Government censorship and tracking of "toxic content"

[The Heretic]

So I recently interviewed with an org that develops "attribution" systems - i.e., tracks and identifies copyrighted material online. One thing that was mentioned in passing, was the fact that their systems are using by the gov to identify, track and control "toxic content". I didn't ask for more detail - that was enough for me (I was not considered for the position, so I did not have to turn it down or ask for more info).

I don't have a right to tell FB/et. al. what they will or will not present on their social media - these are private sector orgs, and just like NWFA, they have the right to say what they will or will not allow. I may or may not like it, but it is their right.

But the government? Identifying and tracking, ok, I don't like it, but I can allow that there are situations where it is within their aegis.

Censoring by "control"? Nope. Disturbing to say the least.

The only things I can think of off the top of my head that should be censored would be content like child porn.

Read More

 

[SouthWillRise]

So I recently interviewed with an org that develops "attribution" systems - i.e., tracks and identifies copyrighted material online. One thing that was mentioned in passing, was the fact that their systems are using by the gov to identify, track and control "toxic content". I didn't ask for more detail - that was enough for me (I was not considered for the position, so I did not have to turn it down or ask for more info).

I don't have a right to tell FB/et. al. what they will or will not present on their social media - these are private sector orgs, and just like NWFA, they have the right to say what they will or will not allow. I may or may not like it, but it is their right.

But the government? Identifying and tracking, ok, I don't like it, but I can allow that there are situations where it is within their aegis.

Censoring by "control"? Nope. Disturbing to say the least.

The only things I can think of off the top of my head that should be censored would be content like child porn.

Can you give me or link to a solid example of Censoring by "control" that you're referring to.

As far as CP, censorship isn't even the issue. It's a crime not protected by 1A. You don't get to file a lawsuit with the gov challenging it, you go to prison. There are victims. Not sure why you'd bring up CP when it is clearly not applicable to this at all. It has never been considered under the protection of 1A.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Can you give me or link to a solid example of Censoring by "control" that you're referring to.

As far as CP, censorship isn't even the issue. It's a crime not protected by 1A. You don't get to file a lawsuit with the gov challenging it, you go to prison. There are victims. Not sure why you'd bring up CP when it is clearly not applicable to this at all. It has never been considered under the protection of 1A.

Google, etc. etc.

 

[ma96782]

"Toxic Content?" Who decides what is "toxic?"

Like with fact-checking content? Who's facts?

Think about some recent history : Dr Fauci or Official Sources (Like: The CCP)

Hummm......

Aloha, Mark

PS.....perhaps something like this could happen on a GOVT LEVEL? OMG.

 

[SouthWillRise]

Google, etc. etc.

Are you asking me to google? I didn't make the claim. Or are using google as an example. Google is again a private company not a ISP. They don't control the internet.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Are you asking me to google? I didn't make the claim. Or are using google as an example. Google is again a private company not a ISP. They don't control the internet.

They control thought and actions on a global scale.

 

[SouthWillRise]

They control thought and actions on a global scale.

I'd say that's an oversimplification. Also the government is actively working to break down tech monopolies so it seems the government is helping break down that thought control.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'd say that's an oversimplification. Also the government is actively working to break down tech monopolies so it seems the government is helping break down that thought control.

Yea sure. Google owns the government and vice-versa.

 

[SouthWillRise]

Yea sure. Google owns the government and vice-versa.

Lol, ok.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Lol, ok.

 

[SouthWillRise]

I'll take a watch later. Can't now.

 

[The Heretic]

Can you give me or link to a solid example of Censoring by "control" that you're referring to.

I cannot - I mentioned it because the interviewer mentioned it. I am sure that if I pressed her she would not go into detail as I am sure the org and the gov probably does not want that detail getting out.

As far as CP, censorship isn't even the issue. It's a crime not protected by 1A. You don't get to file a lawsuit with the gov challenging it, you go to prison. There are victims. Not sure why you'd bring up CP when it is clearly not applicable to this at all. It has never been considered under the protection of 1A.

I mention it because it is one of the few items that can be censored as the SCOTUS has said it is not protected - at least not with regards to video/photos. However, there is the case of a guy who wrote textual fiction where there was sex between an adult and an underage child, where the author was prosecuted and convicted - IIRC he was imprisoned too.

