I make that point in general, that I don't trust governments with regulating speech. By the way I'm all in for private platforms regulating speech, would not hang around here otherwise.
gapbetweenus
joined 1 year ago
Or maybe you got it wrong and that's not the point I was making?
The reasoning used in Assange and Manning case, is that information they made publicly available is endangering peoples lives. That is not unsimilar to the argumentation that hateful speech is endangering people targeted by it.
Yeah, so let's not play their game and not give governments any tools to be able to censor anyone. In best case in some constitutional form.
Do you ever try to understand what the other person is saying? Why bother otherwise?
Dude, I'm not siding with her on any issue besides freedom of speech - which just happen to be my opinion.
Calling for extermination, I would agree on. Since it's more than an opinion it's a call to action.
Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.
I'm really curious for examples.
I disagree with her on pretty much everything, except on the freedom of speech part - even for speech I might personally find disgusting.
Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.
And my point, governments have a history of using such laws in the end to get rid of critics. Sure this time it will be completely different. I would love to share your optimism, but you will have to allow me to remain skeptical.
Taliban are obviously the only terrorist group on the planet and rebels were never before labeled as terrorists.
They were fighting against first Sowjet and than US-American occupation.
Maybe bad faith interpretation of my argument on your side.
And I don't trust governments with defining and enforcing those lines, when it comes to speech.