your position is one that inevitably lets nazis and wreckers infest queer safe spaces. can’t you agree a zero tolerance policy is needed for certain “opinions” (i.e. nazis, homophobes, transphobes, racists, misogynists etc.) or are you genuinely a free speech warrior shithead? because that’s pee pee poo poo reddit debate lord shit. it’s concerning the way you dodged my initial question. you will probably dodge this question too to avoid showing your ass.
I think it’s pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don’t believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree so I don’t really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a “free speech warrior shithead” already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
Let’s go out separate ways and perhaps we will bump into each other at a later date with slightly different perspectives on everything. You never know.
I think it’s pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don’t believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree, so I don’t really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a “free speech warrior shithead” already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
What about when that “abhorrent” opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they’ll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.
Unfortunately that is one of the downsides. People will abuse the rules and dance all along the line for nefarious reasons. Can’t plug that hole without potentially stripping others of their ability to speak up in certain ways and situations.
I actually had a long conversation with friends about that yesterday. We were talking about how someone wasn’t outright saying to kill anyone but they were playing propaganda videos of someone else that was saying those things. Do we hold them responsible for the words of the video they were playing on stream for everyone or is that a clear separation?
So we have the classic conundrum. Do we want a system where innocent people might accidentally go to prison or do we want a system where people who should go to prison sometimes don’t because we would rather never put innocent people behind bars.
i have to assume you draw the line somewhere, though. Like, as an example, I imagine you probably support the censorship of calls to violence? Or, as a hypothetical, advocating for someone to conduct self-harm?
Free speech absolutists tend to be the only ones defending some of the most depraved and harmful types of ‘speech’ imaginable, and they honestly don’t have any place in a federated community. I agree with imogen - if that’s your perspective you can definitely fuck off
“I believe you should kill yourself” is an opinion, even if it’s an opinion about someone conducting self harm, and it’s absolutely an opinion that should be censored
The problem with couching your understanding of ‘free speech’ within the american legal concept of free speech is that amendment doesn’t actually cover the types of speech and contexts under which most of its advocates are applying it to, nor should it. People deserve to be able to dictate the types of speech they allow in their own spaces, and that includes shit takes from reactionary shitheads on social media. Nazis should not be allowed to waltz into a jewish space and deny the holocaust - or rather, the people in that space should be able to kick that nazi out of their fucking community. It’s why reddit can get away with censoring speech relating to Musk and Luigi, and it’s why various lemmy instances might periodically tell you to get fucked for your various terrible opinions.
Free speech absolutists are some of the worst kinds of internet people.
I mean, so you’re saying people shouldn’t have the ability to remove people from their spaces as long as their not outright calling for violence or getting physical? I’m not talking about some type of government intervention, but private groups or spaces in this context.
Edit: Also, you say calls to violence aren’t free speech, but I’ve met plenty of absolutionists who disagree. You are drawing a line there, saying that. There are also various degrees between wishing ill on someone and an outright call to violence that is decided by the audience receiving it. I don’t think the above user telling you that you kill yourself is a call to violence for example but many would disagree there.
You make fair points. Nah private spaces can do whatever they want. You would kick someone out of your house if they were saying things you vehemently disagreed with or found offensive.
Places like Lemmy, reddit, twitter and so on are ostensibly the modern “public square”. So curtailing certain speech becomes a bit more complicated in my opinion. It’s not quite like the cake shop situation as that is a private place of business.
Whether or not you believe places like Lemmy and reddit should be treated as basically “public spaces” is up to you. Honestly I could go both ways on it. It’s complicated.
As for the free speechers and the different specifics at the tiny detail level I don’t really have a good answer for you honestly. I personally operate under the same levels of freedom of speech that the US government has. And they do have exceptions for various things and you could absolutely make the argument that a true freedom of speech believer wouldn’t allow any limitations to be placed on it in any way. That’s a conversation I have had with friends many times. Unfortunately we never really come to any concrete conclusions on it.
I disagree that they are the modern public square, in the loosest sense, especially in cases such as Lemmy that are instanced. You aren’t blocked from the whole of Lemmy, you’re blocked from a particular instance but still able to access a lot of it. If anything, it’s closer to a publicly accessible private space: if I have a garage sale and I’m letting people look around, it’s publicly accessible but still not in the public domain. I have different opinions for nationalized sectors, i.e., if Twitter were bought by the U.S. government, but that’s more so due to a distrust of government power than a sense of free speech absolutionism. A lot of Hexbear are folks who are disproportionately harassed by people who typically abuse the more idealist leanings of free speech idealism and have suffered continuous distress from that, so I’m not particularly surprised you’re met with hostility from folks here .
Oh but I so really do. Literally read all the specific exceptions to Americans freedom of speech with my friends last night because all of us knew some of the exceptions but none of us knew all of them. There are quite a few more limitations than most are aware.
your position is one that inevitably lets nazis and wreckers infest queer safe spaces. can’t you agree a zero tolerance policy is needed for certain “opinions” (i.e. nazis, homophobes, transphobes, racists, misogynists etc.) or are you genuinely a free speech warrior shithead? because that’s pee pee poo poo reddit debate lord shit. it’s concerning the way you dodged my initial question. you will probably dodge this question too to avoid showing your ass.