Previously and reportedly, such purely textual fictional accounts were allowed as they were just text and fictional, so no children were harmed in their production - although it could be argued that a child might be harmed afterwards by someone who had read the story, but then the same argument could be made for violent fiction.

I can't find the case right now so I don't know what the reasoning of the court was (I think it went all the way to the SCOTUS), but I assume they used the "obscene" and "community standards" argument, but reportedly it rippled throughout the porn industry where such textual stories were allowed before that prosecution.

 

[SouthWillRise]

I cannot - I mentioned it because the interviewer mentioned it. I am sure that if I pressed her she would not go into detail as I am sure the org and the gov probably does not want that detail getting out.

Ok.

I mention it because it is one of the few items that can be censored as the SCOTUS has said it is not protected - at least not with regards to video/photos. However, there is the case of a guy who wrote textual fiction where there was sex between an adult and an underage child, where the author was prosecuted and convicted - IIRC he was imprisoned too.

I'd definitely like to see some sort of citation for this. This is America? I have a hard Time believing this one.

Previously and reportedly, such purely textual fictional accounts were allowed as they were just text and fictional, so no children were harmed in their production - although it could be argued that a child might be harmed afterwards by someone who had read the story, but then the same argument could be made for violent fiction.

I am pretty sure writing lewd stories in the present is still allowed under the 1A or Lolita wouldn't be sold at Barnes and Nobles, which depicts sex with a child in writing.

I can't find the case right now so I don't know what the reasoning of the court was (I think it went all the way to the SCOTUS), but I assume they used the "obscene" and "community standards" argument, but reportedly it rippled throughout the porn industry where such textual stories were allowed before that prosecution.

I would like some citation if possible

no disrespect but so far a lot of claims and no evidence.

 

[The Heretic]

Ok.

I'd definitely like to see some sort of citation for this. This is America? I have a hard Time believing this one.

I am pretty sure writing lewd stories in the present is still allowed under the 1A or Lolita wouldn't be sold at Barnes and Nobles, which depicts sex with a child in writing.

I would like some citation if possible

no disrespect but so far a lot of claims and no evidence.

United States v. McCoy, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1336 – CourtListener.com

United States v. McCoy — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

 

[SouthWillRise]

United States v. McCoy, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1336 – CourtListener.com

United States v. McCoy — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

Thank you, gonna do some reading before I respond.

 

[SouthWillRise]

United States v. McCoy, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1336 – CourtListener.com

United States v. McCoy — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

Ok, since the details matter I'll show you what I found. First off this is what he was convicted of. Not the actual creation of said product, that is in fact legal. But as the text specifies he knowlingly distributed the product across interstate lines and this presumes sale of said product if the accused had a over a certain amount of the content.

1465. Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution
Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution, or knowingly travels in interstate commerce, or uses a facility or means of interstate commerce for the purpose of transporting obscene material in interstate or foreign commerce, any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The transportation as aforesaid of two or more copies of any publication or two or more of any article of the character described above, or a combined total of five such publications and articles, shall create a presumption that such publications or articles are intended for sale or distribution, but such presumption shall be rebuttable.

He was also committing other crimes by trying to get rid of evidence.

According to the evidence presented at sentencing, for years, McCoy has written and distributed short stories describing extreme sexual abuse and other acts of violence perpetrated against very young children. In 2013, he was convicted in the Middle District of Georgia of one count of transportation of obscene matters after sending one such story via the Internet to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) undercover agent.

So the creation of this isn't illegal. Do so in private and cops finding it in your home does not constitute a crime. Disseminating it repeatedly (with a legally assumed for profit attachment for over a certain amount) is illegal. Basically you can write this disgusting stuff in private and it is constitutionally protected but you can't share for profit…in Georgia, not sure on other states.

 

[The Heretic]

Ok, since the details matter I'll show you what I found. First off this is what he was convicted of. Not the actual creation of said product, that is in fact legal. But as the text specifies he knowlingly distributed the product across interstate lines and this presumes sale of said product if the accused had a over a certain amount of the content.

He was also committing other crimes by trying to get rid of evidence.

