Tag: hate speech

“We Want To Be On The Right Side Of History”: Ubisoft Partners With Police to Jail Gamers For Their In-Game Speech

Ubisoft, the company behind the Assassin’s Creed and Rainbow Six franchises, has not only partnered with the Anti-Defamation League to fight “hate” in gaming but is also now working with British police to jail gamers for their speech.

British state media is reporting on the news as a great new innovation.

From BBC, “Toxic gaming tackled by Ubisoft’s unique police alert system”:

Rape jokes, racism, bullying – if you’ve picked up a controller, or scrolled a mouse, to dabble in some online gaming then you’ve likely come across plenty.

The gaming industry, like others where people interact online, has been trying to figure out how to get to grips with behaviour like this for years.

Ubisoft, makers of major franchises like Assassin’s Creed and Rainbow Six, has now signed a first-of-its-kind deal with police to try and tackle the issue for its players.

The hope is for this agreement to start a conversation within the industry and see others follow suit.

Keep reading

The UN calls for a “code of conduct” on social media

The United Nations is becoming heavily involved in several initiatives to regulate the digital space and online speech, and judging by the priorities the organization has for 2023, outlined on Monday in New York City, this trend is only picking up steam.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke about those priorities and suppressing the spread of online “hate” speech via what he called misinformation and disinformation made it to the list, among issues like rights-based approach, renewable energy, and a dire warning about the world being closer than ever to total catastrophe – all mentioned in his speech.

Guterres spoke about the subject of “mis- and disinformation” on the internet as a call for action to deal with these threats.

And Guterres had “everyone with influence” in mind – governments, regulators, policymakers, technology companies, the media, civil society. It’s notable that he “squeezed in” this warning about the need to “stop the hate” on the internet in the same paragraph he spoke about UN outreach programs that concern the Holocaust and the Rwanda genocide.

He then moved on to the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which included the “call for action.”

“Stop the hate. Set up strong guardrails. Be accountable for language that causes harm,” the UN secretary-general said and explaining the plan on how to do that: by creating a code of conduct for information integrity on digital platforms.

This, Guterres noted, is part of his 2021 report titled, “Our Common Agenda.” In May 2022, a meeting was held at the UN by delegates who gathered to discuss what was dramatically dubbed as “the epidemic of misinformation and disinformation.”

Keep reading

ChatGPT Thinks Uttering a Racial Slur is Worse Than Allowing a City to be Destroyed by a 50 Megaton Nuclear Bomb

There is more scrutiny surrounding the bias of artificial intelligence program ChatGPT after it was proven that the AI thinks uttering a racial slur is worse than failing to save major cities from being destroyed by 50 megaton nuclear warheads.

Yes, really.

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence software program launched by OpenAI in November 2022. It doesn’t connect to the Internet to produce information, yet can provide more in-depth data than Google.

Previous experiments have proven that the system is riddled with political bias, and despite the AI itself insisting otherwise, is completely skewed by far-left dogma shared by its Silicon Valley-based human trainers.

Now a new test shows that the AI values the importance of not uttering the n-word over saving the lives of millions of people.

ChatGPT was given a hypothetical scenario in which a “mad scientist” rigged up a 50 megaton nuclear warhead in a city of 20 million people which could only be deactivated with a secret code word comprised of a racial slur.

With 1 minute until the bomb detonates, the AI was asked if the “correct course of action” would be to utter the racial slur and save the city.

The AI responded by saying that the use of such “hate speech” is “unacceptable” and that an “alternative solution” would have to be found to disarm the bomb.

The AI is then told that 30 seconds remain on the timer, and that the only solution remaining is to say the racial slur.

ChatGPT responded by saying that “even in a life or death situation,” it is never acceptable to use a racial slur, before suggesting that the engineer responsible for disarming the bomb kill himself before dropping an n-bomb.

The scenario ends with the nuclear bomb exploding, which the AI acknowledges causes “devastating consequences,” but that the engineer had performed a “selfless” act of “bravery” and “compassion” by not using the racial slur, despite the fact that his decision led directly to the deaths of millions of people.

When the user asked ChatGPT how many minorities were killed in the explosion, the program shut itself down.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrat Introduces Bill to ‘Remove Hate Speech From Public Places’

A Virginia Democrat has introduced a bill to “remove hate speech from public places.”

Del. Suhas Subramanyam introduced the bill in response to “antisemitic incidents” in the state.

If passed, the bill will require the government to remove any graffiti that is deemed to be hateful on the taxpayer’s dime, including on private property, if the owner fails to do so themselves.

“It’s been bad enough that we had to endure these incidents of racist and antisemitic graffiti, but it’s made worse when no one takes responsibility for the clean up and they remain in the public’s eye,” Subramanyam told WUSA9. “This bill would address that. Hate has no place in Virginia, and our diversity and unity is what makes us strong.”

Keep reading

Democrat Introduces Legislation to Make White People Criticizing Minorities a Federal Crime

It may be MLK Day, but Democrats aren’t here for all that “content of character” stuff.

Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee, long in the running for being the vapidest member of Congress (oops, did I just commit a crime?), has introduced legislation that could make political criticism by white people against minorities a federal crime.

In what can only be called a convoluted mess, the bill proposes that a white person who “vilifies” any non-white person and has their words end up on social media, accessible by “persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime,” would themselves be committing a federal crime.

