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

[email protected]

Government censorship isn't just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.

The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making "political speech" that is only later determined to be hateful.

Even "Good" presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for example.

Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence in the US. He has determined that this racist position is "political speech".

Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.

One important caveat: there is a difference between "speech" and "violence". Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be prosecuted, not censored.

[email protected]

I actually don't care about politics. "BuT It aFfEcTs yOu tOo, YoU HaVe tO FoLlOw tHe lAwS ThAt gEt mAdE"

Bitch do you think i follow the laws that already exist? Mind your own business i'll mind mine.

[email protected]

Yeah! When I'm driving I make sure to constantly change lanes WITH NO BLINKERS cause fuck the establishment! Just swerving back and forth cause your fucking paint lines can't control me.

Don't even fucking get me started on school speed zones.

[email protected]

Yes please get pissy about it! That's the spirit!

God you political types are so predictable

[email protected]

SaYs tHe OnE wHo TyPeD lIkE ThIs

[email protected]

not taking a side, is taking the side of inaction, which will inevitably result in oligarchy. You can say you don't care, withdraw, and refuse to participate, but don't pretend like it's not an active participation. You're actively in this life, you're just choosing to let the wrong team win.

[email protected]

This is moral purists lashing out with hyperbole since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire has castrated their big issue. They have to pretend letting Trump win by refusing to vote for Harris cuz she "supported genocide" was still the right thing to do, and they weren't just being impatient toddlers demanding a cookie RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.

[email protected]

Right on man! First they're telling you where to drive and how fast, then they're takin' away ur gunz!

[email protected]

Not caring about politics is a privilege of the powerful. All this shows is that you are lucky enough to be in control of your own life. Congratulations! Me too! No one is actively working to hurt me either.

I care about politics because not everyone is able to have that privilege, and they should.

[email protected]

And you are fully free to exercise that privilege, just don't shove it in my face and make it your life's mission to make this guy care about it as much as you do.

I had friends who told me they didn't vote, and you know what I said? " Ah okay whatever"

And this concept fucking baffles people

[email protected]

Hey boomer, it means I'm mocking whoever says that, if. You ascribed what was said in that text to your own beliefs that's on you bud

[email protected]

Most people will choose the side of inaction as long as they're comfortable enough. That's something I don't get with today's oligarchs. They are just as stupid as they are greedy. If they hoarded just a bit less -- if they were willing to live a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a SMALL country rather than living a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a midsize country -- they could live the exact same day to day existence without the working class being up in arms and in love with CEO assassins.

In the movie of their life, the only difference would be the "high score" text at the top of the screen.

But I guess if you value a practical good life over unchecked avarice and ego, you probably aren't cut out for the oligarch lifestyle.

Phoenixz

I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can't allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don't exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.

Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.

Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas

[email protected]

Automatic sentient guns, that's what kills people.

Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others

[email protected]

hey, that's against the rules. you can't mock people like that.

[email protected]

If you took away the internet and TV, People would riot like they never have before. You hit the nail on the head, enough of us who would do something are just comfortable enough not to. We have comfort food, alcohol, weed, TV, video games, and movies. All distractions. Take away the comfort, take away peoples last remaining reason not to revolt.

[email protected]

I'll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I'll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh when their mind is filled with hate and bile.

just because you can speak your mind doesn't absolve you of the consequences of doing so.

[email protected]

So, I'm not the person you're responding to, but I have similar views. I'm going to skip some statements, as I can't speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.

You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.

Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there's no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.

Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.

There's a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I'd just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I'd done wrong and didn't respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn't've had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.

You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”

Again, education isn't the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn't understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.

but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.

The limit of "so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others" means it's not absolute freedom of speech though?

[email protected]

The US federal government is no longer legitimate; its actions are no longer representative of a properly-functional government. The insurrectionist felon who spent 4 years committing every crime he possibly could just got away with all of it. By our own laws, he is not eligible to be president. The supreme court made him essentially an infallible king, and the CEOs of corporations are bribing him to buy favor and influence.

IMO, if our government was legitimate and uncorrupt, it should have every interest and duty towards banning hate speech. Germany had it right when they banned Nazi hate speech.

[email protected]

But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety.

Does it?
I've never seen that proven convincingly.
It goes against my experience lived embracing the tired old saying sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me around awful assholes spouting particularly offensive ideas at me.
Realizing that expression gave me power: their words matter not a damn to me as long as they don't turn into action.
Once they turn into action, however, a warning to call the authorities usually settles the matter uneventfully.

Words are bullshit.
Anyone can put words together: they're just noise.
People can spout nonsense forever & form their nonsense echo chambers as long as nothing comes of it.
They're not the problem, they're an indication.
Actions are the real problem.

If you don't want people putting their offensive ideas into action, then stop them, not their words.
Block that legislation from getting through.
Argue their ideas are garbage.
Change the minds of those in power.
Educate more people to your side.

It's so obvious, I'm stunned so many people need it explained.