If you've been keeping up with the news, then you may have heard that Facebook is starting to remove posts dealing with "white nationalism". This new policy strikes me as being overly broad. To explain this, let's examine free speech and hate speech; what is generally permissible to say, and what isn't?
Personally, I believe that any discussion on speech begins with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This article reads that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
This means that generally, Americans are free to say and publish what they wish, without fear of retaliation by the government. However, this freedom is not absolute.
Let me explain the oft-quoted example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire. This action may produce a stampede for the exits, which potentially would be deadly. In a similar manner, our courts have ruled that any speech which expresses a "true threat" to others (that is, an actual physical threat against the well-being of others) is "hate speech", and may have legal action/censorship taken against it.
As another example, let's take expressing anger against the government. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that somebody says that the governor should be hit with a car. As there is no obvious intent to take the action, this statement is not a "true threat" (at least, not on its own), and is permitted. However, if the same person were to say that he is going to run over the governor, that is regarded as an actual threat to the governor's well-being (since actual intent to commit such an act appears to exist). As such, the person making the statement can be arrested for making a "true threat" against a public official. One can also be arrested, or have legal action taken against them, for the incitement of "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot).
This brings me to the matter of Facebook's "Community Standards" (as defined on the site). According to Part III Section 12 of the Standards, Facebook defines hate speech as any
"direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation".
Now, certain types of speech have a general attitude of contempt and/or disrespect to them. An example of this would be ethnic slurs, such as the term "spic" to describe Hispanics. These terms have the effect of insulting and demeaning their targets. However, they are not on their face physical threats against anybody's safety.
In the same way, let's examine the opinion that "all Muslims are terrorists". Such an expression, whether agreed upon or not, would (according to Facebook) be defined as an "attack" on Muslims. As such, Facebook says such a statement is not allowed on their site. Nevertheless (and as in the previously explained statement), expressing this or a similar opinion cannot be construed as a physical threat against Muslims; there is no intent to harm them that is evident.
Knowing this, I take issue with Facebook on their latest action. As I previously explained, I believe this action to be too broad in its scope. How long will it be before an innocuous comment like "God bless America" is banned? After all, this remark could be described as "offensive" to those who don't believe in God/America (right, liberals?).
Obviously, my concern relates to that of freedom and liberty. If Americans don't have the freedom to express controversial ideas, or even not-so-controversial ones, then I believe we have no freedom at all. And that idea, to me, is "offensive".
Friday, March 29, 2019
Sunday, March 24, 2019
A Scientific Theory
Here's an interesting concept for you; let's talk physics! To quote former WWOR weatherman Lloyd Lindsey Young, "SCIENCE"!
Late last night, I found myself in another of my "deep thinking" moments. At issue were the "heavy" subjects of time, space, and quantum physics. I won't elaborate on how I came to ponder these things; it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Rather, I will digress, and discuss my idea of alternate timelines.
Consider, if you will, Newton's Third Law; "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"(1). This is the basis of theories regarding "space-time", and what we see as our reality. In mathematical terms, it is the idea that an action taken (we'll call it "Action A") leads/has led to a certain result (let's call it "Outcome 1"). Let's examine this for a moment.
In most to all cases, we are presented with multiple choices. For example, when driving down the street, one can choose to go straight, turn left, or turn right. What we know as our historical timeline is what we have chosen to do; in this case, let's say we take a left. Now, two other choices exist; choices that we did not make. As such, there are other possible outcomes that did not, and cannot, come to pass (that is, if "Action B" was taken, it likely would've led to a whole different result; "Outcome 2").
If we accept the above explanation as true, then it stands to reason that other timelines seemingly exist. As Commander Data (Brent Spiner) explained in "Star Trek: The Next Generation", there are seemingly infinite other actions that can be taken(2); the fact that they were not taken doesn't preclude their existence. This being the case, it's my hypothesis that infinite alternate timelines exist, where totally different events from what has taken place in our timeline have happened (or will happen).
Now, there's one little problem with my theory; there is, seemingly, no clear way of testing the hypothesis. As such, we may never know for certain whether it is true or not. It is this idea that is, at least partially, behind the concept of time travel. So, as is usually the case, I could be wrong in my scientific analysis; time will indeed tell (no pun intended).
(Definition of "preclude": to rule out in advance, or make impossible)
(Definition of "hypothesis": an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument)
Sunday, March 10, 2019
"No Respect, No Honor"
Just a couple of random thoughts.
I'm thinking about starting work on a new project; a show (for video, maybe) about mysteries and conspiracies. In researching this matter, I have been reminded of one Jesse Ventura.
