Freedom of speech // Is the West falling behind?

[Ethel mermania]

Your right, free speech isn't important at all. Look at all those troublemakers in Hong Kong, stirring up the public, destroying order, slurring the government leaders. We need to support shutting that kind of talk down, and isolating those rabble rousers from the population. And no need to tell where the government will shipp those miscreant criminals too, it just causes unrest in the people.


Now to be fair I do agree with your point about my fellow American rightist's complete lack of understanding of the importance of free speech. That the answer isn't more restrictions on speech. (Ie repealing section 230 instead of strengthening it)

That said your living in a location that is well on its wqy to becoming a tolatarian nightmare and you still aren't supportive of free speech, is surprising.

To be fair, Twitter saying 'Go peddle your hate-speech somewhere else' to far-rightists isn't censorship. They can go to another site that welcomes them. They can start their own site and say 'Here, we love far-rightists and leftists are banned'.

And, frankly, a lot of the current free speech discussion seems to miss that point.

In Hong Kong, it was censorship, as it was the government restricting protests. As now, with the new Security Law, it's the government saying that certain topics are banned and supporting independence is forbidden -- whether for citizens or non-citizens. There are real-life repercussions (rather than just having to find a new site, of which I understand there are many on the internet).

When governments do this -- as with Russia's attempt at stamping out political opposition or Poland's restrictions on journalists -- it's a real cause for concern, and something to fight against at all costs.

Either there is free speech or there isn't. Twitter, you tube, tik tok, et al. are the new milk cartons in the public parks. In this day and age Stop speech there, you are stopping it practically everywhere. In communist China the government does it. In capitalist America corporations do it.

[The Free Joy State]

To be fair, Twitter saying 'Go peddle your hate-speech somewhere else' to far-rightists isn't censorship. They can go to another site that welcomes them. They can start their own site and say 'Here, we love far-rightists and leftists are banned'.

And, frankly, a lot of the current free speech discussion seems to miss that point.

In Hong Kong, it was censorship, as it was the government restricting protests. As now, with the new Security Law, it's the government saying that certain topics are banned and supporting independence is forbidden -- whether for citizens or non-citizens. There are real-life repercussions (rather than just having to find a new site, of which I understand there are many on the internet).

When governments do this -- as with Russia's attempt at stamping out political opposition or Poland's restrictions on journalists -- it's a real cause for concern, and something to fight against at all costs.

Either there is free speech or there isn't. Twitter, you tube, tik tok, et al. are the new milk cartons in the public parks. In this day and age Stop speech there, you are stopping it practically everywhere. In communist China the government does it. In capitalist America corporations do it.

There's never been all-or-nothing free-speech, though. Free speech doesn't protect you from the social consequences of speech (which I consider being banned from a site from breaking their rules to include; there are no criminal charges, no fines -- unless the speech violates a national law, which is a different issue -- the person just can't go back there; similar to how, if someone made a major ass of themselves in the public square in ages gone by, their neighbours may have given them the cold shoulder).

There have also always been exemptions to free speech, such as incitement, true threats and speech that violates intellectual property rights.

[Ethel mermania]

Either there is free speech or there isn't. Twitter, you tube, tik tok, et al. are the new milk cartons in the public parks. In this day and age Stop speech there, you are stopping it practically everywhere. In communist China the government does it. In capitalist America corporations do it.

There's never been all-or-nothing free-speech, though. Free speech doesn't protect you from the social consequences of speech (which I consider being banned from a site from breaking their rules to include; there are no criminal charges, no fines -- unless the speech violates a national law, which is a different issue -- the person just can't go back there; similar to how, if someone made a major ass of themselves in the public square in ages gone by, their neighbours may have given them the cold shoulder).

There have also always been exemptions to free speech, such as incitement, true threats and speech that violates intellectual property rights.

Just like the speech of the rabble in Hong Kong is upsetting the public order and people are being put in harms way because of it. Shut them down, agreed.

