Nostr Web Client

I only asked a rhetorical question. Your opinion is that the above content is a criminal threat. I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that in court (it's not very specific or directed), but maybe you're right.

My point is about the term "hate speech", defined by the UN as "speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are." This is an extremely broad definition!

If a speech act is illegal, you don't need the extra category of hate speech, just call the cops and remove it if you can. If a speech act isn't illegal, it's protected in the US from government interference. A free speech protocol should be very careful about requiring all participants to censor more strictly than what is required by law.

Moderation is a different topic, and in my opinion can be basically arbitrary. The trick is decoupling protocol-level moderation (permissive) from platform-level moderation (strict).

The category of "hate speech" is in practice synonymous with that of "blasphemy". Every culture has norms regulating speech based on what it holds sacred, very often enforced by law. The US used to have Christian blasphemy laws intended to honor God; we will soon have liberal blasphemy laws based on the shared cultural value of "tolerance" (which is, by the way, not a Christian virtue or value. I can provide citations if you like).

The term "hate speech" is "hate speech", because it re-defines legal political speech as illegal, using the same framework as blasphemy laws. The result is that the freedom of certain groups to express themselves is restricted, because their speech contravenes the gods of their nation. Or, to borrow your phrase, "intolerance of intolerance" hurts all dissidents.

As a Christian, I prefer Christian blasphemy laws to blasphemy laws that restrict my freedom to say what I think is true. As someone who sympathizes with libertarianism, I am very cautious about all blasphemy laws, and would prefer to err on the side of permissiveness.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't condone the speech you cited above, and would choose to moderate it. But that's entirely beside the point. I also agree with your original note, other than the use of the term "hate speech".

s3x_jay 2y ago

1) The term “hate speech” has nothing to do with whether it’s criminal. Hate is hate, whether it’s illegal or not.

2) The UN’s broad definition is based on them (collectively) seeing hate in a very broad range of situations. The fact that my example meets their definition bolsters the point I was making.

3) The fact that you’d choose to moderate it (presumably because it’s hateful) is exactly the point I was making.

As far as “protocol-level” vs “platform-level”… Protocol-level censorship is impossible on Nostr. There’s no point in discussing it. It’s a red herring.

“Platform-level” stuff is more complicated. There are very specific use cases that are being built on Nostr that are clearly “platforms” (e.g. the creator solution Mazin is building). Then there’s “kind 1” which I think is better called a “common area” shared by many platforms.

The protocol needs a way to let everyone experience the common areas without fear or harassment. Which in practical terms means letting their “community guardians” label things that are problems for their community as problems (like content matching their definition of “hate speech”).

Saying that labeling things as “hate speech” is problematic makes the problem worse, not better. We need to acknowledge the problem and address it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

hodlbod 2y ago

I'd moderate it because I'm the dictator of my server. The above example is inappropriate, distasteful, politically counter-productive, and off-topic, but I refuse to use the term "hate speech".

The term "inappropriate" would be a better alternative, since it is context-dependent, while the term "hate speech" is absolute. Calling something "inappropriate" is just, like, your opinion man. Calling something "hate speech" is a moral judgment.

Just because examples exist that illustrate the intent of a term doesn't make the term's intent match its definition. "Some derogatory speech is motivated by hate" does not imply that "all derogatory speech is motivated by hate", that's basic logic.

Pastors in Canada and the UK have been arrested for hate speech just for preaching a sermon, from the Bible, in their own church when their intent is clearly not to harass, terrorize, or threaten, but to speak a religious truth.

Because "hate speech" is over-broad, it lends itself to selective enforcement. It's an arbitrary term designed to discredit certain groups based on the interests of the ones making the designation. If you lose freedom of speech through the mechanism of "hate speech", you lose freedom of religion.

Maybe this is too cynical for someone who believes in the essential goodness of people. But consider that few people are convinced by violent speech; it's off-putting. Subtly deceptive terms like "hate speech" are adopted much more easily by many more people, and therefore do more damage. Let the nazis rage, I'm much more worried well-intentioned socialists are going to steamroll my way of life.

I think we're on the same page re platform vs protocol moderation based on how the discussion on NIP-69 has gone. The horseshoe dynamic here is interesting. It would be hard to find two people more politically distant than we are, and yet we align pretty well on this content labeling issue.