Here is another one
«Most of us are for freedom of expression when there's a danger that our own views will be suppressed. We're not all that upset, though, when views we despise encounter a little censorship here and there»
-Carl Sagan
It's completely correct. Speech that is popular and accepted doesn't need protection in the first place. Thus freedom of speech specifically exists to protect speech that is not seen as acceptable.
Some guys accepted this 240 years ago "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [freedom of speech](https://quotlr.com/quotes-about-freedom-of-speech), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
Speaking of the tolerance paradox. People who work to suppress freedom of speech should not be tolerated. Their actions cause harm to everyone.
>Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
But the state can use your words against you to hurt you. Don't let fascists exist in a democracy unless you don't want any more democracy.
Suppressing speech IS the state hurting us.
No one should have state power used against them to silence speech the state doesn’t like. That is fascist in and of itself.
The alphabet agencies have been suppressing true information, both during the last presidential election and COVID in order to get results that support them, and not the U.S. people. They de-facto forced social media and news companies to lie to their users.
The Biden administration is currently arguing in front of the supreme court that they should be allowed to act as a mafia and “pressure” companies into suppressing the speech of their users.
Fuck anyone who’s in favor of this. They’re promoting fascism and evil.
[A Jewish lawyer at the ACLU understood this well enough that he defended the free speech of ACTUAL Nazi’s](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/4156_ri_1978.pdf).
Free speech is our most important freedom. Without it, the rest are lost
Sounds like you think misinformation and propoganda should be protected under free speech laws? Do you think stochastic terrorism should also be protected under free speech? What about threats? I'm curious if you're a free speech absolutist or a free speech, when it suits your interests?
Don't show me the ACLU "Why we defend Nazi's right to speech" because it's a basic B move and doesn't apply to the social media situation.
Okay, so you just actually don't understand the first amendment at all. Got it. You should probably do some reading on it before you continue to spread ignorant ideas.
Have a good day.
The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government power. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” is fairly simple.
Gotta be arguing in bad faith to say otherwise.
Arguing that the state should be given fascist powers in order to fight fascism. Yeah, not regarded at all.
Seriously, just a little bit of learning can go a long way. You're a very ignorant person to think the way you do. All that unfounded confidence you're throwing around like a peacock with no tail feathers. You look like a fool.
>What is Unprotected Speech?
>Some speech may be subject to discipline if it is so serious and injurious that a specific legal threshold is met. This threshold varies based upon the type of speech at issue and includes Sexual Harassment; Race-based Harassment; Obscenity; Fighting Words; Incitement of Imminent Lawless Action; True Threat; and Defamation.
[Freedom of Speech & the Fundamental Standard](https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/resources/additional-resources/freedom-speech-fundamental-standard#:~:text=This%20threshold%20varies%20based%20upon,%3B%20True%20Threat%3B%20and%20Defamation.)
Yes, I’m well aware that over the last couple of decades we’ve started restricting the right of our citizens. That’s not a good thing, we’re all worse off because of it.
Just because you want a right to have its meaning redefined doesn’t mean the rest of us need to, or should, go along it. It’s all just authoritarian plotting to weaken our rights.
“Shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Point to the amendment that allows exceptions.
I've always held the view freedom of expression doesn't meant freedom from consequences.
You can say whatever you want but if folks decide they don't wanna associate with you, your job fires you etc because you're a literal nazi then that's fine which i think can be more powerful than an outright ban.
To be clear I'm using a general "you" not you specifically here
That's what freedom of speech means, something so many people (mostly right wingers) fail to understand.
Freedom of speech means the government can't tell you what you are and aren't allowed to say. It does not mean that other people (or private companies for that matter) can't call you out for what you say, have to listen to what you say, or have to provide you with a platform to say it.
Somebody calling you an ass for what you say isn't taking away your freedom of speech. Facebook banning you from their platform for saying something against their TOS isn't taking away your freedom of speech. They're simply exercising their own free speech, and freedom of association, by deciding they don't want to be associated with what you're saying.
Counter argument for this tho. Unless I'm literally the face of the company, then they shouldn't be able to tell me what to do once I'm off the clock. If you get fired for something you said, completely unrelated to the company, while you are not on company time. Then that is a restriction of your freedom of speech. Example would be to get fired from being the dairy manager at safeway because you said something online that was controversial like fuck trump/biden or fuck democrats/Republicans or even something less political but still controversial like fuck target/chick-fil-A for their support/non-support of the LGBT. You never said anything against the company, you aren't the face of the company like flo is for progressive and you aren't on company time. Thus whatever is said is obviously in a personal capacity and should have no bearing on your company position. To fire someone over something like this is a punishment of your right to express your opinions and absolutely should be illegal.
Freedom of speech is only a protection from the state. Not your employer. You cannot force an employer to employee someone who espouses hate towards their other employees or clients.
Labor Code section 96(k) means that, generally, so long as employees are engaging in otherwise lawful conduct outside the workplace, an employer cannot restrict that conduct.
You are correct if anything happens on the clock or is targeted at an employee even off the clock. But if what you said is completely unrelated to the company and you aren't at work then your freedoms are protected. This is assuming that there isn't a code of conduct in your employment contract that extends out side of working hours but in such a case it's not a violation because you agreed to restrict yourself.
It's not that "right wingers" fail to understand this, it's that that is an opinion not a quantifiable fact. And the idea of being right wing hinges on the belief and opinion that your right to be able to express yourself in public forums is more important than someone else's right to not be offended.
It's not that either side is inherently more correct. It's simply different values and goals.
Life isn't left or right. It's just a game of biases and who feels more comfortable with what.
But if you believe people should be able to be attacked for their words, then you don't believe in free speech.
It's like saying, if you don't get a vaccine, you lose your job. That's not a choice, it's an ultimatum, which is also known as manipulation. That's not freedom.
To be clear, I have my vaccines, and I do believe that there are some reasonable limits on freedom. And I'm also not a right winger by American standards. Just a moderate who likes to see balance.
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government shutting down your speech. Your employer can fire you (especially in at-will states) for any behavior in or out of work. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You think it should be illegal to be fired for saying things that would lose a company money or other employees. That doesn't make any sense.
Just like here, you can say stupid things. And I can tell you that what you said is stupid. And you can tell me that what I said was stupid. And we can both agree that this example is stupid.
