So first of all, congrats on proper disclaimer at the beggining - I tried to distance myself during reading thanks to that and I believe it helped me better grasp what you’re saying.
I do get your point, but honestly the only part that is speaking to me is the one about protecting the vulnerable, because what the right does in the US is, absolutely, not free speech in any way or form - they are practicing censorship and it’s painfully obvious. I am actually from Europe so the right vs left is not really that much on my mind in case of these topics - I simply abhor the idea of limiting by law what can be said or forcing what is to be said ( Gulf of America? .-. ). I do not argue for “free speech” as is proclaimed by the US right wing, but for absolute free speech - both in the terms of being free to say whatever and in being free to be judged by the public for whats left one’s mouth.
But, while I do not exactly agree with your points, I do agree that it’s worthwhile to consider defending vurnerable folk. Although in perfect scenario, communities would do so organically. :/
I always find disclaimers to be helpful to avoid making people feel attacked. As a citizen in a country where my rights are constantly under attack, often with “free speech” being part of the rationale, this issue hits close to home. Thanks for engaging in good faith, and for your point of view. I also agree that ideally, communities would be able to self-regulate without state control over speech, but do believe that in the short term better protections are necessary until societal change can happen. Any protections implemented would require broad support, and be very limited in scope. For example, saying, “I don’t like trans people,” should never be illegal, but something like, “we should kill all those [insert relevant slur],” or other such speech directly inciting hate crimes might be worth regulating, even if just to add an enhanced charge to related crimes. Again, thanks for engaging in good faith, and for your insight!
So first of all, congrats on proper disclaimer at the beggining - I tried to distance myself during reading thanks to that and I believe it helped me better grasp what you’re saying.
I do get your point, but honestly the only part that is speaking to me is the one about protecting the vulnerable, because what the right does in the US is, absolutely, not free speech in any way or form - they are practicing censorship and it’s painfully obvious. I am actually from Europe so the right vs left is not really that much on my mind in case of these topics - I simply abhor the idea of limiting by law what can be said or forcing what is to be said ( Gulf of America? .-. ). I do not argue for “free speech” as is proclaimed by the US right wing, but for absolute free speech - both in the terms of being free to say whatever and in being free to be judged by the public for whats left one’s mouth.
But, while I do not exactly agree with your points, I do agree that it’s worthwhile to consider defending vurnerable folk. Although in perfect scenario, communities would do so organically. :/
I always find disclaimers to be helpful to avoid making people feel attacked. As a citizen in a country where my rights are constantly under attack, often with “free speech” being part of the rationale, this issue hits close to home. Thanks for engaging in good faith, and for your point of view. I also agree that ideally, communities would be able to self-regulate without state control over speech, but do believe that in the short term better protections are necessary until societal change can happen. Any protections implemented would require broad support, and be very limited in scope. For example, saying, “I don’t like trans people,” should never be illegal, but something like, “we should kill all those [insert relevant slur],” or other such speech directly inciting hate crimes might be worth regulating, even if just to add an enhanced charge to related crimes. Again, thanks for engaging in good faith, and for your insight!