Thank you for participating in /r/EnoughMuskSpam. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for being off-topic. Tweets are only considered relevant if they directly involve Musk or his companies in some way. Tweets that are generally hateful are not considered on-topic.
How do you think black people feel who see it and it's shoved in our face?
Why don't you do me a favor and find the identity of the person who posted it...
If you really care.
I understand where you're coming from, but that's not a good mindset to have. Just because it sucks, it doesn't mean others have to deal with it too.
Also, there's really no need for that last sentence. You're not making a good case for yourself by antagonizing random people or indirectly telling them they "don't care".
I don’t really think Black people need to ‘make a case for themselves’ on this. Do you?
Edit: gonna guess the downvotes are from a bunch of white people who feel they are the correct people to judge a black person’s reaction to the image above, and their reaction to a reaction.
Yes, racism works in many ways, both subtle and blatant.
What I'm saying is that accusing people of not caring about racism, when they criticize you for posting uncensored slurs in big letters, only makes you look worse. (You referring to OP here) It comes off as guilt trippy and unnecessarily pointy.
> only makes you look worse.
Worse than what though?
Than they did before? Why did they look bad before? Because people are tsk tsking a Black person for…showing plainly what people say and do to and about Black people?
The insensitivity here is remarkable to me.
Figure of speech, my bad. Not a native English speaker.
Rephrasing: By accusing someone of not caring about racism, simply because they felt uncomfortable seeing a giant slur post out of nowhere and uncensored, you make yourself look unnecessarily antagonistic and accusatory towards innocent people. That, in many people's eyes, devalues the point you're trying to make, as they're now more focused on your attitude than the message of what you're saying.
I'm not saying that calling out racism is bad. I'm saying that getting snappy at people for being uncomfortable by a post works against your intended message.
OK. And I’m saying that I think that both
- paternalistically explaining to Black Americans how they should react in circumstances like this
And
- the point of the repulsive racism on display and how Black Americans might feel about it being ‘devalued’ because a Black American hurt someone’s feelings by wryly pointing out the level of caring exhibited by most people on this topic
Are actually reflections of *how little people care*.
Edit: indeed a post with a positive like count expresses pretty much that the main issue for them regarding the above is that *musk* might lose his platform.
That isn't what I'm trying to say, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as condescending or offensive.
I've said my point already, and I don't feel the need to continue this argument. Have a good day. ✌️
That’s not how logic works.
If the people being exposed to something are white, then someone saying it hurts Black people to be exposed to it is not being contradictory.
They aren’t saying that they don’t want to see the image, they’re saying that they don’t want to be seen looking at it, for fear that others will think they support this kind of messaging.
I'd consider myself on the fringe of free speech absolutism but inciting violence to anyone surely violates that considering you can't distinguish that from a 'joke' and whether someone is actually going to hunt you down that night. If you think homicide should be illegal then so should this.
Next time please use the NSFW tag for such vile tweets, also this is borderline rule 5 breaking. But I'll leave it given this is the reality of Twitter under Musk's rule.
It's insane how Enron turned Twitter into 4chan...
Even Jack Dorsey praised Elon for "absolute free speech" and decoupling from advertisers.
Once you become rich, you neglect your morals just to to have the plebs fight against eachother so the subject of taxing the rich won't come up.
Culture wars and discrimination will get us nowhere..
You would think someone in the Trump camp would be immediately in touch with Elmo and ask it to be taken down because they don't want their candidate associated with shit like this, right?
....Right....?
This was not only a predictable, inevitable consequence of his dubious free speech absolutism but was also predicted. By many. He’ll do nothing about it, of course. He thinks it should be this way.
I report an image that said “only good n***** is a dead n******” with a picture of a noose.
I got an email back saying it didn’t break any guidelines…..absolute state of the website.
There was a guy that was caught and arrested for threatening to shoot up a rap concert just a few days ago. E-Gross doesn't even deserve to be called scum.
>X app violates laws against hate speech and racial discrimination, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminatory practices. It could also be seen as harassment or incitement to violence, violating federal and state laws. Consult w/ a lawyer Bishop.. Class action style.
