom of expression. 

 

I note that 'hate speech' has only become a problem recently because a considerable number of people are verbally rejecting  Islam, and the followers of Islam are 'offended' . When one verbally rejects Islam, one is called racist, why? If one verbally rejects Christianity,Hinduism or Judaism is one also a racist?  What indigenous people are followers of Islam? 

 

If I call a socialist a myopic parasite, by taking from those who have profited through their personal endeavour  (through taxation) to give to those who refuse to contribute to the society they reside in , not because they are unable to contribute because of physical or mental disability, but because they will not contribute...is this hate speech? This practice will eventually lead to those that endeavour either ceasing to endeavour or relocating , leading to a shortage of resources and eventually civil violence and despotic governance.

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, John1012 said:

Thank  you.

 

Illegal hate speech", is broadly defined by the European Commission as "incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin".

 

Providing one does not incite violence but only expresses a personal opinion then this is not hate speech? Or is the basic premise of freedom of personal expression now defunct (providing that the expression of the opinion is not libellous or slanderous and is based on factual information)?  If this is the case then the fundamental basis of our society is being eroded, freedom of expression. 

 

I note that 'hate speech' has only become a problem recently because a considerable number of people are verbally rejecting  Islam, and the followers of Islam are 'offended' . When one verbally rejects Islam, one is called racist, why? If one verbally rejects Christianity,Hinduism or Judaism is one also a racist?  What indigenous people are followers of Islam? 

 

If I call a socialist a myopic parasite, by taking from those who have profited through their personal endeavour  (through taxation) to give to those who refuse to contribute to the society they reside in , not because they are unable to contribute because of physical or mental disability, but because they will not contribute...is this hate speech? This practice will eventually lead to those that endeavour either ceasing to endeavour or relocating , leading to a shortage of resources and eventually civil violence and despotic governance.

Hate speech has not recently become a problem.

 

Hate speech has become a greater problem because is more opportunity to spread it to a wider audience in this age. Bigots seem to to enjoy using social media. 

 

It is important we counter the lies and hatred spread by these bigots. 

 

Hate speech is not freedom of expression, it is abuse of it. 

 

One can reject any notion they wish.

 

One cannot incite hatred and violence whilst doing so. 

 

That is hate speech. 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Bluespunk

[CharlesSwann]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Hate speech has not recently become a problem.

 

Hate speech has become a greater problem because is more opportunity to spread it to a wider audience in this age. Bigots seem to to enjoy using social media. 

 

It is important we counter the lies and hatred spread by these bigots. 

 

Hate speech is not freedom of expression, it is abuse of it. 

 

One can reject any notion they wish.

 

One cannot incite hatred and violence whilst doing so. 

 

That is hate speech. 

That position is just as fascistic as so-called 'hate speech'.

 

Consider:

1. It's only superficially 'hate'. Identifying it as 'hate' is mainly a reflection of the insecurity of the subject. You can direct all the 'hate' you want at me for my opinions (as you have been known to do) but it doesn't bother me in the slightest as I do not feel threatened.

2. 'Hate' is often just invective for rhetorical effect, rather than genuine 'hate'.

3. The phenomenon characterised as 'hate' exists for reasons, like them or not. There's more long-term serenity to be achieved in addressing, rather than suppressing them.

 

Those who say non-mainstream opinions cannot be expresed - that way lies another kind of tyranny.

For a more thorough analysis, see Christopher Hitchen's "Letters to a Young Contrarian".

 

[Bluespunk]

44 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

That position is just as fascistic as so-called 'hate speech'.

 

Consider:

1. It's only superficially 'hate'. Identifying it as 'hate' is mainly a reflection of the insecurity of the subject. You can direct all the 'hate' you want at me for my opinions (as you have been known to do) but it doesn't bother me in the slightest as I do not feel threatened.

2. 'Hate' is often just invective for rhetorical effect, rather than genuine 'hate'.

3. The phenomenon characterised as 'hate' exists for reasons, like them or not. There's more long-term serenity to be achieved in addressing, rather than suppressing them.

 

Those who say non-mainstream opinions cannot be expresed - that way lies another kind of tyranny.

For a more thorough analysis, see Christopher Hitchen's "Letters to a Young Contrarian".

 

I know what hate speech is and I know when bigots are spreading it.

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory post and replies to it have been removed.

[Expatthailover]

Facebook has laughed at the whole of the world after the Cambridge analytica debacle and zuckerburg has paid scant lipservice in his pathetic attempt at contrition 

He was on first name terms with just about every politician when asked to front the enquiry   pathetic.

Kofi who?

With a president who rejoices in hate, prejudice, violence and  sneer why should mark give a tinkers cuss what annan wants.  

[RickBradford]

On 5/5/2018 at 12:27 PM, John1012 said:

Can someone please define HATE SPEECH?  

There is no hard and fast definition -- it all depends on who is doing the defining.

 

One thing's for sure; the people who will get to legally define hate speech will be exactly the last people you would want carrying out such a function.