Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their “free speech absolutist” postures the moment they think they are in power.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The evidence is clear when you consider how Twitter is going and with the censorship mentality spreading to other media, like the Reddit bans.
Is this a “we need to censor them because they don’t believe in free speech” kind of a thing?
no. it’s a “don’t believe them because they are lying” thing.
I see, so we need to stop them from imposing censorship. How are they going to do it though?
The people who enable fascism are not going to stop it.
They like free speech that doesn’t get them immediately banned, not free speech for everyone else’s ideas
Free speech for me, but not for thee!
Here is what free speech is:
Fuck the USA, Fuck Russia, Fuck China, Fuck France, Fuck the UK.
Here is what free speech is NOT: [Racial Slurs]
Honestly, the latter is absolutely free speech. They are 100% free to say that shit if they want. They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth, fired from their job, etc.
This is the real takeaway. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything. That’s it. You can just say it. It does not protect you from the consequences. It’s an important distinction to make, and I’m glad to see other people making that point.
Counterpoint:
You can say anything in an authoritarian state, the consequences are that you’ll get disappeared in the night.
Your argument is… valid. Everyone, we’ve just established worldwide freedom of speech! Put this in the history books!
The argument means that if there are severe systematic consequences to some things you say, then it cannot be considered free speech.
I know, it was a joke. I guess I forgot the /s
Oh, sorry, I’m too depressed from the world situation to see humour in anything…
They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth,
I would say that this is wrong. If you get hit in the mouth for something you say, than it’s not freedom of speech. It’s the law of the strongest.
Example: You wouldn’t hit a UFC fighter for something he said to you on a 1 to 1, however you would beat him if you are 10 against him. This is the law of the strongest.
I don’t believe in absolut free speech. I think that it needs to have limits in it (very well defined limits), and there should be consequences for certain things. And the consequences need to be enforced in a way to counter them, like for example if you say hate crap then you should be forced to contribute to anti-hate orgs.
My point from a legal standpoint is that ‘fighting words’ are not protected speech
https://www.thefire.org/news/80-years-ago-supreme-court-introduced-fighting-words
I guess the primary difference is between legally free speech versus socially free speech. The argument being that the government shouldn’t stop you from slinging slurs, while you have absolutely no right to not be ostracized/shunned/shamed by your fellow man.
I also think while yelling racial slurs should not be illegal, organizing and mobilizing under a racist ideology that promises to eliminate free speech should be criminalized. The tricky part is doing it in a way that won’t be abused ie calling things that aren’t racist and supremacist ideology those things to criminalize them.
If only there was an art vs porn emergency button encoded into the law. You just know it when you see it and can call things what they are
organizing and mobilizing under a racist ideology that promises to eliminate free speech should be criminalized.
Who’s the fascist now, huh??? \s
I disagree. Free speech should have limits, like every other freedom, because freedoms oppose each others. Insults, defamation, threats, calls for hatred, lies, … shouldn’t be covered by free speech.
Like it or not, that’s been the interpretation since the founding of the US. It is not the case in some other countries, but I’m assuming we are talking about the US here. What most people miss is it only restricts the government from punishing your speech, not private entities. Insults, defamation, and lies, are absolutely allowed, but you can be found liable civilly for any damage done by this speech either through punitive damages (lawsuit settlement) or other means, deplatforming, loss of employment, etc.
threats, calls for hatred, are a bit of a gray area. It depends on the severity of the threat, but true threats can be prosecuted.
Hate speech is generally allowed, but if it is inciteful enough to be a true threat, it too can be prosecuted.
If you’d like to read up on true threats, see below:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf
Oh I know more or less how the American law works. But I think it’s a bad one, that’s all.
I’m French, and in France hate speech is illegal. Negation of crimes against humanity is illegal. Defamation is illegal. And you know what? France is still a free country. Freer even maybe, as our other freedoms and rights (like our rights to live peacefully) are more protected.
It depends on the source of the consequences.
Social consequences? Completely fine, even desirable.
Legal consequences? This is where trouble starts and freedom of speech is no longer given.
100% this. The freedom to say anything also does not entail the right to be listened to. Nobody is required to platform “undesirable” speech. Getting banned from a platform is a perfectly acceptable consequence.
Here’s what is not free: Fuck zionism.
You might lose your job, be kicked out of school, be deported, kidnapped, tortured, genocided, ethnically cleansed, etc… I’m afraid to even say it semi-anonymous on the internet.
Which is why liberalism in a not so democratic country can do little to stop this type of decline. Too non violent, too careful, too scared
Ideally one would vote out authoritarian candidates, but what to do when it’s a taboo to criticize electronic vote counting? Vote counting on electronic platforms run by the very people the liberals oppose? Vote counting supported by a steadfast belief of state governments not being corrupted, and not being in cahoots with the wealthy families running said platforms?
“There are safeguards”, ”I trust in the process”
Then when voting fails what to do but use free speech to oppose what is happening?
“Surely they will allow my voice to rise and be heard and I can use reason”
Yes people will hear you but it won’t do much.