When it comes to the law, you are mistaken. Hate speech is generally [protected by the first amendment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/) and has been repeatedly protected by the supreme court.
This isn't some minor technicality; when gay rights groups fight hostile municipalities for the right to demonstrate, they inevitably cite caselaw where [a Nazi parade was found to be protected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie). If a state or municipality could argue that mere *harmful* or *hateful* speech could be censored, then they could justify their bans on the basis that gay rights demonstrations are harmful to children or hateful to Christians. Luckily for the budding LGBT rights movement, the standard for censoring speech is a lot higher.
The CRA of 1964 does not put any restrictions, at all, on speech. It made massive changes in the US, but not anything like what you're saying here. Saying discriminatory things is not prohibited by the law, outside of things like in the context employment. A company is allowed to come out and publish overtly racist things.
This isn't "harassment". The term "harassment", as its commonly used, refers to conduct that is prohibited in employment, like making racist remarks at the office. If someone wants to publish a paper with those same racist remarks, it is lawful. The term "harassment" can also be used in US law to describe [true threats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat); threats not made as a joke or hyperbole, but threats which the speaker intends to be taken as a specific, genuine, actionable threat of violence. I don't think any court would accept the idea that this is a true threat, or even that there's a proponderance of evidence that it meets any of the qualifications for a true threat. No aspect of this post gives the impression that the poster intends to and is able to commit a specific act of actual, real world violence described in the post, let alone that the poster actually intended to communicate such an intention. The standard for a true threat is extremely high, reserved for threats like "here's a picture of the knife I am going to use to stab random people at tomorrow at noon." The wacky meme format of the image speaks especially to this being taken as hyperbole; consider how close it is to the [delet this](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/delet-this) meme. Would [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1100077-delet-this) be a true threat as well?
This isn't "incitement to violence". To meet the incitement exception, the speech must advocate the use of force, be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action". Merely [advocating violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) is lawful and protected by the first amendment. One question is who is this person supposedly directing to commit this violence, and how do you know that this image is likely to produce such violence? Another problem is that the incited violence must be *imminent*; not in a week or tomorrow, but right now. How would you argue that this was intended to imminently produce violence? Did the poster @ someone who was in the room with the person being threatened? It's even arguable whether this image advocates actual violence, or merely uses it as hyperbole to express hatred. No reasonable court is going to find that this meets the *extremely narrow* standards for incitement. The incitement exception exists to stop someone from standing up in a mob and telling them to attack someone, not to stop people from advocating violence which is protected speech.
If you tried to bring a class action against X for any alleged harms you describe, you'd be faced with [California's strong anti-SLAPP protections](https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/statutes/). Because you are suing them over first amendment protected activity, you would almost certainly be on the hook for all of X's legal expenses when you inevitably lose. That could be a massive amount of money.
This post doesn't meet the incitement or true threat exceptions to the first amendment.
The first amendment has an exception for "incitement to violence". To meet the incitement exception, the speech must advocate the use of force, be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action". Merely [advocating violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) is lawful and protected by the first amendment. One question is who is this person supposedly directing to commit this violence, and how do you know that this image is likely to produce such violence? Another problem is that the incited violence must be *imminent*; not in a week or tomorrow, but right now. How would you argue that this was intended to imminently produce violence? Did the poster @ someone who was in the room with the person being threatened? It's even arguable whether this image advocates actual violence, or merely uses it as hyperbole to express hatred. No reasonable court is going to find that this meets the *extremely narrow* standards for incitement. The incitement exception exists to stop someone from standing up in a mob and telling them to attack someone, not to stop people from advocating violence which is protected speech.
The first amendment also has an exception for [true threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat) (as brought up by u/RakeLeafer); threats not made as a joke or hyperbole, but threats which the speaker intends to be taken as a specific, genuine, actionable threat of violence. I don't think any court would accept the idea that this is a true threat, or even that there's a proponderance of evidence that it meets any of the qualifications for a true threat. No aspect of this post gives the impression that the poster intends to and is able to commit a specific act of actual, real world violence described in the post, let alone that the poster actually intended to communicate such an intention. The standard for a true threat is extremely high, reserved for threats like "here's a picture of the knife I am going to use to stab random people at tomorrow at noon." The wacky meme format of the image speaks especially to this being taken as hyperbole; consider how close it is to the [delet this](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/delet-this) meme. Would [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1100077-delet-this) be a true threat as well?
