!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I think it should. People should me able to say what they want. Even the most stupid or hateful things. They are thinking them anyway, it's not like hat it's going to disappear with a ban on hat speech. Hate speech is the expression of the hateful thinking but not the root.
Ban on hate speech would be like puting on a blind and thinking that you made the sun dissapear.
Isn't it suspicious you're the one who said "Fuck them" about Gaza children?
No, and it's not as bad as americans think, it isn't like something experimental, it's a reality.
"hate speech" gets classified depending on how abstract it is. if you make a fair point to complain about something/somebody else, that's one thing. when you directly attack someone else and call for physical violence against them, that's not free speech, that's a crime and should be forbidden.
I know it already is but should it be?
BDS would seem to suggest otherwise. We care less about actual hatred than criticisms of our ethnostate agendas, but it's through the perceived hatred that cry-bullies thrive. Hate speech laws only make their bullying more effective. Look at Palestinian action in the UK. The lack of these laws protect us more than they would help our political rivals, who would love to see them pass. Billionaires can give a Nazi salute at CPAC with virtually no consequences and no laws were unanimously passed to provide those consequences, whereas BDS was widely adopted. TLDR, you can't trust politicians to tell us what hatred is.
Hate speech laws are fascist. As in, they are laws that differentiate between people. Some are protected but not beholden, while others are beholden but not protected. These laws are already used to protect cultist child abusers from criticism.
always remember that Jews are not Semites but saying anything negative against them is anti-semitism. while Palestinians are Semites but hate speech and hate crimes against them are allowed.
Yes it should. "your freedom ends when you start to hurt my feelings" is just plain censorship, as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech
This is exceptionally bad in my homeland (Ukraine) So much so that if I explain the situation here, I'll just get banned here because it can be labeled as hate speech
Everybody should be able to say anything they want, and everybody else should be able to make fun of them.
Or choose not to hire them, or ostracize them.
Hate speech is free speech. So is recording that hate speech and making sure that everyone the bigot knows is aware of their bigotry is free speech too.
Or choose not to hire them
This just allows capitalists to decide what is acceptable speech.
Or choose not to do business with them, or choose not to help them on the side of the road, or choose not to invite them to your parties, or choose not to let them on your property, or choose to sign them up for all the useless email and mail spam you can find...
Don't tunnel on one thing. A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.
The US extremist version of freedom of speech that also means freedom from consequences to what you say has nothing to do in a functional society. Which is why only the far right parties try to adopt it.
That's not how the freedom of speech works in the US. It frees you from consequences from the government, in theory. Not in general.
In practice it doesn't even work against the government when they choose to ignore it.
Yes, but limiting any speech that does not specifically suggest violence or other illegal acts should also be included in freedom of speech.
What good is freedom of speech if 90% of the time someone can force you to censor yourself or just outright censor you themselves.
Examples include people being forced to beep out "murder", "kill", or "firearm" or say a different word instead. The mechanism for enforcing these changes or even encouraging them should be fined.
Yes.
They should be encouraged to say whatever they want to say.
What they really want isn't freedom of speech but freedom from consequence. And that's something they shouldn't have.
When is freedom of speech ever not equivalent to freedom of consequences from said speech?
Consequences as in the government punishing someone, and consequences as in people mocking and ostracizing someone aren't the same thing. Just as the person who said something has the right to say that thing, other people have the right to for example not watch that person's show anymore.
I don't understand what you're trying to ask, sorry.
By voluntary associations (like a fediverse instance) absolutely not.
By government? Absolutely. What happens when disparaging the One True God Baby Jesus or His Followers is declared hate speech?
Whatever powers you give the government, you also give to the worst form of that government which you can imagine. The civil liberties that protect rapists and drug dealers are the same ones that are helping keep more people from being kidnapped by ICE in America.
This is an important point. There's a big difference between guys with guns telling you what you can say, and a local get-together. Sometimes people act like they should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, even if they're like standing in someone else's house
No, it should not. "My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights." is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.
My only gripe with this is that the state in its current form cannot be trusted to be an impartial judge of what constitutes hate speech. We see today that many states around the world are using anti hate speech laws to suppress criticism of the state of Israel. Giving the state broad powers to crack down on speech that it deems hateful will inevitably result in the state deciding that all criticism of its actions or the actions of its allies constitutes hate speech.
As an alternative, I prefer that hate speech be met with social consequences rather than criminal ones.
Impartiality is key to any such decision. Not only when one is rightfully criticising the genocide in Gaza.
I voted to raise my taxes to fund my local school. Now my neighbors have to pay more in taxes as well... Did I just harm them?
No, that benefits society as a whole by increasing education for the next generation. Which leads to better lives and more opportunities.
When something benefits the whole, not all individuals will see obvious benefits to themselves. But they still get to benefit from the outcomes, like better jobs more opportunities and such.
Ah, so it would have been harmful to vote against it.
The question is what is less harm? Increased taxes or lack of education?
Perhaps both of them harm (or help) different parties by different amounts. So maybe a system where "My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights." looks like a common sense framework, but when scrutinized reveals that it doesn't really stand for anything at all.
I don't know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: "My freedom ends where the next person's freedom starts." We can do everything we want as long it doesn't harm or encroach (and "harm" and "encroach" are loaded words in this context) on the next person. "Harm" and "encroach" here means you don't diminish the other persons rights, at all.
The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.
In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.
Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.
YES. Someone or something will manipulate criteria for what is hate speech OR ANTISEMITISM, all for its convenience to support genocide or BILLIONAIRE to oppress common people. Imagine if it's not protected by laws. Fuck censorship, BURN ISRAEL AND KILL BILLIONAIRE!
Yes because otherwise you can shut down speech you dislike by labeling it "hate speech"
Canada restricts hate speech, as does most of Europe.
Yet its the US with the speech suppression issues going on right now.
You shouldn't base a law on "The current government is okay" simply because the next one might not be.
Yes. I don’t trust anyone to draw the line on what does or doesn’t count as hate speech.
Now, calls to violence are little more black-and-white. I can see a ban on that.
Calls to violence are already not protected as free speech under the first amendment. Niether is obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Most of that just protects the ruling class.
I think that if something is made illegal, it should be very clearly defined. "Hate speech" is wide open to interpretation and can easily be used to silence all kinds of speech. The issue isn't the obvious cases but where exactly we draw the line. If that line can't be made crystal clear, it's a slippery slope toward tyranny. Being offensive is okay - spreading hate and inciting violence isn't.
Yes. The reason why is because there's no clear definition on what hate speech even is. Regulating something that has no clear definition and often is context dependent infringes on regular speech.
No, but it's better to have it protected by free speech than it would be to have governments decide what constitutes hate speech.
Yes
/full stop