this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
51 points (90.5% liked)

News

23014 readers
13 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Well then you'll like me, because I am in no way a free speech absolutist. Nazi glorification and other hate speech should be banned in the U.S. like it is in Germany because it is an implicit threat of violence. Confederate monuments should similarly be banned.

A nation that allows glorification of such things is doing something majorly wrong. We have a cliff in Atlanta with portraits of Confederates on it for the whole fucking city to see. Black people in Atlanta have a constant reminder of their ancestors being in chains. That should not be legal and Stone Mountain should be sandblasted.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The problem with limiting "hateful" speech is determining who draws the line and where it's drawn. In a democratic society, the majority's opinion shapes these boundaries, which may not always align with progressive values. For instance, the current efforts to ban "trans ideology" demonstrate how subjective interpretations of "hateful" and harmful speech can be. From one perspective, certain speech is harmful; from another, it's essential. This subjective line-drawing risks silencing minority views (which might be your views).

I come from an evangelical, deeply conservative area in Appalachia, where my leftist beliefs were often seen as degenerate. Without the broad protections of free speech, expressing these views could have been much more difficult. While the intention to limit hate speech comes from a place of wanting to protect, the reality of implementing such restrictions can ironically end up silencing the very voices we wish to empower.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There is no problem in the way you claim when it comes to limiting speech which is pro-Nazi or pro-Confederate. There is no question what such things are. Things like the march in Charlottesville or, as I mentioned, Stone Mountain, GA.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And they would say there is no question about trans or queer rights. You seem to be failing to consider how this would work from other's points of view. Just because you're right doesn't mean you're not outnumbered. You cannot change the status quo without necessarily being outside of it. Letting the state, with its monopoly on violence, enforce the status quo is counterproductive to the progress you and I both want. It is on us to use our speech to push for change and drown out the hateful speech.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You could make this argument about virtually any progressive idea. Of course political ideas can be used against you. That's not an argument for maintaining things as they are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are two different things that we're discussing here. The state and society. The state has a monopoly on violence and should not get to decide what people think and believe because of the monopoly on violence. Society, on the other hand, can and should make collective decisions on what is and isn't acceptable. We should all condemn hateful speech. We should take down confederate statues. We should advocate for change. What we shouldn't do is use the state's violence/force to do it. It has to be done by changing hearts and minds. It is our collective responsibility, not that of the state.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We absolutely should use the state to sandblast Stone Mountain. It's on private land so there's no other way to do it. It's an insult to every Black person in America, especially the ones in Atlanta.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry but insults don't warrant state action. This seems to be a fundamental philosophical difference that we aren't going to come to agreement on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Racism is not "insults." Anyone who says that has clearly never been the object of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why do people who want to ban certain speech always seem to believe those with the power to choose exactly what to ban would agree with them?

Y’all already forget Trump was president and has another chance to be?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Those with the power in Germany chose exactly what to ban that would make their country a better place.

I have no idea why you and others think that overt racism should be allowed when it is an implicit call for violence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Those with the power in Germany chose exactly what to ban that would make their country a better place.

Because one place had a good out come means all will? And that it will continue being good for them over time?

The UK doesn't have free speech either. Recall that a few people were arrested for shouting "who elected him?" in regards to King Charles III. Convenient that you forgot about that one.

I have no idea why you and others think that overt racism should be allowed when it is an implicit call for violence.

I just told you why. Without the bedrock of free speech, we risk speech you and I like being banned. I don't know about you but I would like to go on saying things like "god does not exist", "I'm an atheist", or "fuck the police".

What's more, I believe in free speech the way the ACLU used to. That is, the principle of free speech, not just token free speech that really just means speech I like.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

There is no "bedrock of free speech." There are many things you can't say. You can't slander or libel. You can't foment violence. You can't threaten people.

Racism is a threat.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Racism is a threat.

The right: "Saying fuck the police is a threat".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You can make this argument about anything.

The left: "Healthcare is a right!"

The right: "Gender confirming care isn't health care."

All you are arguing for is maintaining a status quo which has been responsible for countless murders and assaults and rapes and all sorts of other oppression because the right might find a way to abuse something even though we have a real-world example of that not happening.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The left: “Healthcare is a right!”

Feel free to point this one out to me in the Bill of Rights the way you can free speech.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Again, free speech is not a legal absolute, so your argument that it is an absolute based on the Constitution doesn't work. There are already restrictions on speech.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I didn't say it was absolute. I'm well aware there are restrictions.

Your example of healthcare just makes no sense in this context.

Not using the state to stop the sharing ideas we think are disgusting IS bedrock of free speech. And the ACLU used to think so even back when the KKK was far more active and overt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If there are restrictions, then one of those restrictions can be "racism is not allowed."

There are hate speech laws in many countries. The U.S. is not a unique and precious snowflake that is unlike every other country on the planet and therefore unable to do the same things they do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I edited too late previously but I'd like to remind you of the arrests that were made for criticizing King Charles III in the UK. Maybe you don't but I would also like to go on being able to say "fuck Trump" or whoever is president at the time.

Your faith in the US to ban the right speech is naive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you do think America is a unique and precious snowflake that somehow can't apply laws that are found in many other countries.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Dude... Take one single look at our healthcare and gun control situation compared to every other first-world country. How can you be this blind?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Got it. Never try to make this country a better place because it's impossible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You asked and I gave 2 excellent examples of how we're special snowflakes... I don't like it but that's how it is.

I'll vote every time to improve the healthcare and gun situation but I will never vote to further restrict speech.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Yep, I get your position. America will always be terrible and never try to do anything to make it better.