Fascism is incompatible with any kind of freedom. Free speech is co-opted by conservatives and fascists so that they can promote bigotry without consequence. There is no reason that members of the KKK should be legally allowed to recruit people. That should be against the law. It should be against the law to promote xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and queerphobia. The only people who benefit from a system where you can espouse those beliefs without legal consequence are bigots and fascists.
removed by mod
Communal action > government “protections”
Every time.
They only like free speech because it lets them claim to be censored.
Jewish attorneys actually advocated for Nazis to be able to have marches. The phone you use has technology aided by Nazis… Anyone hear of Operation Paperclip? Wernher von Braun?
People dressed in Swastikas, speaking or marching are not violent acts themselves, those people may never become violent & may have no intention of being violent.
Most of them don’t even believe Hitler murdered a bunch of Jews and that history was written by powerful Jews. It doesn’t exactly help when Republicans & Democrats are loyal to Israel over America.
All & all, free speech laws in America are not rights to commit crime. Threats & violence are still criminal, and that goes both ways. Don’t punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so… You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
If you don’t like it then file a lawsuit to change the law & make your case like normal productive people do instead of whining on the Internet about how you don’t like things. If you don’t like it then share the docket number of the lawsuit you’ve already filed to show you’ve done the work like countless people before you did to get the free speech we have today.
I see posts like this all the time, especially now that Trump & Republicans are trying to claim protesting Israel or their actions is antisemitic & should result in deportation. Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel. Weird the people making a big deal about Nazis don’t realize the irony.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
You are assuming ignorance from others while projecting ideas from other discussions you’ve had in the past onto my original post. I purposely avoided making any statements on how to approach or resolve the tolerance paradox because it’s complicated. Nazis lying about their affinity for free speech isn’t.
What else I find weird is that almost the comments like yours appear to be a script where the first thing you do is mention paradox of tolerance. I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response. I guess wrapping counterarguments up into sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response…sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less. I’m not here to relitigate the limits of free speech no matter how hard you want to steer the discussion in that direction.
On the other hand, if you come to discussions with this many preconceived notions and generalizations wrapped in a metric ton of condescension, then perhaps you might be the driver of your own “statistical bafflement”.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives.
So what? Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.
The problem isn’t free speech. The problem is people who want to take it all away. If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.
Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.
If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.
Look, statements like this are very easy to make but nearly impossible to implement in the era of LLM-powered bots riding the Algorithm. Unless you simply give free rein to the bots, which is often the goal and ultimately eliminates actual humans’ free speech. I don’t pretend that I have a perfect solution, but there is sufficient historical evidence to point out the threads’ original statement on absolutistic terms. For the rest, I’ve used the word “some” because not everybody has ulterior motives, but the most motivated ones in the present era tend to.
That’s just technology & fearmongering. Socrates was critical of writing out of concerns it would deteriorate minds & make superficial thinkers. Critics were concerned the printing press would lead to widespread moral degradation with the abundance of low-quality literature. People criticized television & media for brain rot.
Guess what you’re the next iteration of?
Technologies change, yet good principles hold regardless.
You know what you can do with free speech? More free speech. No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms. If people were inclined, they could launch these technologies to counter messages they oppose. People can choose to tune out & disregard expressions. Much more can be done with free speech.
Guess what you’re the next iteration of? Technologies change, yet good principles don’t change with them.
Technologies and ethics continuously change and adapt to new technologies, and I’m not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.
No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms.
The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less.
You’ve provided no supporting evidence of this. The loudest, or most successful supporters, appear to have been Jewish attorneys that advocated & won cases on free speech allowing even Nazis to gather, march, speak, etc. Are you suggesting these Jews were actually crypto-Nazis in disguise? Your title indicates you’re referring to Nazis in particular.
I know reading comprehension is harder when you’ve already made up your mind about what I think, but you’re better than this. I hope.:)
Don’t punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so… You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
It’s not legal, and I don’t know which judges are more lenient about this kind of thing. But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism. Legality only matters if it’s enforceable.
But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism.
All this does is bolster fascism. Punching people for being non-violent fuels their world views, not help them trust yours. Maybe engage in some peaceful discourse. You’re actually the one instigating violence here. You have the same attitude of cops shooting unarmed people.
Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel.
It sounds ironic, but that’s only if you adhere to an almost caricature-like (or surface-level) view of what a Nazi is.
Of course, it’s better to refer to them as Fascists – that’s the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups. It’s just that “Nazi” is the more recognizable term to the layperson.
Fascism is slightly more diverse and thus adds more opportunities for apologists to relativize. Hence the specific choice.
Of course, it’s better to refer to them as Fascists – that’s the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups
Yes, you’re right, although on the other hand Nazism and classical fascism are also pretty different despite some surface level similarities. Even the fascist movements at the time struggled to figure out a unified position on racism/anti-semitism, corporatism and state structure.
If you want a few kicks, read what ᴉuᴉʅossnW thought of Hitler before he was pressured into saying nice things closer to WWII. My favorites are “silly little monkey” and “A mad little clown”. He was surely regretting their alliance long before he was hanged.