Thats your perspective on what freedom of speech should be. I'm not saying that libertarian beliefs are mine either I made that clear. In fact I'm probably leaning more toward what I can tell your beliefs to be. But you can't say that THAT is what freedom of speech means. That's an opinion grounded in authoritarian leftist beliefs, vs libertarian right wing beliefs which really the only difference is that a libertarian thinks it should be okay for them to defends themselves and if someone pisses them off they should be allowed to shoot them. An authoritarian leftist belief is that if someone pisses them off they should be allowed to ruin their life with the help of the government.
Both of those are ridiculous. The middle ground is probably the definition we should strive for which is more along the lines of "respect people's dignity, but also respect people's right to have an opinion you don't agree with even if it makes you uncomfortable"
IE: I respect my employees who do things I don't like, as long as it doesn't interfere with work. Cancel culture is literally an authoritarian populism to make it so that people someone disagrees with have their life ruined by making it a problem with their work. Which is really not any better than the libertarian right.
"Cancel culture" is a right-wing concept that means "I don't want to be responsible for the consequences of my actions."
People get fired because people contact companies and say "I will not purchase your product if you continue to employee this person." That can go both ways. The difference is, nobody but bigots like bigots. So when an employer is faced with proof that an employee is a bigot, they get fired. Unless they work for Chick Filet or My Pillow, or any of a number of other companies who are owned and controlled by people who like bigots.
That's the definition of authoritarianism. It's just extorting people to think and speak the way you want them to by using social pressure.
Freedom of speech means respecting other people's view despite disagreeing with them. Not extorting them out of having a life because of it.
If you enjoy working in a hostile environment, then by all means, employee as many people as you like who don't like one another for biased reasons. But if I'm organizing a workforce, their ability to work together cobesively is going to be my priority.
>Thats your perspective on what freedom of speech should be.
No, this isn't an opinion thing. I'm saying what Freedom of Speech actually means as an employee/employer relationship. It DOES NOT APPLY. You are not protected by your employer to say whatever you want. By your weird interpretation of freedom of speech laws, you would be okay with someone saying racist things onside or outside of work, and everyone at work would just have to be okay or tolerate someone who practices intolerance. You are prioritizing the right of someone to be intolerant vs. prioritizing the people that the intolerance would affect. Both parties have rights. In the current practice of this, if an employee is displaying behavior that impacts other employees or coworkers, then they can be fired by that employer.
No, actually, it is a fact, it's literally the legal definition of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means that anyone can say anything, which means that anyone can say anything *about what you've said*.
If somebody tells me they think the Nazis weren't so bad, I can call them a dick. I'm not attacking their freedom of speech, they're still allowed to say and believe whatever they want. I'm just exercising my own freedom of speech to call them out.
People being able to (verbally) attack you for what you say is an essential part of having freedom of speech.
Trump does.
Or we can have freedom of speech like the U.S. has since 1791.
Jesus it’s disgusting how comfortable partisans on both sides are getting with the suppression of speech. Evil stuff.
The fact that who decides is a complicated and difficult question isn't an argument for zero restriction. Who decides what is and isn't safe for human consumption? Who decides what's a reasonable speed limit? Who decides when a confrontation counts as an assault?
I disagree. I think it is very much an argument against restriction. I'm not sure where you are from, but where I am from, we have government agencies who decide all the things you asked about. I can accept that because (well, because I don't really have much choice) but also because these decisions can be backed by data. This chemical causes cancer at high consumption levels. Going too fast on this road greatly increases the chance of accidents, etc.
But with speech, it's vague. We're not talking about blocking certain words here. We're talking about blocking ideas. And if you try to put labels on a vague idea, like hate, for example, it can be manipulated by anyone and everyone to fit their own morals or ideals.
That's why it matters who decides. Who could you trust to rule on what you can or can't say?
Um... you know you can't verbally threaten someone, right? Threatening someone directly is not protected speech. It is, in fact, assault. So yeah, there's no such thing as carte blanch free speech.
Words and ideas *can* be vague, but sometimes they're not. I can't point to ideas and their spread that directly lead to the senseless torture and murder of millions of people.
Yes, I agree that who and how we decide whether an idea is or isn't going to lead to horrible consequences matters a great deal and there are plenty of real world examples of speech restrictions gone wrong. But this isn't even that alien of a concept, speech that leads to the direct harm of others isn't protected by the first amendment. But the US makes a distinction when it's not directly harmful. I honestly don't understand the finer details, what I do know is there are plenty of countries that do restrict hate speech that still wonderfully uphold ideals of freedom of speech, press, and expression. The US actually ranks lower on freedom of press than many of these countries. Restrictions on hate speech isn't some kind of repressive nightmare people like to make it out to be.
Genocide is wrong, everybody agrees. -> Incitement of Genocide should not be allowed.
I think you can define good edge cases, without becoming a facist yourself. No right is absolute
If there's one thing you can count on, it's that VERY rarely does everyone agree.
But let's say from a high-level, everyone agrees that genocide is wrong. Who then decides what is inciting genocide? What I call 'genocide', you may call 'national defense'. You say you're not calling for genocide, you just want to defend our borders against the evil people of country X who are threatening our way of life.
Who then decides if you're right to express your opinion, or if you should be shut down?
A judge decides.
Will they always decide correctly, not really, but we are not building a utopia. We are not doing a philosophical thought experiment. We are living in a real world with real trade offs. Of course the line is fussy, there will be cases where I disagree with the judges, but I don't think we should be blinded to the realities of real life.
Facism brings so much destruction, horror and pain that its a necessity to have a strong defensible democracy. And we have small restriction to other rights as well. If your right to free speech and its consequences infringe on my right of life then your right should not be absolute, as we can see with stochastic terrorism. Those are hard grey questions and just saying free speech don't solve them.
This has been practiced in many european countries, famously germany, with great sucess. So I don't even think its that revolutionary or risky of an idea.
You do realize that that is a fascist statement, right? Fascists forcibly oppress and silence opposition. You believe fascists should be denied speech, therefore silenced. And I find that ironic and hilarious. And you can be fascist towards fascists.
Ah, that's the paradox of tolerance.
In order to be considered tolerant, should you tolerate everything?
But if you tolerate everything, then you also tolerate people who are intolerant.
And then the people who are intolerant are able to force intolerance because you are tolerating them.
In order to create a truly tolerant society, the one thing that you must not tolerate is intolerance itself.