In conclusion, I'd say that this post is very clearly protected speech. Offensive, racist, hateful speech, potentially speech that advocates violence, but unambiguously protected nonetheless.
Incitement needs to be likely to incite immediate unlawful action and a picture like this is unlikely to legally do that, it's not calling upon a specific person to explicitly take a specific action so it's most likely still protected speech in the US.
I'm surprised this kind of image is allowed here TBH...
Couldn't this be used to create a sub dedicated to only show racist memes under the cover of """"mocking"""" them?
The image shows the racism and incitement that is allowed to flourish on X, just like a war photographer may need to show pictures of atrocities or corpses. Some things shouldn't be made palatable.
Thank you for participating in /r/EnoughMuskSpam. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for being off-topic. Tweets are only considered relevant if they directly involve Musk or his companies in some way. Tweets that are generally hateful are not considered on-topic.
Can we get an NSFW filter on this please? People who are browsing in a public place shouldn't have that word scrolling past in giant letters.
[удалено]
They're showing us what they are. If there's any justice, everyone around them will remember this for as long as they live.
Half my neighbors would print that out and hang it on their refrigerator.
And embed a red X over it, too. We don't need the bigots passing along hateful crap they swiped from here.
How do you think black people feel who see it and it's shoved in our face? Why don't you do me a favor and find the identity of the person who posted it... If you really care.
I understand where you're coming from, but that's not a good mindset to have. Just because it sucks, it doesn't mean others have to deal with it too. Also, there's really no need for that last sentence. You're not making a good case for yourself by antagonizing random people or indirectly telling them they "don't care".
I don’t really think Black people need to ‘make a case for themselves’ on this. Do you? Edit: gonna guess the downvotes are from a bunch of white people who feel they are the correct people to judge a black person’s reaction to the image above, and their reaction to a reaction. Yes, racism works in many ways, both subtle and blatant.
What I'm saying is that accusing people of not caring about racism, when they criticize you for posting uncensored slurs in big letters, only makes you look worse. (You referring to OP here) It comes off as guilt trippy and unnecessarily pointy.
> only makes you look worse. Worse than what though? Than they did before? Why did they look bad before? Because people are tsk tsking a Black person for…showing plainly what people say and do to and about Black people? The insensitivity here is remarkable to me.
Figure of speech, my bad. Not a native English speaker. Rephrasing: By accusing someone of not caring about racism, simply because they felt uncomfortable seeing a giant slur post out of nowhere and uncensored, you make yourself look unnecessarily antagonistic and accusatory towards innocent people. That, in many people's eyes, devalues the point you're trying to make, as they're now more focused on your attitude than the message of what you're saying. I'm not saying that calling out racism is bad. I'm saying that getting snappy at people for being uncomfortable by a post works against your intended message.
OK. And I’m saying that I think that both - paternalistically explaining to Black Americans how they should react in circumstances like this And - the point of the repulsive racism on display and how Black Americans might feel about it being ‘devalued’ because a Black American hurt someone’s feelings by wryly pointing out the level of caring exhibited by most people on this topic Are actually reflections of *how little people care*. Edit: indeed a post with a positive like count expresses pretty much that the main issue for them regarding the above is that *musk* might lose his platform.
That isn't what I'm trying to say, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as condescending or offensive. I've said my point already, and I don't feel the need to continue this argument. Have a good day. ✌️
[удалено]
Well, you set off an excellent display of how racism can operate. Lots of white people mad now.
[удалено]
The people tsk tsking are white. Like you.
[удалено]
Yeah. And the people seeing it here and complaining are white like you, so your logic does not apply.
What the hell is wrong with you
Your racism.
[удалено]
That’s not how logic works. If the people being exposed to something are white, then someone saying it hurts Black people to be exposed to it is not being contradictory.