It’s not just nazis but fascists more generally.
Just look at what the zios are doing to anti-genocide resisters.
Zionists & Nazis; Like two peas in a pod.
Wow. Just wow. This makes me sad.
Yeah, especially after he attacked the ADL for so long. Huge disappointment.
Jean Paul Sarte articulates my feelings on this better than I ever could.
Interesting read.
They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The antisemites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
This is what we see these days. Trump and his followers lying is normalized, i.e., they are not “obliged to use words responsibly”, whereas anybody argues against trumpists is.
They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
This is what changed since then. They no longer fear being seen as ridiculous or stupid. They embrace it.
I was looking to jot down that quote. It perfectly encapsulates the shitbags who denies vaccinations or the damage that DOGE is doing to humanity.
That’s why I claim all conservatives are pig fuckers. I don’t care if it’s true. It’s up to them to argue with me. And they won’t do that because they have their full 3" stuck in some pig.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think they only fear looking weak.
It’s important for everybody to not just assume the people on your own team, or the people that look like you, are being truthful and arguing in good faith.
That goes for everybody, but it seems pretty consistent that you need to me more wary of it as you move towards the conservative end of the scale. And conveniently for those politicians, the citizens on that end of the scale are the worst at cutting through the BS. Arguably that’s what landed them there in the first place!
This video is an oldie but a goodie, and deserves a listen for its analysis of fascist dialogue and how to talk to and about these assholes. A lot of us haven’t engaged with this sphere for a long time and this is a good primer on pushing back.
Every single thing a fascist (unless to a fellow fascist) is designed to throw good people off the stink of their despicable beliefs.
Barely anyone truly believes in it. They only care when they need it.
I’ve been a free speech advocate and activist for years and I helped people that literally wanted me banned 2 months prior for the most nonsense reasons. They didnt care sbout free speech until they stepped over a line - then, free speech was the most important thing in the world.
That’s universal for all political alignments btw. It’s both fascist clowns or wannabe antifa super soldiers. Both only care about it when it’s needed.
They didnt care sbout free speech until they stepped over a line
What line? Calling for genocide or calling for its end? Because only the former is actually bad and only the later is actually attacked.
Free speech absolutism enables fascism. So does “both sidesing” fascism.
It’s called the paradox of tolerance. There’s a cartoon about it because it’s kinda 101. Like something that most children understand.
Ah, the paradox of intolerance. The all time favorite argument against free speech.
Free speech absolutism enables fascism.
No, we don’t. Ironically, YOU are the ones that enable fascism because you want to lay the foundational laws that a fascist government requires to enact fascism. This is called the “Paradox of Power” (It actually doesn’t but it sounds cool). If society is enforcing intolerance toward intolerant views, then whoever holds the power gets to define what “intolerance” is. Now, what this does in reality is that the “ruling ideology”, so to speak, can label dissenters as “intolerant” and justify their suppression, which is effectively leading to the very tyranny your principle claims to prevent.
I once heard a very good comparison in a youtube video. Imagine the government is a tank, and that tank is supposed to protect you from the evil fascists. Now, you want it to be strong so it can defend you better against them, so you slap on some more armor, some more weapons, a larger cannon, even more armor until that tank (your government) is an unbeatable killing machine that is deleting fascists left and right. Now, all is good and well - until a fascist gets into the tank. And at that point, he has all he needs, he runs the killing machine and starts enacting fascism - and the reason why he can do that is because you have build the fucking tank. That is what you’re doing with the stupid hate speech laws - and that leads me to the second point …
(drum roll)
… the slippery slope!
As you are not the one in control over the list of things we have to be intolerant against, but the people in power, it is fairly easy for them to extend the list to things they don’t like. Funny enough, the soviet union suppressed dissent under the guise of “combating fascism” in the very same way you are arguing here right now. Suddenly, mentioning historic events like tiananmen square is no longer allowed. Or things happen but you don’t hear about them, like the “Röhm-Putsch” in 1934 where hitler assassinated hundreds of people that could pose a threat to his power - the event was never reported in the news and nazis justified the suppression and framed it as “necessary to ensure stability and order”.
Remember: True tolerance means engaging with differing viewpoints, even uncomfortable ones, rather than preemptively silencing them out of fear.
What speech were “wannabe antifa supersoldiers” trying to suppress?
There’s legitimate benefits to societies disallowing fraud and abusive speech- lies and threats can drown out useful benefits of actual free speech by squelching it.
Anyone who thinks that Nazis believe in free speech is an idiot.
Right, like, when have they ever believed that?
Well, only their free speech.
Your blasphemous thoughts should be banned, obviously.
No no, we still value free speech, just that yours isn’t really speech, it’s the woke mind virus. And that needs to be eradicated. So, you see, we’re still free speech absolutists!
This is how they trick people.
Indeed, GAB is a great example, their “freeze peach” or banned :)
Their version of free speech is to prevent you from contradicting the lies they continuously spew and then paint your rebuttal as an attack on their rights to spew them. They’re the victim of leftist propaganda.