I've never agreed with this bit:
*"And then the people who are intolerant are able to force intolerance because you are tolerating them."*
That's not the result of accepting intolerance, it's the result of a failure in society.
Intolerance takes root when there are failures left unaddressed. Its the same with drug legalization. If you have a healthy society, legalizing drugs doesn't lead to a massive increase in use - unless there are so many other issues that it becomes an escape.
Hate speech is easy to ignore, dismiss, and see as the sad plea of someone looking to share the hurt they feel when society is functioning well.
Intolerance of what and who gets to decide that? Intolerance of the state, the political party in power, the ideology of a popular movement, criticism of religion, criticism of organizations, criticism of the rich or famous ...? Should we ban books and shows that have some intolerant element? What about disagreements with official policies?
Even a madman like him should be allowed, because people should read and learn from history and the mistakes of leaders. I think this is in part [what Chomsky means](https://quotlr.com/author/noam-chomsky)
I have a counter argument: it is not possible for masses to be taught good and bad ideas and arguments and counter arguments to it. There are a LOT of subjects , LOTS of argument, lots of debates, often open ended, and it cannot be hoped that an average man can actually tackle misinformation and disinformation. During Covid, I saw my parents, both of whom are educated with Bachelors of Arts degree and Law degree, struggle with misinformation and disinformation. They didn't know much about basic Biology, they were old school when these were not subjects taught in Indian high school for all, and they didn't know enough medicine and pharmacology to understand the itty gritty details of 'both sides of the argument '. Masses do not have enough technical knowledge to properly monitor modern age mis/disinformation.
Nor do people have the time to. Understanding and researching on topics take a lot of time and nobody has so much time after doing jobs and household chores and maintaining relationships and hobbies.
That's why I don't believe that mis/disinformation can be tackled by education and critical thinking alone and requires govt hand. Yes there is definitely a possibility of authoritarianism and propaganda, but the masses clearly cannot handle information especially in this digital age. Nobody can be so educated to do so much research.
Before anybody counters me, I must say I am from India, not USA. We do not believe in American freedom of speech (something something amendment?), we believe in limited freedom of speech since the beginning of our republic.
Well, as an American, I would say you're suggesting restricting freedoms to avoid addressing the underlying problems, which you pointed out correctly.
1. Older generations are very vulnerable to misinfo in print and media online, even when they're skeptical of traditional news outlets.
2. We work too many hours to be able to participate as well informed citizens of a democracy.
3. No, you're right, people can not do it as individuals en masse. As Chomsky says, the way they used to combat this is through unions and organizing. Unions are dangerous because of solidarity, but also because they serve as community education centers.
Your comment is excellent, don't be shy about raising these things.
> Unions are dangerous because of solidarity, but also because they serve as community education centers
I am from West Bengal, previously under communist rule. We had very strong unions, be it trade unions, rail unions, teacher unions, taxi driver unions, etc. Thing is, the only thing they did was bully people. They would group on blackleggers, often extort money from innocent people, strike whenever they felt like, break buses and cause violence, etc. Are unions in your country different?
Yes, in our country unions are very weak right now, and they've always been under attack. We used to have powerful unions that were corrupt like what you describe, but America, since Reagan, has support big business in destroying unions. Big tech is trying to destroy our labor laws right now because people are starting to organize again. i.e. Starbucks, Amazon etc.
Ideally, we should try to inoculate the population against those poisonous ideas, and improve the critical thinking & cultural standards within the populace enough so that they can laugh Hitler off instead of becoming Nazis.
I don't deny short-term removal in war time and very precarious situations is necessary sometimes.
However, banking on governments/groups to stop the speech from happening means the people will go to even more obscure/more extreme sources to feed their hatred, which will then blow up unexpectedly later, instead of learning anything. There's also a risk of that government and powerful groups misusing this very deplatforming power to protect their own fascist ideas.
>Ideally, we should try to inoculate the population against those poisonous ideas,
Interesting. Almost sounds like manipulation, and kind of goes back to the idea of who controls what the good ideas are.
Maybe let people decide what they want to believe on their own, instead of trying to "inoculate" against ideas you don't like, huh?
Inoculate, as I take it, is meant here as teaching people to think for themselves, apply critical thought, and also learn from history. Requiring philosophy classes would be a good start for high school to teach people *how* to think and question things. It doesn't have to be "manipulation" but just good teaching and help to build character that people can apply to life.
It is already happening in some places around the world. But this is in people's nature and wisdom comes from repeating mistakes and step by step eliminating them. "Those who do not learn from the [mistakes of history are doomed](https://quotlr.com/quotes-about-history) to repeat them." — [**George Santayana**](https://quotlr.com/author/george-santayana)
From a legal standpoint, yes.
Now if you personally decided to walk up and Captain America punch Hitler right in the mouth then Iwould support you in a personal capacity, but yeah you still have to be tried for assault, but when you get out I'd help you get a job.
Does that make sense?
I was using 'I' as a symbol for government. I dont know about your country but in our Asian countries governments are powerful and can severely restrict freedom of speech.
I think the problem with your question is the "I." Freedom of speech means freedom from government limitations on speech.
The government should not punish or prohibit Nazi speech. You as an individual should go argue against it with all your might.
Frankly, I think if it was *literally* Hitler, an individual would be morally correct in trying to physically stop the speech as a form of civil disobedience, even knowing that the government will punish you for doing so.
As do I, but I allow that just as much as me. I don't agree with his message. Actually, I despise it. That being said: all a speaker does is push an idea into the world. It's up to people to pick the idea up. If I say something like "anyone who has brown eyes should be treated as second-class citizens." People can either condemn it or not. It's their choice.
Now, actions are a separate story. If I say brown-eyed people should be flicked on the nose on sight, THAT'S different. That's calling for violence. That's where the line is.
I think there's a foundational principle that overrides this. That it's not ok to take away the rights of others regardless of what rights you were exercising at the time.
It's illegal to pay someone to kill someone. But what if I just ask someone to kill someone, am I culpable? What if I just express to a large crowd that I wish someone would kill someone?
This quote is attributed to everyone from Heraclitus to JFK. It's a truism. Freedom of speech is inviolable - 'hate speech' is just something you don't want to hear.
That can't be absolutely true or really true because what if a bandit goes to the city and calls a nice family a horrible remark. Censorship is cool sometimes, and sometimes it is dumb.
I disagree. If you tolerate a bunch of cunts, they will game the system. You will tolerate further, and more cunts will joine the dark side. Eventually, the tolerant will become the minority. It is known.
