this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
404 points (95.1% liked)
Funny
6886 readers
869 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In Germany it's actually illegal to just say some things? Freedom of speech really needs better protection.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It's illegal to say things in the US too, buddy. The fact that you guys let people endorse slavery and idolize the confederacy, is more of a you problem.
Those problems are deeper than a freedom of speech, and controlling that speech won't and has not fixed the problems that cause them. It's better to keep the openness of expression and tackle the systemic causes of racism and hatred, not try and hide them and let them fester.
Why not both tackle the systemic issues while not allowing people to poison everything with their vile rhetoric.
Out and about Nazis emboldened to do their thing is not a good thing.
The problem with drawing lines is that lines can then be moved. The most obvious gets censored first, then the next, and at some point people can't talk about anything because it is offensive to someone in power. Who decides what is and isn't censorable? If the counter to vile speech is its opposing view treated also openly, hate and violence won't grow under a censorship. Again, it's not the freedom of speech that creates these problems, but other issues in society that make hating others attractive. Ignorance and segregation and pitting one group against another for power purposes.
so you’re saying it’s a slippery slope?
because that’s not a good reason not to do something
The argument is flawed. As the vile rhetoric out in the open, normalizes it. This in turn causes it to be used more, snowballing out of control. It deserves to be in the shadows.. skulking.. it belongs there.. it will never go away.
Countering speech with more speech, might work in an honest conversation, but when one side blatantly lies and has no shame.. when we are in a post truth situation.. with alternative facts and NO consequences... while the billionaire class hold the reighns to all the media you consume...
The speech with more speech will not work.
Next to that.. saying Nazi shit and a plethora of other things deserve a punch in the mouth.. the US should have a law that anyone calling a black person the N word can be punched in the mouth by said black person or a designated representative.. that would be a just law.
What about the other part of their argument though? Do you really think censorship powers can be withheld from those who are eager to abuse them? If the incoming government in the US was constitutionally able to be sanctioning vigilante violence against racist speech, I'm pretty sure one of the first things they would do with that is to classify people protesting the Palestinian genocide as being valid targets, under the logic that criticizing Israel is racist, for example.
Even if it was true that censorship is a more effective way to control toxic rhetoric than honest discourse, it would still be the case that it is an incredibly dangerous weapon. If we can't ensure that untrustworthy malevolent people never get the power to use it, there's no way it does more good than harm.
Unfortunately you're right that in a system where true dialogue can't exist to make bad arguments die appropriately this doesn't work well or at all. However neither does a censorship ideology since that can be manipulated, being my point that drawing lines results in new lines further. Given the Catch-22, I'd rather be open than allow someone control who can say what.
Don't you think rather than the problem being anyone being able to say racist or hateful things, maybe the problem is too many other people are fine with such things when they're said? That's why I said it's deeper than just the 1st Amendment.
Holy shit! An actual sensible person in the wild!
Slavery and racism is not a America only problem. We are just very loud and proud about it. (Not me personally, but I ain't blind to history and the people in my country).
Sure, but it's an example that's specific to the US. You can't go around in Germany praising Hitler and endorsing genocide, so why can you praise Lee and endorse genocide in the US?
I live in the UK, where I know there is also some illegal speech except in Hyde Park Corner. I still think things should be different and the government shouldn't be penalising anyone for things they say. Things they do are a different matter, but banning some speech leads to oppressive regimes.
It isn't that you can't say things, just certain parts of "the message" are illegal. You can't deny the holocaust for example or call to sterilize immigrants
If you have trouble telling the difference between free speech and hate crimes, you're very much part of the problem.
It's illegal to say you have a bomb at an airport and often to just generally seriously threaten people. Should that be covered under freedom of speech?
It should be illegal to have a bomb, not to say you have a bomb. If you say you have one and you don't, that's annoying, but it shouldn't be illegal.
It's a huge waste of time and resources and mass panic while everyone searches for this bomb that doesn't exist, and if you want to sneak in a real bomb, it's super easy to do if you just have 6 other people claim fake bombs first. It's not illegal right?
The two should have different consequences. Maybe look at it like the joking statement of having a bomb in certain places isn't illegal itself, but causing extra concern and panic requiring actions to ensure there isn't a threat has its own penalties. The intent of what you say or do is very important. Shouting fire in a crowded area when there isn't a fire is another example of the misuse of the freedom that could cause harm to others.
The original source of the "fire in a theater" example comes from a court case where a defendant was charged with passing out flyers opposing the draft into the first World War. The case was later overturned because it was not analogous to causing immediate panic or lawless action like a riot. I do wonder how social media's ability to directly influence people into action holds up to this ruling. As an example, one can post an opinion or call to action for something and be covered under the 1st, but imagine a streamer in real time inciting people to riot. Where's the line? Maybe it falls under what I said at the top, it's determined by the consequences and not by some perceived "future crime" that it could cause.
Germany passed a number of laws in the wake of the Third Reich and the Holocaust. The idea being that if such speech was banned, it could prevent the next one from getting a foothold. It definitely sounds like this is what they're referring to