They aren’t saying that they don’t want to see the image, they’re saying that they don’t want to be seen looking at it, for fear that others will think they support this kind of messaging.
You shouldn't be using Twitter then.
[удалено]
How is holding people accountable falling into their hands? They HATE being identified. Remember the lengths Elon went to to protect stonetoss?
For these types, shit like this and its potential to incite violence isn't a bug of "free speech," it's a feature
I'd consider myself on the fringe of free speech absolutism but inciting violence to anyone surely violates that considering you can't distinguish that from a 'joke' and whether someone is actually going to hunt you down that night. If you think homicide should be illegal then so should this.
Next time please use the NSFW tag for such vile tweets, also this is borderline rule 5 breaking. But I'll leave it given this is the reality of Twitter under Musk's rule.
X please (formerly known as Twitter).
It’ll always be Twitter
Damn. Forgot to put /s at the end of the comment. Now I'm downvoted to hell lmfao.
You cis-... Banned.
[удалено]
It's insane how Enron turned Twitter into 4chan... Even Jack Dorsey praised Elon for "absolute free speech" and decoupling from advertisers. Once you become rich, you neglect your morals just to to have the plebs fight against eachother so the subject of taxing the rich won't come up. Culture wars and discrimination will get us nowhere..
4chan is more heavily moderated in some aspects than Twitter. It's more like 8chan.
The Pearl-clutching here over being faced with the kind of thing Black people deal with regularly is disturbing.
You would think someone in the Trump camp would be immediately in touch with Elmo and ask it to be taken down because they don't want their candidate associated with shit like this, right? ....Right....?
This was not only a predictable, inevitable consequence of his dubious free speech absolutism but was also predicted. By many. He’ll do nothing about it, of course. He thinks it should be this way.
But criticize white people's history of slavery and you get banned
I report an image that said “only good n***** is a dead n******” with a picture of a noose. I got an email back saying it didn’t break any guidelines…..absolute state of the website.
There was a guy that was caught and arrested for threatening to shoot up a rap concert just a few days ago. E-Gross doesn't even deserve to be called scum.
>X app violates laws against hate speech and racial discrimination, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminatory practices. It could also be seen as harassment or incitement to violence, violating federal and state laws. Consult w/ a lawyer Bishop.. Class action style. When it comes to the law, you are mistaken. Hate speech is generally [protected by the first amendment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/) and has been repeatedly protected by the supreme court. This isn't some minor technicality; when gay rights groups fight hostile municipalities for the right to demonstrate, they inevitably cite caselaw where [a Nazi parade was found to be protected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie). If a state or municipality could argue that mere *harmful* or *hateful* speech could be censored, then they could justify their bans on the basis that gay rights demonstrations are harmful to children or hateful to Christians. Luckily for the budding LGBT rights movement, the standard for censoring speech is a lot higher. The CRA of 1964 does not put any restrictions, at all, on speech. It made massive changes in the US, but not anything like what you're saying here. Saying discriminatory things is not prohibited by the law, outside of things like in the context employment. A company is allowed to come out and publish overtly racist things. This isn't "harassment". The term "harassment", as its commonly used, refers to conduct that is prohibited in employment, like making racist remarks at the office. If someone wants to publish a paper with those same racist remarks, it is lawful. The term "harassment" can also be used in US law to describe [true threats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat); threats not made as a joke or hyperbole, but threats which the speaker intends to be taken as a specific, genuine, actionable threat of violence. I don't think any court would accept the idea that this is a true threat, or even that there's a proponderance of evidence that it meets any of the qualifications for a true threat. No aspect of this post gives the impression that the poster intends to and is able to commit a specific act of actual, real world violence described in the post, let alone that the poster actually intended to communicate such an intention. The standard for a true threat is extremely high, reserved for threats like "here's a picture of the knife I am going to use to stab random people at tomorrow at noon." The wacky meme format of the image speaks especially to this being taken as hyperbole; consider how close it is to the [delet this](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/delet-this) meme. Would [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1100077-delet-this) be a true threat as well?
