Facebook Bans White Nationalist's Account Over Hate Speech

Facebook has joined other online platforms and has banned Christopher Cantwell's accounts. according to Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja who spoke to AP.

The platform also removed several pages connected to the white nationalist movement on grounds of violating the company's hate speech/organizations policies.

“I’m not surprised by almost any of this because the whole thing we are complaining about here is that we are trying to express our views, and everybody is going through extraordinary lengths to make sure we are not heard,” Cantwell told AP in a phone interview from an undisclosed location.

“Frankly, whatever you think of my views, that is very scary to me,” he said. “Facebook and Instagram is one thing but not being able to participate in the financial system because of your political opinions is something that, you know, people should worry about in America.”

Daily Stormer Kicked Off Godaddy and then Google ... Now Hosted in Russia

The white supremacist website was first dropped from Godaddy (who was the domain registrar), and they switched to Google for that service, but Google then dropped them too, all following the Charlottesville, Virginia riot this week.

The site then moved to the dark net briefly. And is now based in Russia

Google Announces Hate Crime News Index

Although the YouTube version of removing hate crime videos hasn't worked very well (they've accidentally flagged documentaries about war crimes, too), Google News is going to have a "hate crime" addition.

The News lab at the company is working with Pitch Interactive and ProPublica to use machine learning to track and report on hate crimes around the country.

This will make it easier for people to find stories about their hate crime of choice.

Spotify Pulling Racist Music from Site

The move came after a music blog called Digital Music News ran a story IDing 37 white supremacist bands available on Spotify, the site whose brand tagline is "Spotify: Music for everyone"

The company's press office then stated that they remove music "that favors hatred or incites violence against race, religion, sexuality" as soon as it is "brought to our attention."

Fired: Google Employee Who Wrote About Gender Equality Practices and Culture of Suppressing Honest Discussion

James Damore, who published a memo that discusses differences between men and women and criticizes Google's internal efforts to increase "diversity" and "gender equality," was fired by CEO Sundar Pichai this week.

The memo Damore wrote questions whether these policies are correct, and it argues men and women are naturally different and so differences in how they fit in in the economy or a business shouldn't all be put down to "sexism." He also argues that a Left-leaning culture at Google stifles honest discussion and debate.

The reply from Google came from new Diversity, Integrity and Governance CEO Danielle Brown, in which she wrote about the memo, which she described as "... expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google ... . I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. 

"Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws."

The decision to fire Damore was made after a serious discussion at Google. “Just like all of Google is struggling with this, we were not unanimous at first about whether what he wrote merited firing, although we all came around to it,” one top exec told Gizmodo. “But Sundar had to make a call about what kind of Google he wanted to stress and he did.”

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki was quoted, “While people may have a right to express their beliefs in public, that does not mean companies cannot take action when women are subjected to comments that perpetuate negative stereotypes about them based on their gender. Every day, companies take action against employees who make unlawful statements about co-workers, or create hostile work environments.”

James Damore's memo and Danielle Brown's reply
James Damore's later response to being fired

Chinese Tourists Arrested for Making Hitler Salute in Germany

According to police, a fine or a prison sentence up to 3 years is possible for a pair of Chinese tourists who made a particular gesture outside the Parliament building this week.

Germany has strict laws on "hate speech" and symbols linked to Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazi organization is "banned" in Germany.

The law is more commonly used to prosecute Germans who have far right political ideas.

The two men were released on a bail of around $600 each and are allowed to leave the country, and when the sentence is finally decided (in their absence), the bail money will probably be enough to cover it.

There Is No 'Hate Speech' Exemption to First Amendment, Supreme Court Rules

"[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate.'"

That was the writing of one of the 8 justices that unanimously found "hate speech" laws illegal this week.

The case where this happened had to do with whether a band called "The Slants" could get a patent for the name. It was denied by the Patent Office because they thought it was probably racially disparaging, and they have a disparagement clause where they don't patent that type of thing.

The story of the case, from the syllabus:

"Simon Tam, lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants,' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons. Tam sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS.' The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may 'disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute' any 'persons, living or dead.' Tam contested the denial of registration through the administrative appeals process, to no avail. He then took the case to federal court, where the en banc Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. "

Tam wanted the Patent Office to accept the band name, and even to change the wording of their clause.

But the Supreme Court (and the circuit court before) found that the clause itself was unconstitutional.

"The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech. Because the “Free Speech
Clause . . . does not regulate government speech,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the government is not required to maintain viewpoint neutrality on its own speech. This Court exercises great caution in extending its government-speech precedents, for if private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints."

Syllabus

Supreme Court Strikes Law Barring Sex Offenders from Social Media

8-0. It was unanimous.

The U.S. Constitution First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. And now, according to the Supreme Court, an earlier law that barred sex offenders from using social media was struck because it impermissibly restricts that right.

North Carolina had made it a felony for sex offenders from using social media whenever the websites allow members to be children.

A man in that state who was a registered sex offender was charged after making a normal Facebook post. He challenged the charge. It went back and forth a little with the judges in the state and appellate courts, but the Supreme Court decided the state hadn't shown the sweeping law was necessary or legitimate.

One of the justices wrote, "These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to ‘become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’"

Swiss Court Fines Man for Liking Defamatory Comment

The original post on Facebook was about whether animal rights groups should be allowed to take part in vegan street festivals, and it became discussed heatedly.

Several people were fined by the courts for making comments it deemed defamatory, and one man was fined for "liking" some comments which accused an animal rights activist of racism and antisemitism.

That activist was Erwin Kessler, who brought the lawsuit against the participants.

According to the court, “the defendant clearly endorsed the unseemly content and made it his own,” when he hit the "like" button.