The Forum > Article Comments > Viewpoint diversity does not extend to extremist hate > Comments
Viewpoint diversity does not extend to extremist hate : Comments
By Ilana Akresh, published 21/3/2019As we piece ourselves together after the New Zealand tragedy, the question on everyone's mind is how to minimize or, more specifically, eliminate such horrific acts of violence.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
-
- All
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 29 March 2019 12:26:54 PM
| |
Hey Saltpetre
Where you mention "Measures to shut down online hate speech, and relevant sites" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20215&page=0#357786 Surely you're not serious? That may mean deleting around half the comments on OLO, ie. from the usual haters! Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 29 March 2019 2:19:53 PM
|
Pure and simple. No excuses acceptable.
Various authorities patrol the internet (and other communications) to identify potential threats of violence or terror, and with some degree of success in averting such, and in bringing some plotters to justice. Unfortunately such investigative measures are not always successful, and require continual development and expansion.
Measures to shut down online hate speech, and relevant sites, should therefore focus on identifying and bringing-down the perpetrators, and then re-educating such promoters and would-be attackers. Rather than requiring sites (Facebook, Twitter or whatever) to patrol and remove suspect 'content', these sites should be seen as a valuable means to identify trouble-makers (like Tarrant) and then to hopefully forestall their plans.
My identity is known to the convenor of this Forum, as a prerequisite to my being able to contribute content/opinions.
Such should be the case for all online posting sites - prior effective proof of identity. 'Black' sites included - to ensure as far as possible that all convenors/site-hosts are identified and legitimate, and that all sites ensure proof of identity for all 'contributors'.
Now, I support capital punishment in murder cases where there is no doubt of guilt. (And I could name a few - including Brevik and Tarrant.) So, if that makes me guilty of hate speech (by my own above definition), then the Forum convenor can put the authorities on to me. However, in general, I may hold strong disagreement with very many people on very many issues, but I hold no ill-will toward any of them, and would wish them no harm - from myself or from anyone else.
I understand that according to Islam, any sin toward any man (or woman) is a sin against all men (and women). Now, that sounds a lot like 'do unto others', doesn't it? The Golden Rule - attributed to Confucius - and Jesus said the same.
Peace, Brother.
And, death and destruction to all perpetrators of hate.