[The Free Joy State]

There's never been all-or-nothing free-speech, though. Free speech doesn't protect you from the social consequences of speech (which I consider being banned from a site from breaking their rules to include; there are no criminal charges, no fines -- unless the speech violates a national law, which is a different issue -- the person just can't go back there; similar to how, if someone made a major ass of themselves in the public square in ages gone by, their neighbours may have given them the cold shoulder).

There have also always been exemptions to free speech, such as incitement, true threats and speech that violates intellectual property rights.

Just like the speech of the rabble in Hong Kong is upsetting the public order and people are being put in harms way because of it. Shut them down, agreed.

If you took that from what I said, that's not my problem.

I've already drawn distinct differences between the censorship of governments (especially authoritarian regimes) and the non-censorship of being booted off of one site for breaking the rules.

An attitude of "all is permissible" on the net would result in dick-pics, hate speech, "I have the meaning of life" spam, and rampant trolling. I do not see keeping that crap off the internet as a freedom-of-speech thing. I see the fact that political and religious opponents are arrested and having their organs removed by the CCP as a freedom-of-speech thing.

[Ethel mermania]

Just like the speech of the rabble in Hong Kong is upsetting the public order and people are being put in harms way because of it. Shut them down, agreed.

If you took that from what I said, that's not my problem.

I've already drawn distinct differences between the censorship of governments (especially authoritarian regimes) and the non-censorship of being booted off of one site for breaking the rules.

An attitude of "all is permissible" on the net would result in dick-pics, hate speech, "I have the meaning of life" spam, and rampant trolling. I do not see keeping that crap off the internet as a freedom-of-speech thing. I see the fact that political and religious opponents are arrested and having their organs removed by the CCP as a freedom-of-speech thing.

Your distinctions are meaningless. Speech is free or it isn't.

[The Free Joy State]

If you took that from what I said, that's not my problem.

I've already drawn distinct differences between the censorship of governments (especially authoritarian regimes) and the non-censorship of being booted off of one site for breaking the rules.

An attitude of "all is permissible" on the net would result in dick-pics, hate speech, "I have the meaning of life" spam, and rampant trolling. I do not see keeping that crap off the internet as a freedom-of-speech thing. I see the fact that political and religious opponents are arrested and having their organs removed by the CCP as a freedom-of-speech thing.

Your distinctions are meaningless. Speech is free or it isn't.

The law disagrees, but -- even so -- why make hate speech the clarion call?

Why is the battle cry not "Two Cars in Every Garage and A Dick Pic on Every Web Page"? Or "Down with Intellectual Property" (that's one of the big exemptions)?

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Just a reminder that "hate speech" is solely defined by the powers that be. "Fuck Donald Trump" is literally an expression of hatred toward a particular individual, for instance. The powers that be also possess the means to disappear anyone on social media due to rules violations that never occurred just because they can and just because you did something to piss them off and cause them to react vindictively. Moderators can be biased and there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority. The same applies to governments obviously. The Nazi pug guy did nothing wrong.

Also a reminder that the one time right-wing users actually heeded the advice of leftists and migrated to their own right-wing echo chamber en masse, that platform was taken offline. The "private company" argument only works up to a point. Anything beyond that is the beginning of a Brave New World. Might as well implement a social credit system like China has done. Imagine not being able to ride a bus to work, book plane tickets, dine at McD's, use a credit card, deliver and receive goods and payments, or live in a rented apartment, because you said something the corporate oligarchy doesn't like. Or because you're black. This is already fast becoming a reality in China. This is cancel culture at its finest.

I'd rather not be muzzled by governments or a small handful of very large corporations. Yes, private companies have every right to boot users off their services for any reason or for no reason at all. But the bigger ones urgently need to be broken up to prevent them from effectively dictating public opinion and enforcing their brand of cancel culture whether it's woke or red-pilled in nature. Anti-trust is the answer.

[Senkaku]

the planet is on fire but I think our society's main problem is that media figures I have parasocial attachments to are getting cancelled

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

If you took that from what I said, that's not my problem.

I've already drawn distinct differences between the censorship of governments (especially authoritarian regimes) and the non-censorship of being booted off of one site for breaking the rules.

