This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[William Tell]

I don't see the point. I'm not stuck in the physical world. Blackmailers don't care about your arguments. Blackmail is not a business. Blackmail doesn't even have to be true, and it can kill. Slander, which is false by definition, can steal millions and impoverish extended families. That is aggression. What else do I need to know? They are aggressive, they cause harm.

Sometimes the simpler argument is simpler because it's true. You say Block's argument is more thoughtful, but what if it's just more elaborate?

It boils down to harm done. Aggression is not only that which is physical, aggression can be financial, emotional, psychological. Some chattel slaves were never hurt in their lives and yet they were still slaves. Were treated as slaves. Thought as slaves. I would say they were aggressed against merely by being owned. Ownership in this case is an ideological construct and not merely a physical one.

If slander can't be aggression just because it's words, then theft can't be aggression if a hacker does it by a computer from 1000 miles away. I reject the entire concept. All I need for aggression to take place is {doesharm}+{getsharmed}. Everything else is just dickering over price.

Yep, yup, yeah.

 

[PRB]

Big for starting this thread anything to expose the fraud is good service to liberty.

I don't think Stefan is smart enough to be a "fraud", that's giving him too much credit. I don't think he's much of a liberty movement person, one thing for sure is he's never supporting using government to solve the government.

Btw here are the videos the cult leader Stefan Molyneux doesn't want you to see. All the videos were archived and reposed in this youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g

Thanks, I'll try to watch them before he DMCA's them too.
Personally, my best video of em all is this.

As you watch the videos, try and pick out anything that could be mistaken for harassment of his sheepish viewers. You would notice that you cannot find anything. The man sent govt agents i.e. introduced the gun into the room because someone is using his words to expose him. Anarchist my ass.

yep

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't see the point. I'm not stuck in the physical world. Blackmailers don't care about your arguments. Blackmail is not a business. Blackmail doesn't even have to be true, and it can kill. Slander, which is false by definition, can steal millions and impoverish extended families. That is aggression. What else do I need to know? They are aggressive, they cause harm.

Sometimes the simpler argument is simpler because it's true. You say Block's argument is more thoughtful, but what if it's just more elaborate?

It boils down to harm done. Aggression is not only that which is physical, aggression can be financial, emotional, psychological. Some chattel slaves were never hurt in their lives and yet they were still slaves. Were treated as slaves. Thought as slaves. I would say they were aggressed against merely by being owned. Ownership in this case is an ideological construct and not merely a physical one.

If slander can't be aggression just because it's words, then theft can't be aggression if a hacker does it by a computer from 1000 miles away. I reject the entire concept. All I need for aggression to take place is {doesharm}+{getsharmed}. Everything else is just dickering over price.

It's purely for my benefit. You are under no obligation whatsoever. Like I said, I would like to see a compelling counter-argument to Block. If Block's argument is simply more elaborate, it should be easy to disassemble and prove wrong (like the arguments of the Federalists, Communists, etc have been torn to pieces over the years by a number of different people). Block made it extra easy for you too-having only dedicated one relatively short chapter out of a large book to blackmail. (no sarc/snark intended, btw)

WRT bold above^^, it's a non-sequitur. Slander is just words (from what's been dis/proven in this thread, IMO). You simply can't own a reputation-otherwise there would be virtually nothing in the editorial pages/"news" programming because those mediums are dedicated mostly to slandering the reputations of political/pop culture figures. Many programs/media are just a bunch of ad-hominems and insults strung together. Free speech kind of sucks when it works against you, but freedom often isn't convenient.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think Stefan is smart enough to be a "fraud", that's giving him too much credit. I don't think he's much of a liberty movement person, one thing for sure is he's never supporting using government to solve the government.

To be fair, he's never claimed to be part of the electoral "liberty" movement. He's only considered himself part of the anarchist/voluntaryist movement, AFAIK.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This is what a hypocrite looks like

If you're going to suggest a visual, then you should include the picture of yourself

Does [my trolling] sound familiar to anybody at all?

Fixed it for you. I am not even going through the thread, but rather just cutting to the chase with a neg rep.

Have a nice day.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think WT and Gunny are using a different basis for argumentation than Block. Block is using strict application of the NAP, while Will and Gunny are using a more generic "harm principle" (that is my best guess at what is happening. I am not sure.)