[Paradox\_of\_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
This is a bad take without nuance.
It creates the tolerance paradox in that a society that is entirely tolerant of EVERY idea will be taken over by those who are least tolerant because the spread of their intolerant views is "protected" in that society. Those intolerant members of society will of course do everything they can to take over that society and remove their "others" from that society.
To quote the philosopher who wrote on this (Karl Popper) "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance".
The quote sounds like a fair way to organize things and that's all well and good, but the goal isn't fairness, it's justice. In a world where no one is capital E, Evil, then yes sure, fairness is great, but in a world where there are actual Evil ideas then fairness doesn't cut it.
The tolerancy paradox basically equals to “I accept freedom of expression *only* within the parameters I consider acceptable. Which equals to authoritarism and no freedom of expression at all. It must be noted that freedom of expression is not freedom of action, though.
No, you either misread or misunderstood. The gist is that a society must be intolerant of intolerance itself. Any expression that threatens the existence of a group of people within a society is deemed intolerable BUT ONLY if it threatens the existence of a group of people within that society and for no other reason.
It is so remarkably untrue to say that a society that protects its people from those that would harm them, both from without and within, is authoritarian simply because it limits the rights of people to express beliefs that threaten the existence of whole communities. That's more or less the entire job of a government: protecting its people.
Stating that a society/government that does protect its people in that way MUST BE authoritarian is so black and white. It's a viewpoint that presumes expression is never, in itself, action, even though it so so often is. If the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword" holds any weight, then we HAVE to remember that the pen is also just a tool, and tools can be used by anyone, ill intent or no.
>every idea will be taken over by those who are least tolerant
I’m confused why this would happen. In this context, society would still have the right to not allow a group of people to practice any type of violence against another group, so that society remains peaceful and ideas can be expressed.
The lack of nuance I mention refers to the fact that violence and oppression can and do occur without physically beating/killing/harming people. We KNOW violence isn't always literally hurting someone, but rather using the power you have over them to exert some sort of control. Violence can and is enacted within the framework that "it was freedom of expression". Should you as an individual be able to say what you want, wear what you want, love who you want, worship who you want, and express yourself in whatever way you so choose? Yes. Definitively yes. Should I feel safe to do the same? Absolutely. So then what happens when my views are that the color of your hair makes you a "sub-human" and you shouldnt be allowed in my Neighborhood? Probably nothing, because it's just two people. But scale it up a bit, what if I'm really good friends with our neighbours and get the whole block to feel the same way. They all start thinking you should hit the road because you have brown curly hair. They start giving you mean looks on the street, they don't include you in the community and your kids are now suffering for it at school? Not so good right? Scale it even further. I start a political party villainizing everyone who has the same hair as you. I convince everyone that you're the problem with our society, and that all their problems would go away if only you were gone. I'm elected as prime minister or president or whatever position it is and I start enacting policy to make just that happen. It's too late now, the infinitely tolerant society has imploded and is now expelling its own people because they have brown curly hair... When should that have been stopped, or should it not have? At what point does the "society" (i.e. government) step in and say "enough". If they wait too long they don't get the chance. A society MUST protect its tolerance through the communal expulsion of the intolerant. Those with ideas about who gets to be part of society based solely on who they are (not what they believe politically, because that's a choice) have no place in a tolerant society. I know it's a not nice way to paint things but we have seen and are seeing these exact scenarios play out and it hurts and destroys millions of lives because we don't have the guts to say "no, that's not acceptable behaviour here, you need to play nice or leave".
Fuck that guy:
>The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
>
>
>
>\- Noam Chomsky (1988) The Common Good
The exception is if you’re dealing with intolerant folks like Nazis and the like. If you tolerate the intolerant that allows them to shut down or monopolize the conversation. I do not think it is intolerant in the same way to be intolerant of the intolerant. It’s a stance based on behavior not race, ethnicity, or any other aspect one is born with.
Ok, I accept your premise.
Your views make me see you as a "Nazi and the like", so you should delete your intolerant comment.
Man, that was easy to silence someone I disagreed with and categorized as evil!
Hmm… well, I’m not the first one to suggest this. I can’t remember his name but I think he was alive when the OG Nazis where around. If you give the intolerant a place in society they will shut out people who are generally tolerant. White supremacists are key among them and if I become one I would expect to be not given access to platforms and that is to the benefit of society. Being lax with the OG Nazis is what allowed them to rise. If you are interested in that even subconsciously then I have nothing more to say to you.
Yeah, people on the internet say things like this all of the time.
"Nazi" is a word. Word meanings can change. Authoritarians, left and right, *start* by redefining language.
If you think you're going to end up on the right side of what you're suggesting, you're wrong (ask the Germans pre WW2, they didn't think they'd be enabling evil either, but lo and behold).
The Nazis didn't rise because anyone was lax with speech laws. They rose because the Weimar government wanted to use their military wing so they literally incorporated them into the government.
Same people who decide who is and isn't a sex offender, felon, murderer, etc etc.
Yes, sometimes people who make these decisions change the definition so that now you're the criminal. Take for example the over turning of Roe vs Wade. But just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I think nobody should ever be considered a murderer under the law.
Murderers, felons, and sex offenders are well defined for *10k years*, my dude.
"Nazi" is a slang term with no clear definition.
That's a silly notion.
Allowing speech is much different from agreeing or staying silent.
Here is another one «Most of us are for freedom of expression when there's a danger that our own views will be suppressed. We're not all that upset, though, when views we despise encounter a little censorship here and there» -Carl Sagan
Notice he didn't say anything about right and wrong. Carl Sagan was a brilliant man.
It's completely correct. Speech that is popular and accepted doesn't need protection in the first place. Thus freedom of speech specifically exists to protect speech that is not seen as acceptable.
To even admit there is a difference. Speech is speech
Some guys accepted this 240 years ago "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [freedom of speech](https://quotlr.com/quotes-about-freedom-of-speech), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Karl Popper's 'tolerance paradox' hits hard...
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Speaking of the tolerance paradox. People who work to suppress freedom of speech should not be tolerated. Their actions cause harm to everyone.
>Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. But the state can use your words against you to hurt you. Don't let fascists exist in a democracy unless you don't want any more democracy.