An attitude of "all is permissible" on the net would result in dick-pics, hate speech, "I have the meaning of life" spam, and rampant trolling. I do not see keeping that crap off the internet as a freedom-of-speech thing. I see the fact that political and religious opponents are arrested and having their organs removed by the CCP as a freedom-of-speech thing.

Your distinctions are meaningless. Speech is free or it isn't.

Not everything is black and white.

Also Trump advocated for terrorism on twitter and PIS jails pro LGBT protesters.

[Ethel mermania]

Your distinctions are meaningless. Speech is free or it isn't.

Not everything is black and white.

According to the Hungarians and polish government being gay is a threat to public safety, so they are in the right for suppressing that speech. Agreed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Not everything is black and white.

According to the Hungarians and polish government being gay is a threat to public safety, so they are in the right for suppressing that speech. Agreed.

No they are not.

There is a difference between jailing peaceful protesters and stoping someone from demanding a terrorst attack.

[Ethel mermania]

According to the Hungarians and polish government being gay is a threat to public safety, so they are in the right for suppressing that speech. Agreed.

No they are not.

There is a difference between jailing peaceful protesters and stoping someone from demanding a terrorst attack.

Like the threat the protests in hk cause, discomfitting social order in China, agreed let's suppress those pro democracy terrorists.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No they are not.

There is a difference between jailing peaceful protesters and stoping someone from demanding a terrorst attack.

Like the threat the protests in hk cause, discomfitting social order in China, agreed let's suppress those pro democracy terrorists.

There is a difference between pro lgbt protesters in poland and the terrorst attack on jan 6th.

One was peaceful protesting, the other was an attack to overturn an election.

One had a body count, the other didn't.

Same goes for the hk protesters. Hk didn't murder cops, DC did.

Calls for violence should be censored. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consciences.

[Ethel mermania]

Like the threat the protests in hk cause, discomfitting social order in China, agreed let's suppress those pro democracy terrorists.

There is a difference between pro lgbt protesters in poland and the terrorst attack on jan 6th.

One was peaceful protesting, the other was an attack to overturn an election.

One had a body count, the other didn't.

Same goes for the hk protesters. Hk didn't murder cops, DC did.

Calls for violence should be censored. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consciences.

Incitement is already against the law, conspiracy to over throw thr government is already against the law

The point that you are missing is that if speech is regulated as speech someone gets to make that call. I dont trust either the government of any country, or CEO of any company to decide what free speech is for me.

And yes nazis have the right to march down the streets of Skokie. The ACLU use to think so, not anymore, and that is a tragedy.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

There is a difference between pro lgbt protesters in poland and the terrorst attack on jan 6th.

One was peaceful protesting, the other was an attack to overturn an election.

One had a body count, the other didn't.

Same goes for the hk protesters. Hk didn't murder cops, DC did.

Calls for violence should be censored. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consciences.

Incitement is already against the law, conspiracy to over throw thr government is already against the law

The point that you are missing is that if speech is regulated as speech someone gets to make that call. I dont trust either the government of any country, or CEO of any company to decide what free speech is for me.

And yes nazis have the right to march down the streets of Skokie. The ACLU use to think so, not anymore, and that is a tragedy.

Skokie?

If they are peaceful yes they have the right to. They do not have the right to attack DC.

And ok I guess but the problem with that logic is that it will end up giveing a platform to groups like ISIS and the Tallaban.

This just might be my own opinion but groups that engaged in active genocide and slave tradeing should not have a platform.

Oh and the fact that there is a diffrence between calling for lgbt rights in poland and calling for mass murder of people about to elect someone you don't like into office.

[Ethel mermania]

Incitement is already against the law, conspiracy to over throw thr government is already against the law

The point that you are missing is that if speech is regulated as speech someone gets to make that call. I dont trust either the government of any country, or CEO of any company to decide what free speech is for me.

And yes nazis have the right to march down the streets of Skokie. The ACLU use to think so, not anymore, and that is a tragedy.

Skokie?

