this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
477 points (97.8% liked)
Political Memes
5610 readers
1588 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Beware of censorship as well. Empower your government to silence your enemies, and it won’t be long before they silence you too.
On the other hand let your 'enemies' talk without consequences and then you'll have Murdoch media everywhere.
Let them talk. It’s their right. It’s our right to stop listening.
Yeah sure.
And what are you going to do about the morons who keep listening to it?
Play whack-a-mole with paranoid cunts after they shoot at vehicle in wrong driveway, or after they try to burn down planned parenthood?
Censorship is a slippery slope. Truth is not empirical. Lawyers professionally manipulate the appearance of facts, and judges use opinions to determine validity. Start censoring some, and soon enough you’ll be censored as well. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is part of the first right in the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t foresight, it was experience.
yes it is and where it cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the scientific principles applied to truth will at least get you as damn close to it as possible.
This statement reads like you want the right to replace reality with your own and say whatever you want without consequences.
That's not reality and you need to grow up
I think you misunderstand the point. No one is asking for legislation against stating the sky isn’t blue. When a general idea, such as “hate speech” is made illegal, the definition can be manipulated by those in power to do so. That’s exactly how past governments control the narrative of the citizens to their liking. All they need is our permission to tell us what is, and is not, acceptable to say.
Welcome to participating in society, where you are expected to work alongside your neighbour, not against them.
our government is supposed to be there to define these lines, in conjuction with the will of the people AND the limits of the courts.
Theres' valid argument about some parties abuse. But thats where a robust parliament with multiple different houses can help.
But at the end of the day, if you let hate speech fall under the pervue of freedom of speech and take an absolutist approach to freedom of speech, you will inevitably, lose tolerance as the intolerant will eliminate the tolerant. We have seen this enough times to know that free speech absolutism is a joke, and why it's not the rule of most countries.
Thanks for the most lukewarm takes. Now say something about what's happening in the real world.
Let’s say legislation is passed to allow censorship of language. What if that power is transferred to a leader who chooses to use it for their own interests? Now that not only infringes on freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Governmental control of the press is how you make a dictator.
Instead of telling about what the government shouldn't do, why don't you tell us about what the government should do to deal with misinformation and stochastic terrorism?
I simply do not believe the government should restrict or regulate speech. Neither did the founders. They understood the power that puts in the government’s hands, and no leader should be trusted with that much control.
And my question is what should the government do to stop the inevitable spread of misinformation, hatred, and stochastic terrorism.
Stop being so wishy-washy and responding in meaningless idealistic bullshit.
I’m being as consistent in my opinion as one can be. I don’t believe the government should do anything about a citizen saying hateful or offensive things. What is illegal is unlawful action.
When it comes to broadcasting, it is illegal to spread misinformation (a fact proven to be false) or disinformation (a fact proven to be false with intent to mislead). It can also be prosecuted through a defamation lawsuit as libel or slander.
Listen, I’m not a fan of freedom of speech because I want to hide behind it while spitting venom. I agree that there’s too much hate in the world, and the internet brings it to your front door. I’m simply saying that giving the government the power to determine what is, and is not acceptable to say has empowered dictatorship after dictatorship throughout history. America won’t be any different. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And I'm saying if government isn't going to have the power to regulate speech then it will be hijacked by malicious actors.
Did I say 'will be'? I meant to say 'has been'.
Pick your poison. Do you want government to have that power, a government whose representatives you can vote for, or do you want to give that power to the billionaires and corporations?
I think you’re conflating speech and press. As I said in my previous comment, press is already regulated and legally bound to report true information. Freedom of speech is what’s allowing you to share your opinion on this topic, no matter how wrong it may be.
Define press. Does a podcast or YouTube channel or Instagram/Facebook page qualify as press?
Edit: Should Marjorie be allowed to talk about Jewish Space Lasers without any response from the government?
Not unless it’s accredited.
It’s important to be mindful of where you get your information.
Good to know that in your ideal world asswipes like Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh are free to spread hatred without any legal repercussions.
Hate speech is illegal if used to incite hateful action.
I hate [group] people. Constitutionally protected and under attack.
We should harm [group] people. Inciting violence, and a chargeable offense.
You know these names, and to dismiss their message, because of their bigoted speech. Regulating bigotry doesn’t end bigotry. It just makes it hide.
Then why are these fuckheads not in jail? Neither is Alex Jones for that matter.
Anyway it wasn't pleasant talking to you and I'm going to block you.
Get a spine and think in depth about your free market attitude towards speech.
I completely agree that we should not stand for intolerance.
Meet speech with speech. Meet action with charges.
Problem is with speech is that speech itself IS action.
You might not see it or feel it if you've never really been a marganlized group, but even speech itself can be harmful, especially when it spreads. At some point, there must be a line where it is not ok to say those things.
For example: Some white supremacist walking around with a swatstika flag might seem like a nothing to you and you might just htink the person is an idiot (they are). But to me, that is a symbol that says "I want you, your family, and your heritage murdered violently, and I don't care how its done"
In addition, your premise assumes good faith on the part of the intolerant, and that they are probably just that way and will change with evidence. This is not true. Many intolerant know that they are intolerant and don't care. And nothing will change that. Arguing with them is what they want since it gives them a platform to repeat their vile hatred.
Again: There MUST be a line in the sand where society and the social contract say "This is not acceptable and you will not be permitted to participate", or eventually it creeps and spreads.
Nazism (ack, a godwin myself) didn't just start as Germany's preffered viewpoint. Hitler was ostracized for it early on, but many free speach absolutists took the exact same approach with him, until he was able to convince enough people who before would keep quiet, to support him and his causes.
Speech is not action, but I agree it can lead to action. Actions are held accountable by law.
I absolutely agree that speech can be harmful, and harmful language should not be tolerated. It should be met with resistant speech or ignored. Social mores are not legislated, but agreed upon by society as a whole. If it’s a location where you are required to listen, such as employment, there are already laws in place to protect you from harmful language.
I assume no good faith from intolerant people. I do not expect them to change their mind. By meeting their ignorance with truth, you can provide the listeners with a contrasting view.
I suggest you read about historical dictatorships and authoritarian control of speech to understand the potential dangers of empowering your government to determine acceptable speech. It may seem like a good idea at first, but all it takes is someone you adamantly disagree with to take office with that power and everything changes.
Yes it is. And this is why the Free speech absolution argument fall flat on it's face.
Speech is Action.
Speech encourages Action
Speech is powerful. There's a reason why there's the old saying "The pen is mightier than the sword". Words are the most influence action we have.
I've responded to you enough. the fact you're going to sit and defend peoples right to hate speech implies to me that you have some of these opinions yourself that have been called out for and you want to defend your right to say them.
So, On that assumption, I don't think you and I have a further need to talk.
We’re not having the same discussion.
I don’t like [group] people. Constitutionally protected, but under attack.
We should hurt [group] people. Inciting violence, and a chargeable offense.
And for what it’s worth, I think racism and nationalism are deplorable.