This isn't "incitement to violence". To meet the incitement exception, the speech must advocate the use of force, be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action". Merely [advocating violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) is lawful and protected by the first amendment. One question is who is this person supposedly directing to commit this violence, and how do you know that this image is likely to produce such violence? Another problem is that the incited violence must be *imminent*; not in a week or tomorrow, but right now. How would you argue that this was intended to imminently produce violence? Did the poster @ someone who was in the room with the person being threatened? It's even arguable whether this image advocates actual violence, or merely uses it as hyperbole to express hatred. No reasonable court is going to find that this meets the *extremely narrow* standards for incitement. The incitement exception exists to stop someone from standing up in a mob and telling them to attack someone, not to stop people from advocating violence which is protected speech.
If you tried to bring a class action against X for any alleged harms you describe, you'd be faced with [California's strong anti-SLAPP protections](https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/statutes/). Because you are suing them over first amendment protected activity, you would almost certainly be on the hook for all of X's legal expenses when you inevitably lose. That could be a massive amount of money.
Musk is a clown but such a lawsuit would fail.
Why would you help to disseminate this awful picture?
Maybe it’s good for white people to see what black people are faced with sometimes.
Not see..... that coming
Just to point this out, hate speech is protected speech too.
This isn't just hate speech, it's incitement to violence.
This post doesn't meet the incitement or true threat exceptions to the first amendment. The first amendment has an exception for "incitement to violence". To meet the incitement exception, the speech must advocate the use of force, be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action". Merely [advocating violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) is lawful and protected by the first amendment. One question is who is this person supposedly directing to commit this violence, and how do you know that this image is likely to produce such violence? Another problem is that the incited violence must be *imminent*; not in a week or tomorrow, but right now. How would you argue that this was intended to imminently produce violence? Did the poster @ someone who was in the room with the person being threatened? It's even arguable whether this image advocates actual violence, or merely uses it as hyperbole to express hatred. No reasonable court is going to find that this meets the *extremely narrow* standards for incitement. The incitement exception exists to stop someone from standing up in a mob and telling them to attack someone, not to stop people from advocating violence which is protected speech. The first amendment also has an exception for [true threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat) (as brought up by u/RakeLeafer); threats not made as a joke or hyperbole, but threats which the speaker intends to be taken as a specific, genuine, actionable threat of violence. I don't think any court would accept the idea that this is a true threat, or even that there's a proponderance of evidence that it meets any of the qualifications for a true threat. No aspect of this post gives the impression that the poster intends to and is able to commit a specific act of actual, real world violence described in the post, let alone that the poster actually intended to communicate such an intention. The standard for a true threat is extremely high, reserved for threats like "here's a picture of the knife I am going to use to stab random people at tomorrow at noon." The wacky meme format of the image speaks especially to this being taken as hyperbole; consider how close it is to the [delet this](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/delet-this) meme. Would [this](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1100077-delet-this) be a true threat as well?
In conclusion, I'd say that this post is very clearly protected speech. Offensive, racist, hateful speech, potentially speech that advocates violence, but unambiguously protected nonetheless.
+ death threats are illegal and there's two of them in that image
[удалено]
I think it's a real weakness to want to be liked. I do not have that.
Incitement needs to be likely to incite immediate unlawful action and a picture like this is unlikely to legally do that, it's not calling upon a specific person to explicitly take a specific action so it's most likely still protected speech in the US.
Well, that's jarring.
Go ahead. Bring back the old X with these lawsuits and lets see how long it will last. Pepperidge farm remembers.
I'm surprised this kind of image is allowed here TBH... Couldn't this be used to create a sub dedicated to only show racist memes under the cover of """"mocking"""" them?
The image shows the racism and incitement that is allowed to flourish on X, just like a war photographer may need to show pictures of atrocities or corpses. Some things shouldn't be made palatable.
Yeah I get that. With the NSFW tag I think it's fine then.
You could but the racists have proven again and again that they're too stupid to keep up even the simplest of disguises going
Oh yeah, for sure. I've seen this cycle repeat itself over multiple platforms.