Its not a pet issue for me either. If the only "unjust" law was to prohibit blackmail, I probably wouldn't even bother with this movement. At the end of the day, though, I still agree with Block.

Actually, I'm the one arguing a strict application of the NAP, Block is arguing for pragmatism.

1) "Paying for silence is better than getting outed without a choice (pragmatic)

2) only bad guys get blackmailed anyhow (pragmatic)

Block also misses that the difference between spying and making an expose and blackmail is that blackmail is secret and industrialized.

By calling the results of blackmail 'gossip' he trivialises the problem without bothering to state why it's trivial. As for me I don't want a private NSA culture any more than I want a public NSA culture.

Someone aggresses against another with the intent to do harm. (NAP-Principled) Slander, blackmail. These are inherently harmful actions. The blackmailer receiving profit will find more blackmail. The blackmailed ever more deeply impoverished. Unlike Block who feels that blackmail would make a nice check on criminal enterprise (pragmatic), I do not assume one has to have "done wrong" to be victimized by blackmail, and therefore I do not believe that blackmail is a valid check on crime (NAP-Principled).

I believe that slander and blackmail are a willful attempt to do unprovoked harm to another person. A willful attempt to do unprovoked harm is "aggression." I reject aggression. My position is faithful to the Non Aggression Principle. (NAP - Principled)

 

[juleswin]

Bored at work again so I had a 5 min. of my time to look at this.
1. Stefans wife is a psychologist and she was on Stefans show. People called in and she talked to them.
2. Some sick fuck used information in that conversation to track and stalk listeners that asked advice from psychologist (Stefans wife). They also used pictures/calls and videos of other people who called Stefans show to harass and stalk them online.
3. Listeners of Stefans show called in and informed Stefan that they were stalked and harassed and asked him to remove that content.
3. Stefans wife gets reprimanded and license suspended.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19048?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12
4. Stefan takes only steps that government allows him to control damage created by sick stalking fucks.

"If you attack listeners you dont get to use any of our materials. Thats the line"- Stefan M. Show.

Yea right. I am sure that is what the weasle wants you to believe. This must be why he filed a DMCA against 2 youtube channels. Btw one of his cult members should inform him that the C in DMCA stands for copyright. It's actually a violation of the law to use it to take down work that is not copyrighted and this is why one of the youtubers is suing him. I hope to god he wins and takes him for all hes got. Seeing as he is breaking the law by filling a false DMCA, he has made me a law abiding citizen a victim. I guess according to his logic, I am within and I am within my right to call the cops on him so they can choke the living daylights out of his body. Victims(me) needs to be made whole.

Sorry but nobody but his fanatic followers believe that garbage excuse. He has been unraveling lately and has just been very reckless. He filled the DMCA take down to censor the youtube channel that was making stinging critics of his show. Thank god it failed miserably. Those videos has spread to dozens of youtube channels and private hard drives. Before all is said and done, more people would be exposed to them than before he illegally filled a false DMCA on those channels.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Actually, I'm the one arguing a strict application of the NAP, Block is arguing for pragmatism.

1) "Paying for silence is better than getting outed without a choice (pragmatic)

2) only bad guys get blackmailed anyhow (pragmatic)

Block also misses that the difference between spying and making an expose and blackmail is that blackmail is secret and industrialized.

By calling the results of blackmail 'gossip' he trivialises the problem without bothering to state why it's trivial. As for me I don't want a private NSA culture any more than I want a public NSA culture.

Someone aggresses against another with the intent to do harm. (NAP-Principled) Slander, blackmail. These are inherently harmful actions. The blackmailer receiving profit will find more blackmail. The blackmailed ever more deeply impoverished. Unlike Block who feels that blackmail would make a nice check on criminal enterprise (pragmatic), I do not assume one has to have "done wrong" to be victimized by blackmail, and therefore I do not believe that blackmail is a valid check on crime (NAP-Principled).

I believe that slander and blackmail are a willful attempt to do unprovoked harm to another person. A willful attempt to do unprovoked harm is "aggression." I reject aggression. My position is faithful to the Non Aggression Principle. (NAP - Principled)

Fair point. While I think threats of violence are clearly "foul play" I think its undeniably logical that if you have the right to receive X amount of money from Y, and you also have the right to do Z, you have a right to tell Y that you will do Z unless he pays you X.

