Comment on fuck this asshole

• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Either you have free speech or you don’t

  Lots of countries have free speech with limits on it. It’s not uncommon and doesn’t mean Citizens don’t have freedom of speech.

  For example:

  m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmiKenqLVAU

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    If it has a limit, it’s not free

    If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”

    source

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If it has a limit, it’s not free

      “Free bread sticks”

      “I’ll take 100”

      “Um… No. You can’t have that many.”

      “iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”

        If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.

        That’s not freedom.

        source
    • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath

        By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.

        You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Scream “Fire” at a theater. Obviously you cannot.

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. (Karl Popper)

      source
    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Nah.

      source
• notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  oh look, a literal “free speech absolutist.”

  Wrong platform

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I’m banned from that platform because they do not believe in free speech absolutism, especially when you start in on churches and cops

    source

    • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Ohh, sweet summer child.

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Is it so hard to believe you think Free speech should be absolute weapon should be unrestricted, abortion should be unrestricted, people should be able to harness electricity from solar and harness rainwater from the sky?

        Because these are all things that are restricted here except for speech, so I am sure as fuck not going to budge on it

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• BakerBagel@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  There is a massive difference between allowed to say my government is doing something wrong, and being allowed to say “gas all the kikes”. One is criticism of authority, which is good. The other is hate speech, which is bad. You can absolutely have one without the other.

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    There is no difference between those two phrases if you actually have free speech

    And in fact, saying “I voted for Donald Trump”, is way more offensive to me than saying “kill everyone in Gaza”

    source

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Every freedom ends where freedoms of others are infringed. That includes every freedom, let it be freedom of movement (you can go wherever, but not someone else’s house), freedom of expression (you can express yourself however, unless that expression instills hatred towards others, inflicts trauma on kids etc. etc.) and yes, also freedom of speech (You can say anything, unless what you do is calling for violence, attacks someone etc.).

      Some of you US guys really don’t understand how freedom in a society works.

      source
• Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Hate speech is not free speech, boo.

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yes, it is.

    That’s why all the Westborough Baptist people can stand around with God hates fags signs and nothing happens to them

    source

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The court only ruled on offensive or outrageous speech…

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        When? Brandenburg V Ohio long predates them

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• prinzmegahertz@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yeah, and an allied soldier in WW2 was just the flipside of a Wehrmacht soldier, so both were the same, right?

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Chinese and Japanese soldiers during that time period would be a much more accurate comparison, and the answer is yes

    source

    • prinzmegahertz@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The answer is only yes, if you are a misanthropic cynic.

      source
  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Both were working class, so in that perspective yes.

    source
• Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Free speech isn’t intended to supercede criminal law. Advocating for hurting people is a crime. If they want to do it and have it be covered as “free speech”, they need to start by changing the law.

  source

  • grue@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Advocating for hurting people is a crime.

    It’s really not, though. Making a specific, credible threat against someone can be, but speaking in general terms that someone ought to be hurt without specifying how, when or by who is not.

    I’m sure you’ll become correct momentarily, though, once Trump declares that calling for his removal (or hell, any criticism of the regime because why not?) would “hurt” him politically and is therefore a felony. That is what you had in mind, right?

    source
  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Advocating for hurting people is not a crime. Even an inactionable threat is not a crime. Look up precedent for arrests of inciting a riot and see how many of those charges actually stuck or help up on appeal.

    The fact that people are saying yore okay to punch Nazis in the face would be a violation of what you are advocating for but you have no problem with that because you don’t like Nazis.

    source

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I personally don’t support people saying that either. Punching people in the face is not a great way to change their minds that they are being “the bad guy”. And I think seeing alot of people post that, is counter productive to the goal of getting along and solving problems together reasonably.

      source
• IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  One Question:

  Do you think the government should ban CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Materials)?

  If yes, then you are already okay with limits the First Amendment and your argument is invalid

  If no, you’re a pedophile and you need to GTFO

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    No. The government has no right to accessing anybody’s materials. Warrant or not.

    source
• TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  this isn’t about fringe democratic congressmen addressing hate speech, this is about a sitting president threatening to punish protests.

  source