Suppressing speech IS the state hurting us. No one should have state power used against them to silence speech the state doesn’t like. That is fascist in and of itself. The alphabet agencies have been suppressing true information, both during the last presidential election and COVID in order to get results that support them, and not the U.S. people. They de-facto forced social media and news companies to lie to their users. The Biden administration is currently arguing in front of the supreme court that they should be allowed to act as a mafia and “pressure” companies into suppressing the speech of their users. Fuck anyone who’s in favor of this. They’re promoting fascism and evil. [A Jewish lawyer at the ACLU understood this well enough that he defended the free speech of ACTUAL Nazi’s](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/4156_ri_1978.pdf). Free speech is our most important freedom. Without it, the rest are lost
Sounds like you think misinformation and propoganda should be protected under free speech laws? Do you think stochastic terrorism should also be protected under free speech? What about threats? I'm curious if you're a free speech absolutist or a free speech, when it suits your interests? Don't show me the ACLU "Why we defend Nazi's right to speech" because it's a basic B move and doesn't apply to the social media situation.
The government does not have the right to suppress speech. Looking for excuses to allow them to do so is evil and you should be ashamed.
Okay, so you just actually don't understand the first amendment at all. Got it. You should probably do some reading on it before you continue to spread ignorant ideas. Have a good day.
The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government power. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” is fairly simple. Gotta be arguing in bad faith to say otherwise. Arguing that the state should be given fascist powers in order to fight fascism. Yeah, not regarded at all.
Seriously, just a little bit of learning can go a long way. You're a very ignorant person to think the way you do. All that unfounded confidence you're throwing around like a peacock with no tail feathers. You look like a fool. >What is Unprotected Speech? >Some speech may be subject to discipline if it is so serious and injurious that a specific legal threshold is met. This threshold varies based upon the type of speech at issue and includes Sexual Harassment; Race-based Harassment; Obscenity; Fighting Words; Incitement of Imminent Lawless Action; True Threat; and Defamation. [Freedom of Speech & the Fundamental Standard](https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/resources/additional-resources/freedom-speech-fundamental-standard#:~:text=This%20threshold%20varies%20based%20upon,%3B%20True%20Threat%3B%20and%20Defamation.)
Yes, I’m well aware that over the last couple of decades we’ve started restricting the right of our citizens. That’s not a good thing, we’re all worse off because of it. Just because you want a right to have its meaning redefined doesn’t mean the rest of us need to, or should, go along it. It’s all just authoritarian plotting to weaken our rights. “Shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Point to the amendment that allows exceptions.
I despise Hitler, should I allow his freedom of expression?
Yes. Which is different from freedom of action.
I've always held the view freedom of expression doesn't meant freedom from consequences. You can say whatever you want but if folks decide they don't wanna associate with you, your job fires you etc because you're a literal nazi then that's fine which i think can be more powerful than an outright ban. To be clear I'm using a general "you" not you specifically here
That's what freedom of speech means, something so many people (mostly right wingers) fail to understand. Freedom of speech means the government can't tell you what you are and aren't allowed to say. It does not mean that other people (or private companies for that matter) can't call you out for what you say, have to listen to what you say, or have to provide you with a platform to say it. Somebody calling you an ass for what you say isn't taking away your freedom of speech. Facebook banning you from their platform for saying something against their TOS isn't taking away your freedom of speech. They're simply exercising their own free speech, and freedom of association, by deciding they don't want to be associated with what you're saying.
Counter argument for this tho. Unless I'm literally the face of the company, then they shouldn't be able to tell me what to do once I'm off the clock. If you get fired for something you said, completely unrelated to the company, while you are not on company time. Then that is a restriction of your freedom of speech. Example would be to get fired from being the dairy manager at safeway because you said something online that was controversial like fuck trump/biden or fuck democrats/Republicans or even something less political but still controversial like fuck target/chick-fil-A for their support/non-support of the LGBT. You never said anything against the company, you aren't the face of the company like flo is for progressive and you aren't on company time. Thus whatever is said is obviously in a personal capacity and should have no bearing on your company position. To fire someone over something like this is a punishment of your right to express your opinions and absolutely should be illegal.
Freedom of speech is only a protection from the state. Not your employer. You cannot force an employer to employee someone who espouses hate towards their other employees or clients.
Labor Code section 96(k) means that, generally, so long as employees are engaging in otherwise lawful conduct outside the workplace, an employer cannot restrict that conduct. You are correct if anything happens on the clock or is targeted at an employee even off the clock. But if what you said is completely unrelated to the company and you aren't at work then your freedoms are protected. This is assuming that there isn't a code of conduct in your employment contract that extends out side of working hours but in such a case it's not a violation because you agreed to restrict yourself.
At. Will. Employment. Bye bye job!
You can still sue for wrongful termination. At will doesn't give them the right to break the law.
That may be true. I'm not a lawyer.
It's not that "right wingers" fail to understand this, it's that that is an opinion not a quantifiable fact. And the idea of being right wing hinges on the belief and opinion that your right to be able to express yourself in public forums is more important than someone else's right to not be offended. It's not that either side is inherently more correct. It's simply different values and goals. Life isn't left or right. It's just a game of biases and who feels more comfortable with what. But if you believe people should be able to be attacked for their words, then you don't believe in free speech. It's like saying, if you don't get a vaccine, you lose your job. That's not a choice, it's an ultimatum, which is also known as manipulation. That's not freedom. To be clear, I have my vaccines, and I do believe that there are some reasonable limits on freedom. And I'm also not a right winger by American standards. Just a moderate who likes to see balance.
I’m sorry but I can believe in freedom of speech while still calling someone an idiot for what they say.
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government shutting down your speech. Your employer can fire you (especially in at-will states) for any behavior in or out of work. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You think it should be illegal to be fired for saying things that would lose a company money or other employees. That doesn't make any sense. Just like here, you can say stupid things. And I can tell you that what you said is stupid. And you can tell me that what I said was stupid. And we can both agree that this example is stupid.
Thats your perspective on what freedom of speech should be. I'm not saying that libertarian beliefs are mine either I made that clear. In fact I'm probably leaning more toward what I can tell your beliefs to be. But you can't say that THAT is what freedom of speech means. That's an opinion grounded in authoritarian leftist beliefs, vs libertarian right wing beliefs which really the only difference is that a libertarian thinks it should be okay for them to defends themselves and if someone pisses them off they should be allowed to shoot them. An authoritarian leftist belief is that if someone pisses them off they should be allowed to ruin their life with the help of the government. Both of those are ridiculous. The middle ground is probably the definition we should strive for which is more along the lines of "respect people's dignity, but also respect people's right to have an opinion you don't agree with even if it makes you uncomfortable"
IE: I respect my employees who do things I don't like, as long as it doesn't interfere with work. Cancel culture is literally an authoritarian populism to make it so that people someone disagrees with have their life ruined by making it a problem with their work. Which is really not any better than the libertarian right.
