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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.