I think it’s pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don’t believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree so I don’t really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a “free speech warrior shithead” already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
Let’s go out separate ways and perhaps we will bump into each other at a later date with slightly different perspectives on everything. You never know.
What about when that “abhorrent” opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they’ll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.
Unfortunately that is one of the downsides. People will abuse the rules and dance all along the line for nefarious reasons. Can’t plug that hole without potentially stripping others of their ability to speak up in certain ways and situations.
I actually had a long conversation with friends about that yesterday. We were talking about how someone wasn’t outright saying to kill anyone but they were playing propaganda videos of someone else that was saying those things. Do we hold them responsible for the words of the video they were playing on stream for everyone or is that a clear separation?
So we have the classic conundrum. Do we want a system where innocent people might accidentally go to prison or do we want a system where people who should go to prison sometimes don’t because we would rather never put innocent people behind bars.
i have to assume you draw the line somewhere, though. Like, as an example, I imagine you probably support the censorship of calls to violence? Or, as a hypothetical, advocating for someone to conduct self-harm?
Free speech absolutists tend to be the only ones defending some of the most depraved and harmful types of ‘speech’ imaginable, and they honestly don’t have any place in a federated community. I agree with imogen - if that’s your perspective you can definitely fuck off
Calls to violence aren’t free speech. That’s shifting from expressing ones opinion to now trying physically harm someone.
“I believe you should kill yourself” is an opinion, even if it’s an opinion about someone conducting self harm, and it’s absolutely an opinion that should be censored
The problem with couching your understanding of ‘free speech’ within the american legal concept of free speech is that amendment doesn’t actually cover the types of speech and contexts under which most of its advocates are applying it to, nor should it. People deserve to be able to dictate the types of speech they allow in their own spaces, and that includes shit takes from reactionary shitheads on social media. Nazis should not be allowed to waltz into a jewish space and deny the holocaust - or rather, the people in that space should be able to kick that nazi out of their fucking community. It’s why reddit can get away with censoring speech relating to Musk and Luigi, and it’s why various lemmy instances might periodically tell you to get fucked for your various terrible opinions.
Free speech absolutists are some of the worst kinds of internet people.
Agree to disagree I guess. I don’t think anyone else should be able to tell you or me what we are allowed to say at any point.
I think your viewpoint is incredibly dangerous and short sighted but I am glad you are able to express that opinion.
I mean, so you’re saying people shouldn’t have the ability to remove people from their spaces as long as their not outright calling for violence or getting physical? I’m not talking about some type of government intervention, but private groups or spaces in this context.
Edit: Also, you say calls to violence aren’t free speech, but I’ve met plenty of absolutionists who disagree. You are drawing a line there, saying that. There are also various degrees between wishing ill on someone and an outright call to violence that is decided by the audience receiving it. I don’t think the above user telling you that you kill yourself is a call to violence for example but many would disagree there.
You make fair points. Nah private spaces can do whatever they want. You would kick someone out of your house if they were saying things you vehemently disagreed with or found offensive.
Places like Lemmy, reddit, twitter and so on are ostensibly the modern “public square”. So curtailing certain speech becomes a bit more complicated in my opinion. It’s not quite like the cake shop situation as that is a private place of business.
Whether or not you believe places like Lemmy and reddit should be treated as basically “public spaces” is up to you. Honestly I could go both ways on it. It’s complicated.
As for the free speechers and the different specifics at the tiny detail level I don’t really have a good answer for you honestly. I personally operate under the same levels of freedom of speech that the US government has. And they do have exceptions for various things and you could absolutely make the argument that a true freedom of speech believer wouldn’t allow any limitations to be placed on it in any way. That’s a conversation I have had with friends many times. Unfortunately we never really come to any concrete conclusions on it.
I disagree that they are the modern public square, in the loosest sense, especially in cases such as Lemmy that are instanced. You aren’t blocked from the whole of Lemmy, you’re blocked from a particular instance but still able to access a lot of it. If anything, it’s closer to a publicly accessible private space: if I have a garage sale and I’m letting people look around, it’s publicly accessible but still not in the public domain. I have different opinions for nationalized sectors, i.e., if Twitter were bought by the U.S. government, but that’s more so due to a distrust of government power than a sense of free speech absolutionism. A lot of Hexbear are folks who are disproportionately harassed by people who typically abuse the more idealist leanings of free speech idealism and have suffered continuous distress from that, so I’m not particularly surprised you’re met with hostility from folks here
.
I’m not convinced you actually understand what the american constitutional free speech principle is meant to address.
Oh but I so really do. Literally read all the specific exceptions to Americans freedom of speech with my friends last night because all of us knew some of the exceptions but none of us knew all of them. There are quite a few more limitations than most are aware.
Removed by mod
Acting that violent so fast with a stranger does not helps to prove your point.
what are you, his big brother? my point is simply that bigots shouldn’t feel welcome around here so i think I’m doing just fine proving it
You’re proving your point by sendind death threats.
You’re just proving my point. You don’t even know me and you’re hoping I die.
You need help.