Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Robby Soave: CENSORSHIP Of Kiwi Farms Will Make Hate Online WORSE" video.

Look, here is the problem: If someone calls for actual violence against another person, AND gives details on where that person can be found, does that transform the speech into a true threat? If it does, it is not protected speech. It is a true threat and should be treated as such. But should an entire site be taken down because of some true threats? Was the site's purpose to transmit threats, and the rest of the conversations were window dressing?
26
Law enforcement isn't holding platforms responsible. Section 230 protects them. All they have to do is obey a court order to identify those breaking the law (by making true threats, etc.) when they get the order. Private parties they contract with have cancelled Kiwi Farms' services.
7
@Underground3 This is true as well. It is always a dilemma. But no one has to cooperate with law enforcement most of the time (traffic accidents are different; that's what gets us used to thinking we have to in other areas, whereas it's getting behind the wheel of a car that implies consent to report if you get in an accident). Absent a court order, search warrant, etc., they don't have to. No one has to contract with someone else in order to help law enforcement, for Pete's sake.
4
@atanaZion For real? Then that's the answer. Take it down.
3
@zeriel9148 The burden of proof should be on the proponent of censorship. I have no problem censoring unprotected speech, like threats. Silencing the speaker forevermore is not evident. Blocking the entire platform itself, even less so. But if it is dedicated to transmitting death threats and such, of course take it down.
3
@animegirl4209 Well, to me, the burden of proof is always on the one who proposes censorship, to show that it's really warranted. Too bad we don't respect that principle so much anymore! :/
3
@alternativedeathstyle6604 Well, as we all know from the Hustler case, parody, and even extreme parody, is usually First Amendment protected. I never passed judgment on Kiwi Farms itself, and I've never used it.
2
@chinogambino9375 Actually, they aren't required to "keep content legal" because it is impossible to do so with the necessary rapidity. No one can do that, because no one can keep up. What they have to do is obey court orders. The usual procedure is to get a court order to reveal all that the platform knows of the identity of someone who posted illegal content, and then the platform must comply, essentially as soon as humanly possible, and turn over everything they know about whoever (or whatever bot) that was.
2