Mr. Ventura has been on his share of adventures; some may know him from the wrestling ring, as "The Body". After retiring from wrestling, Jesse got involved in politics. In 1998, Ventura (running as an independent) "shocked the world" by winning election to the office of governor of Minnesota. That's where his story seems to get a bit weird.
After leaving office, Mr. Ventura resumed his media career, hosting TruTV's "Conspiracy Theory". The show, which ran for three seasons, investigated certain perplexing mysteries (the network pulled the plug on the show after a series of controversies). I must admit, I enjoyed this series; it was full of intrigue, and got me asking the question, "what if?". However, some of the theories proposed were quite strange; the BS factor was a bit high. This is where I take issue with Ventura.
It seems to me that Jesse Ventura is not a real investigative journalist, as he makes himself out to be. By this, I mean that he has questionable motives, and does things based on the age-old idea of "what's in it for me". In my opinion, Ventura is full of himself, arrogant, and disrespectful. I used to enjoy his wrestling exploits, and hold him in some degree of respect. However, that respect has long since disappeared.
Jesse Ventura is a man who claims to have been a "Navy SEAL", but is fudging his military record at best, and lying about it at worst (he was a member of the Navy's "Underwater Demolition Team", which carried out SEAL-like missions. There is some disagreement as to whether members of this team are authorized to call themselves SEALs)(1). Frankly, I wonder why a SEAL would attack another SEAL both personally and professionally; you can ask Taya Kyle about that one (in 2006, her late husband (former SEAL Chris Kyle) was allegedly involved with Mr. Ventura in a physical incident. Ventura sued Kyle for defamation, and won his case. The parties would eventually settle out-of court)(2).
This is also a man who, when called out on his various theories, runs away from questioning. Ventura says that people who question him are "lucky" that they don't get beaten up (various sources) Hey tough guy, are you angry that I see through your smoke show? And what are you going to do about it? I've got news for you; if you were ever to try to knock me out, I'd have you arrested for assault. Then, I'd sue you for everything you have. And yes, please do run for president in 2020; guess what? NOBODY CARES about your supposed candidacy! You were a decent governor, but that was long ago, before you started getting "high off your own supply". Sorry Jesse, but you're out of your league on this one.
Anyways, if I sound a bit perturbed, then it's with good reason. I don't like liars, phonies, or people that think of themselves as "holier than thou". Jesse Ventura comes off as all of these things to me. He says he loves his country, but in the same breath, he'll mention that his supposed fellow SEALs "deserve(d) to lose a few guys" (more on that later)(2). Forget doing the right thing; for Ventura (to borrow a quote from "Mr. McMahon"), "it's all about the money". Clearly, "The Body" has no brain; at least, that brain has seen better days.
I'm thinking about starting work on a new project; a show (for video, maybe) about mysteries and conspiracies. In researching this matter, I have been reminded of one Jesse Ventura.
Mr. Ventura has been on his share of adventures; some may know him from the wrestling ring, as "The Body". After retiring from wrestling, Jesse got involved in politics. In 1998, Ventura (running as an independent) "shocked the world" by winning election to the office of governor of Minnesota. That's where his story seems to get a bit weird.
After leaving office, Mr. Ventura resumed his media career, hosting TruTV's "Conspiracy Theory". The show, which ran for three seasons, investigated certain perplexing mysteries (the network pulled the plug on the show after a series of controversies). I must admit, I enjoyed this series; it was full of intrigue, and got me asking the question, "what if?". However, some of the theories proposed were quite strange; the BS factor was a bit high. This is where I take issue with Ventura.
It seems to me that Jesse Ventura is not a real investigative journalist, as he makes himself out to be. By this, I mean that he has questionable motives, and does things based on the age-old idea of "what's in it for me". In my opinion, Ventura is full of himself, arrogant, and disrespectful. I used to enjoy his wrestling exploits, and hold him in some degree of respect. However, that respect has long since disappeared.
Jesse Ventura is a man who claims to have been a "Navy SEAL", but is fudging his military record at best, and lying about it at worst (he was a member of the Navy's "Underwater Demolition Team", which carried out SEAL-like missions. There is some disagreement as to whether members of this team are authorized to call themselves SEALs)(1). Frankly, I wonder why a SEAL would attack another SEAL both personally and professionally; you can ask Taya Kyle about that one (in 2006, her late husband (former SEAL Chris Kyle) was allegedly involved with Mr. Ventura in a physical incident. Ventura sued Kyle for defamation, and won his case. The parties would eventually settle out-of court)(2).
