In the US it is. Yes it really is - just stop it with this. At least read the wikipedia article. I’m so sick of seeing this claim as the first response to any “free speech” discussion. Do you ever wonder how the Westborough Baptist Church still exists?? Daily Stormer?? Other hate groups???
That’s a pretty major national security risk, honestly, if they’re trying to incite people to respond against a fairly elected government with violence.
Ahhh, the “national security risk” defense - always the safe haven of the totalitarian. This is how China justifies quieting dissidents to great effect. Speech that is dangerous to the government isn’t always a bad thing. Imagine somebody who thinks your speech is dangerous is in power.
Letting the government decide which speech is dangerous to it or not is a very risky thing.
If these people are using their platform to heat the waters in an attempt to tear down a democratically elected government that’s no fucking bueno, my dude.
Oh you don’t think so? What if that “democratically elected government” is Putin? Because guess how many votes he got in the last election.
Sorry, I live in a country where you can’t just say slurs and shit all over people based on their race or sexuality. And I don’t really know about Brazil, to be honest, but I sure don’t give a fuck about the laws in the U.S. here since we’re talking about Brazil.
At some point you have to put your foot down and you’re just going to have to deal with that. Tolerance is not a paradox if you have two braincells to knock together and the country does not need to tolerate someone trying to incite further violence on the basis that they’re upset about the results of a fair election.
Lula won by 1% of the vote, Putin “won” with 88.48% of the vote and if you so much as say his name in the red square people come by to pull you away. These things are not the same and if you can’t understand that nuance then no wonder you fall for that “slippery slope” nonsense.
Sorry, I live in a country where you can’t just say slurs and shit all over people based on their race or sexuality. And I don’t really know about Brazil, to be honest, but I sure don’t give a fuck about the laws in the U.S. here since we’re talking about Brazil.
Fine with me.
At some point you have to put your foot down and you’re just going to have to deal with that. Tolerance is not a paradox if you have two braincells to knock together and the country does not need to tolerate someone trying to incite further violence on the basis that they’re upset about the results of a fair election.
Define “fair.”
No I’m not joking. Ask Donald Trump what a “fair election” is. Ask Putin what a “fair election” is. These people have been or are in power. At what point should Donald Trump be able to decide what is valid political speech or what speech is a national security risk?
You’re asking the government to police itself. That works for as long as the government wants to. It’s very dangerous. History is replete with examples of governments abusing their power. “Some random citizen saying shitty things” is nowhere near as risky.
Yes, everything is a slippery slope. It’s an aggressive binary to make it easy to understand and when something doesn’t fit that binary it must mean that it’s just a deliberate step in that direction, right?
There’s that incredibly popular saying that goes “the right to swing your fist ends at my nose” and that applies to speech as well. When you make life easy for yourself and just say everyone can start smashing noses because stopping them infringes on their right to do so the only people you empower are those who want to do harm. Especially when that issue becomes applied to more than just fists and now it’s rich people buying weapons while poor people still just have their two hands. In social media that’s rich and/or powerful people using money and influence to try to sway elections with lies and deceit.
This shit is hard, and complicated, and very often requires trust in things that are scary to trust or tell us things that might make us face something we don’t want to face. I understand that, really I do, and I’m sorry. Shit like libertarianism and adjecent ideologies promise easy answers and they’ve never delivered.
This shit is hard, and complicated, and very often requires trust in things that are scary to trust or tell us things that might make us face something we don’t want to face.
That trust is being placed in the hands of people like Donald J. Trump. Let that sink in. In the US our judiciary has said that they are not the ones who should decide what is or isn’t valid speech (for the most part, some exceptions apply, yadda yadda) - that this would be left for the populace to decide. And I whole-heatedly agree with that decision.
Because guess what - if people cannot peaceably protest then the will violently protest. You’re not stopping the ideas. You’re not going to stop people from being bad. You’re just giving the government a back-door to silencing criticism.
It’s a risk. A demonstrable one at at that. This isn’t some vague “the gubmint is commin’ fer yer guns” stuff. Governments abuse their vast power to silence individuals all the time. And I don’t need to invoke Putin show show it - right now in Florida there is a government working very hard to outlaw LGBTQ ideas, books, and, yes, speech. You want those people to have a voice even if they’re a threat to those in power.
