...I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[email protected]

Imagine if Hitler’s crimes stopped at speaking

[email protected]

Well, he didn't personally kill people, so all his crimes were actually speaking. Well, sometimes writing.

[email protected]

He did technically kill one person, though most people wouldn’t call that much of a crime, as such.

[email protected]

The reason MLK said that the white moderate is the biggest threat to blacks is the white moderate is because consent of the masses allows things like lynchings. Today, such consent building allows hate groups to target minorities with little or no opposition, or even using tax dollars to "help Israel defend its sovereignty," while actually committing genocide for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin profits.

[email protected]

is a thing mostly made up

It's funny but I noticed that too. In every moderate thread (never related to hate or anything), there are always trolls making fun of centrism as if it was worse than Hitler. We never see such reactions when we talk about communists, the left or the right (which have their own trolls anyway but it's different).

[email protected]

To me, this demonstrates importance of good faith arguments. It indicates that yes, some people should be effectively silenced for their beliefs.

I say “effectively” because he’s right that it IS a good safety net when things you say cannot hurt you. People correct toxic viewpoints like “Why are immigrants the cause of so much crime?” only by being allowed to ask the question and getting corrected.

The ideal case of fixing bad faith arguments would be: Someone engages in repeated zero-effort fake claims as you described at the end, and after the first round is corrected, everyone involved in that conversation declares “All right, this is a bad-faith argument; you’re not genuinely curious about the response, you’re just trying to force a reaction.” And then, ideally, finding ways to de-platform the individual. Again, “effectively” denying them speech by simply not assisting them with theirs. To me, that’s the role of what many call “Cancel Culture”, and I’d want it to be a stronger thing.

I will also say: You made a LOT of claims in your post that the above poster did not make. I was very much considering a downvote, although I agree with the dangers you’re talking about. Ironically you’re exemplifying some of the problems with cancel culture taking effect without conversation and understanding.

[email protected]

According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech, in part due to the realisation that the Illinois restrictions on Nazi "hate speech" were so broad they could have been equally used to prohibit Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrations in Skokie.

People so quick to applaud censorship need to consider how their arguments can work against them to.

[email protected]

People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.

[email protected]

This is like saying guns don't kill people

[email protected]

It's your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that's the problem

In modern societies, we're happy with the government banning the latter and not the former

In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one's which

[email protected]

I feel like it's more that centrists enable Nazis than are like them. It's not bad per se but it isn't good either.

[email protected]

As a US citizen, I wish I could upvote you more.

[email protected]

Political speech can involve hate.

Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.

You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump. You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.

[email protected]

You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.

This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.

There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. Whether it be preventing a slide into fascism, oligarchy, racism, repression, whatever.

It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.

[email protected]

Hate speech is not "saying that you hate something"...

[email protected]

Strawman. You're implying that OP believes hate speech can't encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.

[email protected]

That’s not what I said.

🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️

I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.

The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.

[email protected]

Political speech can involve hate.

Not in a modern society

Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.

It never has been

You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump.

I make a point of not hating anyone too old to control their bladder

You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.

Yes, that's the idea

I've not got a clue what point you're making

[email protected]

Seems like you got the idea.