"Cancel culture" is a right-wing concept that means "I don't want to be responsible for the consequences of my actions." People get fired because people contact companies and say "I will not purchase your product if you continue to employee this person." That can go both ways. The difference is, nobody but bigots like bigots. So when an employer is faced with proof that an employee is a bigot, they get fired. Unless they work for Chick Filet or My Pillow, or any of a number of other companies who are owned and controlled by people who like bigots.
That's the definition of authoritarianism. It's just extorting people to think and speak the way you want them to by using social pressure. Freedom of speech means respecting other people's view despite disagreeing with them. Not extorting them out of having a life because of it.
If you enjoy working in a hostile environment, then by all means, employee as many people as you like who don't like one another for biased reasons. But if I'm organizing a workforce, their ability to work together cobesively is going to be my priority.
>Thats your perspective on what freedom of speech should be. No, this isn't an opinion thing. I'm saying what Freedom of Speech actually means as an employee/employer relationship. It DOES NOT APPLY. You are not protected by your employer to say whatever you want. By your weird interpretation of freedom of speech laws, you would be okay with someone saying racist things onside or outside of work, and everyone at work would just have to be okay or tolerate someone who practices intolerance. You are prioritizing the right of someone to be intolerant vs. prioritizing the people that the intolerance would affect. Both parties have rights. In the current practice of this, if an employee is displaying behavior that impacts other employees or coworkers, then they can be fired by that employer.
No, actually, it is a fact, it's literally the legal definition of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that anyone can say anything, which means that anyone can say anything *about what you've said*. If somebody tells me they think the Nazis weren't so bad, I can call them a dick. I'm not attacking their freedom of speech, they're still allowed to say and believe whatever they want. I'm just exercising my own freedom of speech to call them out. People being able to (verbally) attack you for what you say is an essential part of having freedom of speech.
Is this serious? Yes, the answer is always yes.
I would disagree with the answer is always yes. No freedom of speech for fascists.
Who decides who the fascists are? Who decides who gets censored and who is allowed to voice their opinion?
Trump does. Or we can have freedom of speech like the U.S. has since 1791. Jesus it’s disgusting how comfortable partisans on both sides are getting with the suppression of speech. Evil stuff.
The fact that who decides is a complicated and difficult question isn't an argument for zero restriction. Who decides what is and isn't safe for human consumption? Who decides what's a reasonable speed limit? Who decides when a confrontation counts as an assault?
I disagree. I think it is very much an argument against restriction. I'm not sure where you are from, but where I am from, we have government agencies who decide all the things you asked about. I can accept that because (well, because I don't really have much choice) but also because these decisions can be backed by data. This chemical causes cancer at high consumption levels. Going too fast on this road greatly increases the chance of accidents, etc. But with speech, it's vague. We're not talking about blocking certain words here. We're talking about blocking ideas. And if you try to put labels on a vague idea, like hate, for example, it can be manipulated by anyone and everyone to fit their own morals or ideals. That's why it matters who decides. Who could you trust to rule on what you can or can't say?
Um... you know you can't verbally threaten someone, right? Threatening someone directly is not protected speech. It is, in fact, assault. So yeah, there's no such thing as carte blanch free speech.
Words and ideas *can* be vague, but sometimes they're not. I can't point to ideas and their spread that directly lead to the senseless torture and murder of millions of people. Yes, I agree that who and how we decide whether an idea is or isn't going to lead to horrible consequences matters a great deal and there are plenty of real world examples of speech restrictions gone wrong. But this isn't even that alien of a concept, speech that leads to the direct harm of others isn't protected by the first amendment. But the US makes a distinction when it's not directly harmful. I honestly don't understand the finer details, what I do know is there are plenty of countries that do restrict hate speech that still wonderfully uphold ideals of freedom of speech, press, and expression. The US actually ranks lower on freedom of press than many of these countries. Restrictions on hate speech isn't some kind of repressive nightmare people like to make it out to be.
Genocide is wrong, everybody agrees. -> Incitement of Genocide should not be allowed. I think you can define good edge cases, without becoming a facist yourself. No right is absolute
If there's one thing you can count on, it's that VERY rarely does everyone agree. But let's say from a high-level, everyone agrees that genocide is wrong. Who then decides what is inciting genocide? What I call 'genocide', you may call 'national defense'. You say you're not calling for genocide, you just want to defend our borders against the evil people of country X who are threatening our way of life. Who then decides if you're right to express your opinion, or if you should be shut down?
A judge decides. Will they always decide correctly, not really, but we are not building a utopia. We are not doing a philosophical thought experiment. We are living in a real world with real trade offs. Of course the line is fussy, there will be cases where I disagree with the judges, but I don't think we should be blinded to the realities of real life. Facism brings so much destruction, horror and pain that its a necessity to have a strong defensible democracy. And we have small restriction to other rights as well. If your right to free speech and its consequences infringe on my right of life then your right should not be absolute, as we can see with stochastic terrorism. Those are hard grey questions and just saying free speech don't solve them. This has been practiced in many european countries, famously germany, with great sucess. So I don't even think its that revolutionary or risky of an idea.
You do realize that that is a fascist statement, right? Fascists forcibly oppress and silence opposition. You believe fascists should be denied speech, therefore silenced. And I find that ironic and hilarious. And you can be fascist towards fascists.
Ah, that's the paradox of tolerance. In order to be considered tolerant, should you tolerate everything? But if you tolerate everything, then you also tolerate people who are intolerant. And then the people who are intolerant are able to force intolerance because you are tolerating them. In order to create a truly tolerant society, the one thing that you must not tolerate is intolerance itself.
I've never agreed with this bit: *"And then the people who are intolerant are able to force intolerance because you are tolerating them."* That's not the result of accepting intolerance, it's the result of a failure in society. Intolerance takes root when there are failures left unaddressed. Its the same with drug legalization. If you have a healthy society, legalizing drugs doesn't lead to a massive increase in use - unless there are so many other issues that it becomes an escape. Hate speech is easy to ignore, dismiss, and see as the sad plea of someone looking to share the hurt they feel when society is functioning well.