This is also a man who, when called out on his various theories, runs away from questioning. Ventura says that people who question him are "lucky" that they don't get beaten up (various sources) Hey tough guy, are you angry that I see through your smoke show? And what are you going to do about it? I've got news for you; if you were ever to try to knock me out, I'd have you arrested for assault. Then, I'd sue you for everything you have. And yes, please do run for president in 2020; guess what? NOBODY CARES about your supposed candidacy! You were a decent governor, but that was long ago, before you started getting "high off your own supply". Sorry Jesse, but you're out of your league on this one.
Anyways, if I sound a bit perturbed, then it's with good reason. I don't like liars, phonies, or people that think of themselves as "holier than thou". Jesse Ventura comes off as all of these things to me. He says he loves his country, but in the same breath, he'll mention that his supposed fellow SEALs "deserve(d) to lose a few guys" (more on that later)(2). Forget doing the right thing; for Ventura (to borrow a quote from "Mr. McMahon"), "it's all about the money". Clearly, "The Body" has no brain; at least, that brain has seen better days.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Political Frustration
Just a quick observation today.
Frankly, I am quite angry at the current state of things in this country. Maybe I've been watching too much of Jesse Ventura, but I'm sick of it.
In America today (as well as my home state of Connecticut), we are more divided now than at any time since the Civil War. Many Americans have openly embraced Communism (by any other name), and too many of those who have not have chosen to "go along to get along". A second American Civil War may now be not just possible, but inevitable (did you miss the part where certain members of the FBI plotted a "soft coup" to remove a duly elected president?).
Yet, many of us repeat the liberal talking points; Trump is deranged/evil, the GOP is working with Russia, and if you disagree, you're a racist/sexist scumbag. I'm not one of those people. I have never believed in violence for the sake of violence, or the idea of taking power "by any means necessary"; there are some things that civilized people just don't do.
Nevertheless, if some people want violence in the shape of another Civil War, I say bring it on, and get it over with. I must echo the words of Patrick Henry, who said this in 1775:
"If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable, and let it come. I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "peace, peace"; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Now, as then, Henry was correct. Brave Americans like LeRoy Finicum (murdered in cold blood by the FBI; look that one up) have already died in the defense of "life, liberty, and (the) pursuit of happiness". It is, therefore, too late to say, "let's sit down, and talk out our differences". Clearly, liberals aren't interested in this course of action anyway; if they were, President Trump wouldn't have had to declare a national emergency (yes "Dick" Blumenthal, that is absolutely within his powers; being a legal scholar, you should know this).
Frankly, I am quite angry at the current state of things in this country. Maybe I've been watching too much of Jesse Ventura, but I'm sick of it.
In America today (as well as my home state of Connecticut), we are more divided now than at any time since the Civil War. Many Americans have openly embraced Communism (by any other name), and too many of those who have not have chosen to "go along to get along". A second American Civil War may now be not just possible, but inevitable (did you miss the part where certain members of the FBI plotted a "soft coup" to remove a duly elected president?).
Yet, many of us repeat the liberal talking points; Trump is deranged/evil, the GOP is working with Russia, and if you disagree, you're a racist/sexist scumbag. I'm not one of those people. I have never believed in violence for the sake of violence, or the idea of taking power "by any means necessary"; there are some things that civilized people just don't do.
Nevertheless, if some people want violence in the shape of another Civil War, I say bring it on, and get it over with. I must echo the words of Patrick Henry, who said this in 1775:
"If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable, and let it come. I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "peace, peace"; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Now, as then, Henry was correct. Brave Americans like LeRoy Finicum (murdered in cold blood by the FBI; look that one up) have already died in the defense of "life, liberty, and (the) pursuit of happiness". It is, therefore, too late to say, "let's sit down, and talk out our differences". Clearly, liberals aren't interested in this course of action anyway; if they were, President Trump wouldn't have had to declare a national emergency (yes "Dick" Blumenthal, that is absolutely within his powers; being a legal scholar, you should know this).
It is indeed now as it was two hundred and forty-four years ago. Are you going to stand on the sidelines, or are you going to fight for all that we hold dear? There is a conflict occurring between good (the "American way") and evil ("our way or the highway"). To quote an old folk song (see, I'm "bi-partisan"!), "which side are you on"?
"There are two paths! There are two paths! One is America, the other is (Communism)! Anyone who's willing to stand with me to fight...I will be in (the) bunker...and if you're not in that bunker...more than 'shame on you'. You're on the other side! -- Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
"Do it now! Get this (expletive) over with!" -- Nas, "Hate Me Now"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)