I don't see any logical way around this. Its like saying prostitution should be illegal but that sex outside marriage should be legal and that gifting people money should be legal. If X man can sleep with Y woman and X man can legally give Y woman Z amount of dollars, it logically follows that X man can also pay Y woman Z amount dollars to sleep with him.

Similarly, if you can accept a gift of X from Y, and you can do Z, you can tell Y you will do Z unless given X.

Now, if by "blackmail" you mean threatening aggressive acts than that would be a different story.

 

[juleswin]

I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yea right. I am sure that is what the weasle wants you to believe. This must be why he filed a DMCA against 2 youtube channels. Btw one of his cult members should inform him that the C in DMCA stands for copyright. It's actually a violation of the law to use it to take down work that is not copyrighted and this is why one of the youtubers is suing him. I hope to god he wins and takes him for all hes got. Seeing as he is breaking the law by filling a false DMCA, he has made me a law abiding citizen a victim. I guess according to his logic, I am within and I am within my right to call the cops on him so they can choke the living daylights out of his body. Victims(me) needs to be made whole.

Sorry but nobody but his fanatic followers believe that garbage excuse. He has been unraveling lately and has just been very reckless. He filled the DMCA take down to censor the youtube channel that was making stinging critics of his show. Thank god it failed miserably. Those videos has spread to dozens of youtube channels and private hard drives. Before all is said and done, more people would be exposed to them than before he illegally filled a false DMCA on those channels.

Really good points! Sorry I'm outta +rep for ya. :/

 

[Christian Liberty]

I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

This...

 

[idiom]

See. For some the only real aggression in the world is taxes.

The NAP doesn't = "don't be a dick" like one would assume (its a great but misleading marketing term), it means don't violate certain types of property belonging to certain classes of being, with those further narrowly defined.

Anything out side of that is categorized as 'not aggression'. There is a special exception for fraud, which doesn't follow from the axioms, but I guess even Rothbardians get annoyed when the gold they receive is thinly plated tungsten.

 

[Ender]

I am going out of a limb to say that I don't understand why blackmailing should be illegal. I have something embarrassing on you that if made public will ruin you, I come to you and ask for a monetary payment to destroy/conceal said evidence and you can either agree to my offer or tell me off. How exactly is that aggression on anybody. Is it sorta like the whole deal with prostitution where the exchange of money makes it a crime? I really don't think it should be a crime in this society or a free one.

Also the fact that someone is emotionally harmed is not a sign of aggression. Some people are emotionally harmed by seeing 2 guys make out. Should that also be a crime? This is that line of thinking that causes legislators to criminalize revenge porn.

Disagree.

Blackmail is aggression- so is defamation; trying to destroy someone unless they pay you is not in my definition of liberty.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Disagree.

Blackmail is aggression- so is defamation; trying to destroy someone unless they pay you is not in my definition of liberty.

So let's say, hypothetically, one makes an embarrassing proposition to an elf from middle earth. This elf finds themself with 3 options:

a) stay silent
b) blab to Gandalf and everyone else (fellowships, barmaids, that guy Sauron)
c) offer to stay silent ... for a price or else "b" = blab blab blab

The blab option is well within the rights of free speech. It is also - by your definition - aggression and trying to "destroy someone". We can blab with reckless abandon with truth as a civil defense. Option "a" may be preferable but Block's solution might be recast as ...

d) stay silent with a guarantee/compensation

Just imagine a blackmailer having to pay treble damages because they couldn't keep their trap shut.

Lastly, the "definition of liberty" is not so much 'stuff you like' but things that would bring yourself to action. Would you intervene with force to stop a murder in progress? Yes. Would you intervene with force to stop a blackmail in progress? Doubt it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So let's say, hypothetically, one makes an embarrassing proposition to an elf from middle earth. This elf finds themself with 3 options:

a) stay silent
b) blab to Gandalf and everyone else (fellowships, barmaids, that guy Sauron)
c) offer to stay silent ... for a price or else "b" = blab blab blab

The blab option is well within the rights of free speech. It is also - by your definition - aggression and trying to "destroy someone". We can blab with reckless abandon with truth as a civil defense. Option "a" may be preferable but Block's solution might be recast as ...

d) stay silent with a guarantee/compensation

Just imagine a blackmailer having to pay treble damages because they couldn't keep their trap shut.