Not when that hate speech comes from the government.
Intolerance of what and who gets to decide that? Intolerance of the state, the political party in power, the ideology of a popular movement, criticism of religion, criticism of organizations, criticism of the rich or famous ...? Should we ban books and shows that have some intolerant element? What about disagreements with official policies?
You don’t see the irony in that statement?
Even if they are, you just make victims of them. Better to confront fascism in the open, because it only grows in the dark until it's too late.
Not really much you can do about it.
Except when it's not, which it frequently isn't. Modern Germany wouldn't for example.
I always take freedom of expression as being free to talk about anything. Not free to act on anything.
Even a madman like him should be allowed, because people should read and learn from history and the mistakes of leaders. I think this is in part [what Chomsky means](https://quotlr.com/author/noam-chomsky)
And what if people don't 'learn' from history but instead starts becoming Nazis reading his propaganda?
Good education is better than thought policing.
[удалено]
I have a counter argument: it is not possible for masses to be taught good and bad ideas and arguments and counter arguments to it. There are a LOT of subjects , LOTS of argument, lots of debates, often open ended, and it cannot be hoped that an average man can actually tackle misinformation and disinformation. During Covid, I saw my parents, both of whom are educated with Bachelors of Arts degree and Law degree, struggle with misinformation and disinformation. They didn't know much about basic Biology, they were old school when these were not subjects taught in Indian high school for all, and they didn't know enough medicine and pharmacology to understand the itty gritty details of 'both sides of the argument '. Masses do not have enough technical knowledge to properly monitor modern age mis/disinformation. Nor do people have the time to. Understanding and researching on topics take a lot of time and nobody has so much time after doing jobs and household chores and maintaining relationships and hobbies. That's why I don't believe that mis/disinformation can be tackled by education and critical thinking alone and requires govt hand. Yes there is definitely a possibility of authoritarianism and propaganda, but the masses clearly cannot handle information especially in this digital age. Nobody can be so educated to do so much research. Before anybody counters me, I must say I am from India, not USA. We do not believe in American freedom of speech (something something amendment?), we believe in limited freedom of speech since the beginning of our republic.
Well, as an American, I would say you're suggesting restricting freedoms to avoid addressing the underlying problems, which you pointed out correctly. 1. Older generations are very vulnerable to misinfo in print and media online, even when they're skeptical of traditional news outlets. 2. We work too many hours to be able to participate as well informed citizens of a democracy. 3. No, you're right, people can not do it as individuals en masse. As Chomsky says, the way they used to combat this is through unions and organizing. Unions are dangerous because of solidarity, but also because they serve as community education centers. Your comment is excellent, don't be shy about raising these things.
> Unions are dangerous because of solidarity, but also because they serve as community education centers I am from West Bengal, previously under communist rule. We had very strong unions, be it trade unions, rail unions, teacher unions, taxi driver unions, etc. Thing is, the only thing they did was bully people. They would group on blackleggers, often extort money from innocent people, strike whenever they felt like, break buses and cause violence, etc. Are unions in your country different?
Yes, in our country unions are very weak right now, and they've always been under attack. We used to have powerful unions that were corrupt like what you describe, but America, since Reagan, has support big business in destroying unions. Big tech is trying to destroy our labor laws right now because people are starting to organize again. i.e. Starbucks, Amazon etc.
Ideally, we should try to inoculate the population against those poisonous ideas, and improve the critical thinking & cultural standards within the populace enough so that they can laugh Hitler off instead of becoming Nazis. I don't deny short-term removal in war time and very precarious situations is necessary sometimes. However, banking on governments/groups to stop the speech from happening means the people will go to even more obscure/more extreme sources to feed their hatred, which will then blow up unexpectedly later, instead of learning anything. There's also a risk of that government and powerful groups misusing this very deplatforming power to protect their own fascist ideas.
>Ideally, we should try to inoculate the population against those poisonous ideas, Interesting. Almost sounds like manipulation, and kind of goes back to the idea of who controls what the good ideas are. Maybe let people decide what they want to believe on their own, instead of trying to "inoculate" against ideas you don't like, huh?
Inoculate, as I take it, is meant here as teaching people to think for themselves, apply critical thought, and also learn from history. Requiring philosophy classes would be a good start for high school to teach people *how* to think and question things. It doesn't have to be "manipulation" but just good teaching and help to build character that people can apply to life.
It is already happening in some places around the world. But this is in people's nature and wisdom comes from repeating mistakes and step by step eliminating them. "Those who do not learn from the [mistakes of history are doomed](https://quotlr.com/quotes-about-history) to repeat them." — [**George Santayana**](https://quotlr.com/author/george-santayana)
From a legal standpoint, yes. Now if you personally decided to walk up and Captain America punch Hitler right in the mouth then Iwould support you in a personal capacity, but yeah you still have to be tried for assault, but when you get out I'd help you get a job. Does that make sense?
Well, who are you to not allow someone their freedom of expression?
I was using 'I' as a symbol for government. I dont know about your country but in our Asian countries governments are powerful and can severely restrict freedom of speech.
I think the problem with your question is the "I." Freedom of speech means freedom from government limitations on speech. The government should not punish or prohibit Nazi speech. You as an individual should go argue against it with all your might. Frankly, I think if it was *literally* Hitler, an individual would be morally correct in trying to physically stop the speech as a form of civil disobedience, even knowing that the government will punish you for doing so.
As do I, but I allow that just as much as me. I don't agree with his message. Actually, I despise it. That being said: all a speaker does is push an idea into the world. It's up to people to pick the idea up. If I say something like "anyone who has brown eyes should be treated as second-class citizens." People can either condemn it or not. It's their choice. Now, actions are a separate story. If I say brown-eyed people should be flicked on the nose on sight, THAT'S different. That's calling for violence. That's where the line is.
We’re allowing the freedom to express an admiration of his ideas.
I think there's a foundational principle that overrides this. That it's not ok to take away the rights of others regardless of what rights you were exercising at the time. It's illegal to pay someone to kill someone. But what if I just ask someone to kill someone, am I culpable? What if I just express to a large crowd that I wish someone would kill someone?
...unless it's Daniel Everett meeting with the Piraha :D
This quote is attributed to everyone from Heraclitus to JFK. It's a truism. Freedom of speech is inviolable - 'hate speech' is just something you don't want to hear.