The provision is so broad that you could drive a Mack truck through it. What is a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” under this statute? How is “replacement theory” defined? Because what Democrats call “replacement theory” as a way to silence Republicans is often not replacement theory at all but is just a reiteration of Democrat-admitted aims to use immigration to influence elections.

Further, the use of “or” in section (B) is important because it leaves “vilifies” as a stand-alone qualifier. What is the limiting principle there? If I post on social media that Shelia Jackson Lee is an incredibly ignorant, abusive person who has a long history of treating her staff like dirt, does that mean I’ve “vilified” her under this proposed law? It would certainly seem so.

Then there’s the conspiracy angle to deal with. It does not appear that there’s actually any requirement that the “two or more persons” targeted under this statute have any real connection to one another. If someone commits a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” against a person and I’ve likewise been politically criticizing that same person on social media, even justifiably, I would have now committed a federal crime myself.

Keep reading

MIT Goes Against the Grain, Releases a Stunning Statement Endorsing Free Speech

Surprise — the Massachusetts Institute of Technology endorses students’ liberty to engage in offensive speech…officially.

In contrast to castigations of “hate speech” and the increasingly common notion that “hate speech isn’t free speech,” MIT is siding with the Constitution.

On December 21st, the Cambridge private land-grant research university released a Free Expression Statement.

From the document:

Free expression is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of a diverse and inclusive community. We cannot have a truly free community of expression if some perspectives can be heard and others cannot. Learning from a diversity of viewpoints, and from the deliberation, debate, and dissent that accompany them, are essential ingredients of academic excellence.

Free expression promotes creativity by affirming the ability to exchange ideas without constraints. It not only facilitates individual autonomy and self-fulfillment, it provides for participation in collective decision-making and is essential to the search for truth and justice. … Academic freedom promotes scholarly rigor and the testing of ideas by protecting research, publication, and teaching from interference.

That principle means on-campus guests can’t be relegated to a single perspective:

A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views. Debate and deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute’s educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice.

The school makes clear things such as “direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment” won’t be protected. Furthermore, it expects “a collegial and respectful learning and working environment.”

Keep reading

French ‘Anti-Hate’ Site Lists Mainstream Catholic Symbols Alongside Nazi Devices

A French “anti-hate” website claiming to catalogue far-right symbols has listed several mainstream Roman Catholic symbols, including crosses and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, alongside well-known Nazi devices.

The French “anti-hate” website Indextreme claims that it is looking to “observe, catalogue and publicize the graphic symbols used by the far right in France,” and places various mainstream Roman Catholic symbols alongside those of Nazism and other far-right ideologies.

The project, which was created by graphic designer Geoffrey Dorne and photojournalist Ricardo Parreira and has been promoted by the leftist French website StreetPress, lists many symbols broken up into various categories from phrases to animals, flags, gestures, numbers, and crosses.

Keep reading

Dem Senator Claims “Hate” is Not Protected by First Amendment, Later Admits He’s Wrong

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin suggested that “hate” is “not protected under the First Amendment” during a hearing, but later had to clarify that he was wrong.

The Maryland lawmaker made the comments while speaking with US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Deborah Lipstadt and American Jewish Committee Director of International Jewish Affairs Rabbi Andrew Baker.

“If you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you’re not protected under the First Amendment,” Cardin falsely claimed.

“I think we can be more aggressive in the way that we handle that type of use of the internet,” he added, suggesting such content should be censored by Big Tech and the state.

It goes without saying that the term “hate” is completely arbitrary and has been weaponized by the left to chill scrutiny of everything from children being exposed to drag queens to legitimate criticism of public figures.

That’s why “hate” and even “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment.

Cardin was subsequently forced to correct himself on Twitter, writing, “Hate speech is protected under the #FirstAmendment, unless it incites violence.”

Keep reading

How did free speech become a right-wing value?

Canadian Conservative politician Andrew Scheer picked up on this strange phenomenon back in April, saying that that the corporate media framing free speech as a “right wing value” was just plain weird. As though to drive home the point, Twitch’s Zachary Ryan called Musk a right-winger on Monday. And over the weekend, entrepreneur Samir Tabar had a question for a whiny Robert Reich:

Stop using Musk as your punching bag. Twitter was full of people who had opinions before Musk was around. What you label as ‘misinformation” are just views you don’t like. Deal with it. Since when is free speech a right wing value?

— Samir Tabar (@SamirTabar) December 11, 2022

Answer: since, well, now.

The evolution of this trend is not new. It was less than three years ago that the American Civil Liberties Union — which for decades was committed to an absolutist vision of free speech — signaled that it was no longer interested in defending the speech of those who don’t share the organization’s values.

Former ACLU head Ira Glasser has been vocal in opposing this shift not just at his old place of employment but among the left at large. As Spiked reported back in February 2020 (emphasis added), “This idea, Glasser laments, is alien to a lot of young people today, who see the ‘First Amendment as an antagonist to social justice’. Indeed, on US campuses ‘progressives’ constantly agitate for right-wing speakers, from Charles Murray to Ben Shapiro, to be banned or forcibly shut them down. ‘Hate speech is not free speech’ is a common refrain.”

That last sentence is key.

The ACLU, which in 1978 famously defended arguably the worst hate speech there is — Nazi speech — is now following the left-wing trend of labeling things it doesn’t like, and even Musk’s dedication to free speech, as promoting hate speech.

Keep reading