537
Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 11 months ago by cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Edit 8 days later: Wow, a lot of people really like using their free speech rights to advocate against free speech...Weird.

If you don't support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don't support free speech at all.

All censorship is bad. One day it's naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying "god" in the wrong context.

[-] Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Doesn't mean you don't support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don't agree that I'm against free speech, I'm against harassment.

[-] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

False equivalence. Online you can choose not to see things you don't like. Online, no one can force you to look at things that offend you....at least not yet.

Which is why all the censorship on social media is so ridiculous. And if someone is DM'ing you to harass you...That's not free speech anymore that's harassment and there's already laws about that.

[-] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 0 points 11 months ago

Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours.

Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they're a blight on society, etc.

Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them.

That's what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected.

When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that's a crime that should be prosecuted.

[-] Stitch0815@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

That... is so not true in many states of the world.

[-] 520@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago

Yeah but the point is that it's your choice to block out the harassment - nobody is doing that on your behalf without asking you.

[-] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 8 points 11 months ago

How to tell me you‘re a cis white male without telling me you‘re a cis white male.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

All censorship is bad?

Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?

Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.

It's the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don't fuck with the freedoms of others.

[-] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?

You're confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action.

Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech.

As much as I think it's a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime.

There's a very distinct difference.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I think you're confused about thought - it's got nothing to do with anything I said.

Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.

What's the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what's more serious than genocide?

[-] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 points 11 months ago

Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.

You're making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it.

[-] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts.

Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such.

Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.

Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide.

Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.

You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship.

distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.

Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.

Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.

Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you.

[-] Flumsy@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

"Freedom of expression of opinion" would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions...

Censorship of any opinion is bad.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?

Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.

I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
537 points (87.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43783 readers
890 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS