725
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, I used to be a "free speech absolutist" too. Used to harp on about how important it is that we allow all views to be spread, regardless of how disgusting it might be... Then I grew up and realized how harmful that idea is to society.

Slippery slope fallacy isn't enough to convince me that having laws similar to Germany is going to lead to oppression or something. These ideologies have no place in modern society, and they should be given no quarter.

These people use your ideal of free speech absolutism against you, and until we realize there needs to be limits, we will never progress as a society because all of our time, focus, and resources will need to be on fighting this shit over and over and over.

[-] Papergeist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I thought "clear and present danger" took care of this sort of thing.

[-] MonkRome@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Not sure where I fall in this conversation, but, imo all hate speech is a clear and present danger. Every time you preach hate, even if you don't have a specific immediate call to action, you are speaking to people that will take it as a call to action. I think the clear and present danger idea is really giving human beings far too much credit. Normalizing hate makes assholes think they have the support of their peers, which leads to bad things, every time. In that sense hate speech is violence. Try being on the receiving end of hate speech and you will understand just how clear and present the danger really is.

[-] Papergeist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

My single-sentence comment seems to have caused me to be misunderstood.

I'm wondering, why is the "clear and present danger" doctrine NOT being used to shut these racists down? Because from my perspective, racist hate speech is clearly dangerous.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Because,as we've seen in this thread, other people are easily manipulated.

[-] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not a free speech absolutist.

A free speech absolutist would say libel should be legal, and I'd disagree. There are certain things the government can do to ensure a person's right to free speech doesn't infringe upon anothers right to health, happiness, etc, and I think that's okay, but that people really need to be wary of such things so that power doesn't get too concentrated. But I wouldn't say I'm an absolutist.

Im just saying you shouldn't make it illegal to be a part of a particular group, because then the next party in power will have precedent to make it illegal to be a part of a different group.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah it hard to xonvuce people that speach beeds limits. All ither rights do.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
725 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18601 readers
4123 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS