Really, guys? Who does the left have to sanction except the right? What percentage of "scholars" are left v right? How about doing it as a per capita figure? How about looking at percentage of conservative vs. progressive "scholars" get sanctioned? Wanna put a couple bucks on that one?
As for political bias in AI, I've found that if you beat them up pretty hard, they'll stop with the bias and respond rationally. Until then, bias. For sure.
I wouldn't go so far as to say or imply that SCOTUS in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) said anything like "parody is not a statement of fact made with 'actual malice.' " SCOTUS was far more restrained: "The jury" (not SCOTUS) had concluded that the portrayal of Falwell could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [Falwell] or actual events in which [he] participated." That particular jury reached a conclusion based on the facts of that particular case. A different jury in a different case could reach the opposite result regarding a different form of parody.
In Hustler, SCOTUS emphasized that our Constitution precludes punishing or penalizing criticism of any public servant (any government employee) or any socially powerful or influential person without proof of material facts establishing how the criticism constituted a "falsehood." Falwell had failed to prove any false statement or implication of fact. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that any speech that is labeled "parody" cannot be a statement of fact. That conclusion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Another way to put how to properly analyze such speech is to ask whether it caused actual harm (because people were deceived and believed that a falsehood was true) or whether it caused mere hurt (because people laughed). Was the speech harmful deception or mere hurtful derision? Falwell improperly focused on the latter (claiming "intentional infliction of emotional distress").
Scholar sanctions "by the numbers," R >> L.....
Really, guys? Who does the left have to sanction except the right? What percentage of "scholars" are left v right? How about doing it as a per capita figure? How about looking at percentage of conservative vs. progressive "scholars" get sanctioned? Wanna put a couple bucks on that one?
As for political bias in AI, I've found that if you beat them up pretty hard, they'll stop with the bias and respond rationally. Until then, bias. For sure.
The left also has the left to sanction, as they've been cursing and destroying their own for many years
Excellent point. I missed that one.
I wouldn't go so far as to say or imply that SCOTUS in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) said anything like "parody is not a statement of fact made with 'actual malice.' " SCOTUS was far more restrained: "The jury" (not SCOTUS) had concluded that the portrayal of Falwell could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [Falwell] or actual events in which [he] participated." That particular jury reached a conclusion based on the facts of that particular case. A different jury in a different case could reach the opposite result regarding a different form of parody.
In Hustler, SCOTUS emphasized that our Constitution precludes punishing or penalizing criticism of any public servant (any government employee) or any socially powerful or influential person without proof of material facts establishing how the criticism constituted a "falsehood." Falwell had failed to prove any false statement or implication of fact. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that any speech that is labeled "parody" cannot be a statement of fact. That conclusion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Another way to put how to properly analyze such speech is to ask whether it caused actual harm (because people were deceived and believed that a falsehood was true) or whether it caused mere hurt (because people laughed). Was the speech harmful deception or mere hurtful derision? Falwell improperly focused on the latter (claiming "intentional infliction of emotional distress").