Lastly, the "definition of liberty" is not so much 'stuff you like' but things that would bring yourself to action. Would you intervene with force to stop a murder in progress? Yes. Would you intervene with force to stop a blackmail in progress? Doubt it.

I don't see the aggression in your scenario. Perhaps that's where the disconnect is. The mysterious party exposes himself to revelation by Ender when he makes the proposition to Ender. That's not actually the scenario I object to. I object to third parties spying and treasure-hunting and surveilling and hacking to dig up (or just invent) embarrassing things to blackmail people about.

In your scenario, the guy getting blackmailed takes the first step in the tango. But we already don't treat that the same. John Doe rapes Sally Mae, through John's lawyers Sally agrees to stay quiet for $1.5 million dollars. Happens all the time, but we don't call it blackmail, we call it a payoff.

 

[PRB]

Yea right. I am sure that is what the weasle wants you to believe.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the accusation from Stefan & his fans are completely true.

1. Stalking can be criminal, but let's let Mr. Anarchist call the government to stop them
2. Stalking can be criminal, but the videos themselves are not stalking, at most they contain private information or copyrighted information, neither of which Mr. Purist Anarchist wants to have enforced by the gubmint
3. Unless and until the videos actually contain criminal information or copyrighted information, Stefan still has 2 problems
-He used government to enforce his wishes
-If it didn't contain either private or copyright protected information, he's a liar (of course he doesn't believe in using the government to punish himself for lying)
-did I mention he doesn't believe in either of the above to begin with?

I bet he's going to spin his justification for reporting a DMCA takedown notice as "it's a private report to a private property" bullshit. Hello? Google & Youtube wouldn't give a crap about copyright if it wasn't either to stay profitable or to avoid breaking a law. DMCA is anything BUT a voluntary compliance, it's forced on content providers to "protect" them from liability.

This must be why he filed a DMCA against 2 youtube channels. Btw one of his cult members should inform him that the C in DMCA stands for copyright. It's actually a violation of the law to use it to take down work that is not copyrighted and this is why one of the youtubers is suing him.

Yeah, but you need to remember that Stefan is only breaking the law according to a government he doesn't believe in or believes he's above. And he's only abusing the law when he wants to. Next he'll tell us he doesnt' recognize the jurisdiction he's being sued in.

I hope to god he wins and takes him for all hes got. Seeing as he is breaking the law by filling a false DMCA, he has made me a law abiding citizen a victim.

That's the most messed up part of all this. Somebody who understands the evils of government is using it for the specific reason he hates it. (we're not talking about somebody who hates paying taxes but loves copyright, we're talking about a guy who hates copyright but suddenly realized he can abuse it to his advantage and lie about it).

I guess according to his logic, I am within and I am within my right to call the cops on him so they can choke the living daylights out of his body. Victims(me) needs to be made whole.

We already established he's a hypocrite who won't be consistent, so "according to his logic" doesn't matter to him.

 

[PRB]

Those videos has spread to dozens of youtube channels and private hard drives. Before all is said and done, more people would be exposed to them than before he illegally filled a false DMCA on those channels.

Luckily, the good and bad about the internet age is this : Stefan never really had any good number of followers to matter. Most people will hear about him and forget him, as long as they don't find his talk interesting, and it ends there. The worst that can happen to him is he loses a civil suit and/or gets a criminal charge/fine for perjury. In the history books for DMCA abuse, nobody will remember him. In the liberty movement hall of fame, he'll be forgotten before he's remembered.

The only value I see in him is to use his takedown (of himself, ironically), as a lesson of either the importance of DMCA, or the hypocrisy of self proclaimed anti-piracy, anti-privacy anarchists.

 

[PRB]

Disagree.

Blackmail is aggression- so is defamation; trying to destroy someone unless they pay you is not in my definition of liberty.