So the creation of this isn't illegal. Do so in private and cops finding it in your home does not constitute a crime. Disseminating it repeatedly (with a legally assumed for profit attachment for over a certain amount) is illegal. Basically you can* write this disgusting stuff in private and it is constitutionally protected but you can't share for profit…in Georgia, not sure on other states.

"or distribution" - his content was hosted on various websites and available for free - the most well know of these is/was "asstr.org". In short, publishing a textual story, whether for sale or free, is covered by that statute, and if I read the outcome correctly, they (the courts and prosecutors - i.e., the government) used the "obscenity" provisions which is subjective and determined by "community standards". So basically just about anything society determines to be "obscene", in whatever form, can be outlawed. Anything pushed onto the internet immediately goes across state lines, so that is just a technicality.

I am given to understand from various forums I used to debate politics/etc. on, that before this case it was assumed that fictional textual representations of sex with children was allowed as first amendment protected speech. After US v. McCoy, such stories were mostly removed due to authors fearing prosecution for writing such fiction.

Therefore, the government can indeed censor simple written text if society doesn't like what it says.

 

[SouthWillRise]

"or distribution" - his content was hosted on various websites and available for free - the most well know of these is/was "asstr.org". In short, publishing a textual story, whether for sale or free, is covered by that statute, and if I read the outcome correctly, they (the courts and prosecutors - i.e., the government) used the "obscenity" provisions which is subjective and determined by "community standards". So basically just about anything society determines to be "obscene", in whatever form, can be outlawed. Anything pushed onto the internet immediately goes across state lines, so that is just a technicality.

Preceding that is the main offense transporting it across interstate lines. The creation isn't the issue. I disagree, and don't believe you're interpreting that correctly. The technicality is what he was convicted on, he was not convicted for its creation.

I am given to understand from various forums I used to debate politics/etc. on, that before this case it was assumed that fictional textual representations of sex with children was allowed as first amendment protected speech. After US v. McCoy, such stories were mostly removed due to authors fearing prosecution for writing such fiction.

I don't believe this to be true, but if some of the most disgusting subreddits on Reddit have anything to say about, this kind of smut is alive and well apparently.

Therefore, the government can indeed censor simple written text if society doesn't like what it says.

You've shown no evidence of any kind of legitimate censorship. You showed a guy breaking a mixture of commerce and obscenity laws. If this is your best and only example, you've failed to convince me of anything.

I appreciate the conversation though, but I don't believe we'll see eye to eye on the matter. I just think you're stretching some of these giant fears of censorship with one off obscure laws.

 

[The Heretic]

Preceding that is the main offense transporting it across interstate lines. The creation isn't the issue. I disagree, and don't believe you're interpreting that correctly. The technicality is what he was convicted on, he was not convicted for its creation.


I don't believe this to be true, but if some of the most disgusting subreddits on Reddit have anything to say about, this kind of smut is alive and well apparently.

You've shown no evidence of any kind of legitimate censorship. You showed a guy breaking a mixture of commerce and obscenity laws. If this is your best and only example, you've failed to convince me of anything.

I appreciate the conversation though, but I don't believe we'll see eye to eye on the matter. I just think you're stretching some of these giant fears of censorship with one off obscure laws.

Censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Whether the gov uses some interstate commerce or obscenity law to imprison someone for publishing a story or some other technicality in a statute, it is still censorship, just like the GCA and NFA infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

 

[SouthWillRise]

Censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Whether the gov uses some interstate commerce or obscenity law to imprison someone for publishing a story or some other technicality in a statute, it is still censorship, just like the GCA and NFA infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

Yea, using grotesque child torture pornography as your one and only example in defending free speech and claiming mass censorship (there has to be at least one better example) is definitely one way to go on this topic.

Personally I wouldn't choose that route, but that's me.

I love my 2A, but I'd also prefer violent convicted felons not have easier access to firearms, maybe that makes me anti-2A in your eyes. But for me you using this gross example to defend speech and call censorship does not make me look on you with any favor. I'm totally ok with reducing the amount of child torture porn in any form to zero for the safety and well being of society and children. I guess that makes me anti-1A to you.

but at least I'm not going out of my way to defend it, call me flawed. I'll accept that.