If they are peaceful yes they have the right to. They do not have the right to attack DC.

And ok I guess but the problem with that logic is that it will end up giveing a platform to groups like ISIS and the Tallaban.

This just might be my own opinion but groups that engaged in active genocide and slave tradeing should not have a platform.

Oh and the fact that there is a diffrence between calling for lgbt rights in poland and calling for mass murder of people about to elect someone you don't like into office.

For you and I, agreed. For putin and orban not so much.

[Anskerdank]

Given that this is a convo I had on twitter, I'd say yes.

Me: I like the Queen
User: No you can't, she's bad
Me: What is this, 1984?
User: No, if it were 1984, then you wouldn't be allowed to have an opinion

But I agree with others about Trump being banned from Twitter. However, there should be restrictions about what is and isn't deemed offensive.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Skokie?

If they are peaceful yes they have the right to. They do not have the right to attack DC.

And ok I guess but the problem with that logic is that it will end up giveing a platform to groups like ISIS and the Tallaban.

This just might be my own opinion but groups that engaged in active genocide and slave tradeing should not have a platform.

Oh and the fact that there is a diffrence between calling for lgbt rights in poland and calling for mass murder of people about to elect someone you don't like into office.

For you and I, agreed. For putin and orban not so much.

Then Putin and Orban are wrong. Objectively wrong.

Gay rights protesters in Russia and Hungary have no body count. Jan 6th DC Terrorists have a body count.

[The Alma Mater]

Also a reminder that the one time right-wing users actually heeded the advice of leftists and migrated to their own right-wing echo chamber en masse, that platform was taken offline. The "private company" argument only works up to a point.

If only the right had taken steps to limit the rights of corporations to deny service...

On the upside, the echo chamber is already back. Thanks to Russia, which is delicious irony.

[Ifreann]

Given that this is a convo I had on twitter, I'd say yes.

Me: I like the Queen
User: No you can't, she's bad
Me: What is this, 1984?
User: No, if it were 1984, then you wouldn't be allowed to have an opinion

And then everyone clapped.

[Gravlen]

Skokie?

Nazis. In Skokie, Illinois

See also: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

[Kragholm Free States]

For you and I, agreed. For putin and orban not so much.

Then Putin and Orban are wrong. Objectively wrong.

Gay rights protesters in Russia and Hungary have no body count. Jan 6th DC Terrorists have a body count.

A body count means fuck all tbh. The American revolutionaries had a body count. Quite considerably higher than the Jan 6th riot, in fact. And yet you seem rather protective of the capital city they founded, the seat of power they built, and the political institutions they created, don't you? Your body count justification is really just a cover for the fact that you think protests that align with your views (and mine, don't get me wrong I think Jan 6th was stupid and gay rights are good) should be allowed and those that don't shouldn't, isn't it?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Then Putin and Orban are wrong. Objectively wrong.

Gay rights protesters in Russia and Hungary have no body count. Jan 6th DC Terrorists have a body count.

A body count means fuck all tbh. The American revolutionaries had a body count. Quite considerably higher than the Jan 6th riot, in fact. And yet you seem rather protective of the capital city they founded, the seat of power they built, and the political institutions they created, don't you? Your body count justification is really just a cover for the fact that you think protests that align with your views (and mine, don't get me wrong I think Jan 6th was stupid and gay rights are good) should be allowed and those that don't shouldn't, isn't it?

The American revolution did have a body count, but it was to set up a system where change in government no longer requires a body count.

Today, political change should be without bloodshed.

[Gravlen]

The Nazi pug guy did nothing wrong.

He did something wrong, but he wasn't convicted of a hate crime, if that's what you're thinking.

This is cancel culture at its finest.

Oh, what a completely meaningless phrase.

[Cultural Posadism]

The private sector does not appear to be forced to exhibit rainbow flags or add political slogans to its advertising.

I find it hilarious that you sincerely believe that it's something forced upon the private sector, rather than something the private sector chooses to do because it's profitable. It's not LGBT people's fault that anti-LGBT people lost the competition in the free market.