LOL. I love how NAP advocates have to stretch the definition of aggression to include blackmail, defamation and fraud. Next you'll tell us smiling is aggression just so you can justify punching a person in return.

NAP is a nonsensical argument because at the end of the paragraph, it's basically "aggression is what I call aggression and/or unjustified force" totally circular.

It's funny how one can call defamation "destroying" but I bet the same person like you will say piracy is not "destroying" a person's profits, because in your mind, you arbitrarily decided what IS or ISN'T legitimately information one can protect. To say defamation is an actionable tort or crime assumes that free speech should be limited to truth and/or a person is obligated to maintain another person's reputation and public image. No such obligation seems to exist when we talk about whether the average consumer needs to respect the privilege of an artworks' creator to only distribute his work, copies of it, or derivatives of it as he sees fit for the price he names.

If you can justify copyright infringement on the grounds that "I never agreed to uphold copyright" or "I never recognize you hold copyright", you can surely say the same about reputation and defamation. Why should I not be allowed to lie about you for money or fun?

 

[jmdrake]

Walter Block is dead wrong.

Yes. But so is Stefan Molyneaux. Nobody was being slandered or blackmailed or bullied. Stefan lied. Or rather his social media manager lied. Someone used clips from Stefan's show to make Stefan look bad and his social media manager looked for any excuse he could to try to get them taken down. He used the DMCA when complaining to YouTube. Since he knew that wouldn't fly with other libertarians he lied and claimed it was about bullying. I wouldn't be so hard of Stefan if he didn't spend so much time moralizing about everyone else. (The truth about Ghandi, MLK, Maya Angelou, etc). In those videos he mixes truth with exaggeration and dishonest spin to malign people who had done nothing to him. For instance he points out that Ghandi at one time had fought for the British against the Zulu and makes the claim that he would have killed Nelson Mandela if they had met. Only that was before Ghandi had taken the path of nonviolence. Also Nelson Mandela was not Zulu and the Zulu political movement actually later had violent clashes with the ANC. I like a lot of what Stefan does and says. But he can't go around putting down everyone else and not expect his own actions to be put under a microscope.

 

[jmdrake]

I do think there's a difference depending on how the information is acquired. If I see you do something bad and you tell me "You didn't see nutttin okay?" And I reply "Buzz off. I'm squealing to the coppers unless you given me some cash." then I don't think that's aggression. However if I break into your house and steal damaging information about you (or break into your computer, or spy on your cell phone) then that is aggression. But is the aggression the blackmail or the way I acquired the information? Does it matter? And let's look at the Cosby case. For the sake of argument let's assume he didn't rape anyone but he did have sex with all of these women and he used his power and influence to pressure them into having sex with him. Not a crime, but still pretty scuzzy. It seems these women were paid off. If they had one by one said "You're scuzzy. I'm going to expose you unless you pay me to shut up." Is that aggression? Now I change the scenario from their rape claims because I think everyone can agree that if they were about to file rape charges (and they were actually raped) and Cosby said "Hold on. Why ruin your life and mine. I'll can just pay you what I'd have to pay my lawyer to defend me." then the women in that case would not be the aggressors.

Actually, I'm the one arguing a strict application of the NAP, Block is arguing for pragmatism.

1) "Paying for silence is better than getting outed without a choice (pragmatic)

2) only bad guys get blackmailed anyhow (pragmatic)

Block also misses that the difference between spying and making an expose and blackmail is that blackmail is secret and industrialized.

By calling the results of blackmail 'gossip' he trivialises the problem without bothering to state why it's trivial. As for me I don't want a private NSA culture any more than I want a public NSA culture.

Someone aggresses against another with the intent to do harm. (NAP-Principled) Slander, blackmail. These are inherently harmful actions. The blackmailer receiving profit will find more blackmail. The blackmailed ever more deeply impoverished. Unlike Block who feels that blackmail would make a nice check on criminal enterprise (pragmatic), I do not assume one has to have "done wrong" to be victimized by blackmail, and therefore I do not believe that blackmail is a valid check on crime (NAP-Principled).

I believe that slander and blackmail are a willful attempt to do unprovoked harm to another person. A willful attempt to do unprovoked harm is "aggression." I reject aggression. My position is faithful to the Non Aggression Principle. (NAP - Principled)