this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
665 points (91.9% liked)

Comic Strips

18202 readers
1907 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 35 points 6 months ago (4 children)

People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 33 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It's your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that's the problem

In modern societies, we're happy with the government banning the latter and not the former

In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one's which

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Government censorship isn't just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.

The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making "political speech" that is only later determined to be hateful.

Even "Good" presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for example.

Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who were born and have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence. He has determined that this racist position is "political speech".

Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.

One important caveat: there is a difference between "speech" and "violence". Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be criminally prosecuted, not arbitrarily censored by the government.

[–] just_ducky_in_NH@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

As a US citizen, I wish I could upvote you more.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago

There is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That's a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.

If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion--Satanism--was hate speech.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Political speech can involve hate.

Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.

You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump. You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.

[–] CorvidCawder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hate speech is not "saying that you hate something"...

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

That’s not what I said.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk -4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Political speech can involve hate.

Not in a modern society

Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.

It never has been

You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump.

I make a point of not hating anyone too old to control their bladder

You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.

Yes, that's the idea

I've not got a clue what point you're making

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Political speech can involve hate.

Not in a modern society

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You cited an example from a society that thinks handguns are a right yet doesn't fight for basic human rights like healthcare

That's absolutely not a modern society

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Ok. What society do you consider modern? France? Germany? Sweden? Finland? I can show a politician saying something just as horrible. Maybe not the one in high office, but elected politicians. I sure can't think of a nation that doesn't have at least a handful of racist assholes that get elected by being racist assholes.

Suggesting there is no hate in politics is just naïve. There is no place on this planet free of bigotry and free of people willing to have bigots make decisions for them.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Seems like you got the idea.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.

This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.

There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.

It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This isn't about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.

You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.

The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is like saying guns don't kill people

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);

The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won't get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the strawman, I see now you're arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh, look, an ad hominem. Cool.

Firearms are not, themselves, the problem, despite however much people want to treat them as though they are. Likewise, in the UK, kitchen knives and scissors are not the problem, although the gov't treats them as though they are.

Guns, knives, sticks, cars, and yes, even explosives, are tools. If you eliminate the causes that turn people to violence, you eliminate the use of the tools to commit violent acts. But no one is willing to discuss violence as a result of things like economic warfare or systemic racism; they insist that violence exists because the tools used in violent acts exist.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The discussion was never about the guns, dumdum (this, btw, is an ad hominem)

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is like saying guns don’t kill people

This you?

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Still missing the point.

The criticism was on your "words don't kill people" part.

Neither guns nor words spawn out of nothing.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Automatic sentient guns, that's what kills people.

Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Pull a trigger in the air without a gun, and see how many you kill.

The gun is an extension of the user - without the gun, you cannot shoot, just as without a person the gun won't shoot.

Same is the case for words. They didn't come out of the aether into existence, and when spoken carry the will of the speaker inherently.

It's not "just words", it can be malice or hate given form - that is, after all, the point of communication; to give form of what you desire or think to others.