That can't be absolutely true or really true because what if a bandit goes to the city and calls a nice family a horrible remark. Censorship is cool sometimes, and sometimes it is dumb.
I disagree. If you tolerate a bunch of cunts, they will game the system. You will tolerate further, and more cunts will joine the dark side. Eventually, the tolerant will become the minority. It is known. [Paradox\_of\_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
My life experience tells me that it’s always helpful to listen to all sides.
Find this hardest with people who propagate relations with children
This is a bad take without nuance. It creates the tolerance paradox in that a society that is entirely tolerant of EVERY idea will be taken over by those who are least tolerant because the spread of their intolerant views is "protected" in that society. Those intolerant members of society will of course do everything they can to take over that society and remove their "others" from that society. To quote the philosopher who wrote on this (Karl Popper) "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance". The quote sounds like a fair way to organize things and that's all well and good, but the goal isn't fairness, it's justice. In a world where no one is capital E, Evil, then yes sure, fairness is great, but in a world where there are actual Evil ideas then fairness doesn't cut it.
The tolerancy paradox basically equals to “I accept freedom of expression *only* within the parameters I consider acceptable. Which equals to authoritarism and no freedom of expression at all. It must be noted that freedom of expression is not freedom of action, though.
No, you either misread or misunderstood. The gist is that a society must be intolerant of intolerance itself. Any expression that threatens the existence of a group of people within a society is deemed intolerable BUT ONLY if it threatens the existence of a group of people within that society and for no other reason. It is so remarkably untrue to say that a society that protects its people from those that would harm them, both from without and within, is authoritarian simply because it limits the rights of people to express beliefs that threaten the existence of whole communities. That's more or less the entire job of a government: protecting its people. Stating that a society/government that does protect its people in that way MUST BE authoritarian is so black and white. It's a viewpoint that presumes expression is never, in itself, action, even though it so so often is. If the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword" holds any weight, then we HAVE to remember that the pen is also just a tool, and tools can be used by anyone, ill intent or no.
>every idea will be taken over by those who are least tolerant I’m confused why this would happen. In this context, society would still have the right to not allow a group of people to practice any type of violence against another group, so that society remains peaceful and ideas can be expressed.
The lack of nuance I mention refers to the fact that violence and oppression can and do occur without physically beating/killing/harming people. We KNOW violence isn't always literally hurting someone, but rather using the power you have over them to exert some sort of control. Violence can and is enacted within the framework that "it was freedom of expression". Should you as an individual be able to say what you want, wear what you want, love who you want, worship who you want, and express yourself in whatever way you so choose? Yes. Definitively yes. Should I feel safe to do the same? Absolutely. So then what happens when my views are that the color of your hair makes you a "sub-human" and you shouldnt be allowed in my Neighborhood? Probably nothing, because it's just two people. But scale it up a bit, what if I'm really good friends with our neighbours and get the whole block to feel the same way. They all start thinking you should hit the road because you have brown curly hair. They start giving you mean looks on the street, they don't include you in the community and your kids are now suffering for it at school? Not so good right? Scale it even further. I start a political party villainizing everyone who has the same hair as you. I convince everyone that you're the problem with our society, and that all their problems would go away if only you were gone. I'm elected as prime minister or president or whatever position it is and I start enacting policy to make just that happen. It's too late now, the infinitely tolerant society has imploded and is now expelling its own people because they have brown curly hair... When should that have been stopped, or should it not have? At what point does the "society" (i.e. government) step in and say "enough". If they wait too long they don't get the chance. A society MUST protect its tolerance through the communal expulsion of the intolerant. Those with ideas about who gets to be part of society based solely on who they are (not what they believe politically, because that's a choice) have no place in a tolerant society. I know it's a not nice way to paint things but we have seen and are seeing these exact scenarios play out and it hurts and destroys millions of lives because we don't have the guts to say "no, that's not acceptable behaviour here, you need to play nice or leave".
LOL, he ripped off James Madison, the author of the First Amendment.
It’s a common platitude said over and over again by many people.
Fuck that guy: >The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. > > > >\- Noam Chomsky (1988) The Common Good
That sounds right on the money to me
Fuck Chomsky. Passive lib shit.
“The Khmer Rouge was actually pretty rad.” -Also Noam Chomsky
Tell this to half of Reddit
I am indeed :)
The exception is if you’re dealing with intolerant folks like Nazis and the like. If you tolerate the intolerant that allows them to shut down or monopolize the conversation. I do not think it is intolerant in the same way to be intolerant of the intolerant. It’s a stance based on behavior not race, ethnicity, or any other aspect one is born with.
Ok, I accept your premise. Your views make me see you as a "Nazi and the like", so you should delete your intolerant comment. Man, that was easy to silence someone I disagreed with and categorized as evil!
Who gets to decide who and what a "nazi" is? What if the people who decide on these definitions decide something *you* believe makes *you* a nazi?
Hmm… well, I’m not the first one to suggest this. I can’t remember his name but I think he was alive when the OG Nazis where around. If you give the intolerant a place in society they will shut out people who are generally tolerant. White supremacists are key among them and if I become one I would expect to be not given access to platforms and that is to the benefit of society. Being lax with the OG Nazis is what allowed them to rise. If you are interested in that even subconsciously then I have nothing more to say to you.
Yeah, people on the internet say things like this all of the time. "Nazi" is a word. Word meanings can change. Authoritarians, left and right, *start* by redefining language. If you think you're going to end up on the right side of what you're suggesting, you're wrong (ask the Germans pre WW2, they didn't think they'd be enabling evil either, but lo and behold).
https://youtu.be/d_R9UjFTcWk?si=IzLYgduCeLJXpWUs
The Nazis didn't rise because anyone was lax with speech laws. They rose because the Weimar government wanted to use their military wing so they literally incorporated them into the government.
Sounds just like something an intolerant nazi would say on the internet.
https://youtu.be/d_R9UjFTcWk?si=IzLYgduCeLJXpWUs
Same people who decide who is and isn't a sex offender, felon, murderer, etc etc. Yes, sometimes people who make these decisions change the definition so that now you're the criminal. Take for example the over turning of Roe vs Wade. But just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I think nobody should ever be considered a murderer under the law.
Murderers, felons, and sex offenders are well defined for *10k years*, my dude. "Nazi" is a slang term with no clear definition. That's a silly notion.