The people defining “threat” aren’t always going to be people you agree with.
Shit like libertarianism and adjecent ideologies promise easy answers and they’ve never delivered.
That’s entirely uncalled for - I’m not espousing libertarianism any more than you are by having any free speech at all.
In the US it is. Yes it really is - just stop it with this. At least read the wikipedia article. I’m so sick of seeing this claim as the first response to any “free speech” discussion. Do you ever wonder how the Westborough Baptist Church still exists?? Daily Stormer?? Other hate groups???
Ahhh, the “national security risk” defense - always the safe haven of the totalitarian. This is how China justifies quieting dissidents to great effect. Speech that is dangerous to the government isn’t always a bad thing. Imagine somebody who thinks your speech is dangerous is in power.
Letting the government decide which speech is dangerous to it or not is a very risky thing.
Oh you don’t think so? What if that “democratically elected government” is Putin? Because guess how many votes he got in the last election.
The USA is less than 5% of the world’s population. The USA’s demented notions can get fucked, rather like they’ve already fucked the world.
Sorry, I live in a country where you can’t just say slurs and shit all over people based on their race or sexuality. And I don’t really know about Brazil, to be honest, but I sure don’t give a fuck about the laws in the U.S. here since we’re talking about Brazil.
At some point you have to put your foot down and you’re just going to have to deal with that. Tolerance is not a paradox if you have two braincells to knock together and the country does not need to tolerate someone trying to incite further violence on the basis that they’re upset about the results of a fair election.
Lula won by 1% of the vote, Putin “won” with 88.48% of the vote and if you so much as say his name in the red square people come by to pull you away. These things are not the same and if you can’t understand that nuance then no wonder you fall for that “slippery slope” nonsense.
Fine with me.
Define “fair.”
No I’m not joking. Ask Donald Trump what a “fair election” is. Ask Putin what a “fair election” is. These people have been or are in power. At what point should Donald Trump be able to decide what is valid political speech or what speech is a national security risk?
You’re asking the government to police itself. That works for as long as the government wants to. It’s very dangerous. History is replete with examples of governments abusing their power. “Some random citizen saying shitty things” is nowhere near as risky.
Yes, everything is a slippery slope. It’s an aggressive binary to make it easy to understand and when something doesn’t fit that binary it must mean that it’s just a deliberate step in that direction, right?
There’s that incredibly popular saying that goes “the right to swing your fist ends at my nose” and that applies to speech as well. When you make life easy for yourself and just say everyone can start smashing noses because stopping them infringes on their right to do so the only people you empower are those who want to do harm. Especially when that issue becomes applied to more than just fists and now it’s rich people buying weapons while poor people still just have their two hands. In social media that’s rich and/or powerful people using money and influence to try to sway elections with lies and deceit.
This shit is hard, and complicated, and very often requires trust in things that are scary to trust or tell us things that might make us face something we don’t want to face. I understand that, really I do, and I’m sorry. Shit like libertarianism and adjecent ideologies promise easy answers and they’ve never delivered.
That trust is being placed in the hands of people like Donald J. Trump. Let that sink in. In the US our judiciary has said that they are not the ones who should decide what is or isn’t valid speech (for the most part, some exceptions apply, yadda yadda) - that this would be left for the populace to decide. And I whole-heatedly agree with that decision.
Because guess what - if people cannot peaceably protest then the will violently protest. You’re not stopping the ideas. You’re not going to stop people from being bad. You’re just giving the government a back-door to silencing criticism.
It’s a risk. A demonstrable one at at that. This isn’t some vague “the gubmint is commin’ fer yer guns” stuff. Governments abuse their vast power to silence individuals all the time. And I don’t need to invoke Putin show show it - right now in Florida there is a government working very hard to outlaw LGBTQ ideas, books, and, yes, speech. You want those people to have a voice even if they’re a threat to those in power.
The people defining “threat” aren’t always going to be people you agree with.
That’s entirely uncalled for - I’m not espousing libertarianism any more than you are by having any free speech at all.