None of that is relevant to my server. All I care about is that I host my own server, and that means I’m responsible for it. If you care so much you go host your own server.
Comment on Lemmy.world blocks VPNs
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months agoHmmm, should we universalize that argument? Say, nazis ruined free speech, no more free speech? Criminals ruined the 5th amendment and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, so now cops can beat confessions out of you?
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 months ago
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
“Yeah go privacy, go anonymous”, but the fact is that bad actors ruined that for everyone else, so yeah, had to clamp down
There’s nowhere in this statement that indicates that you’re referring to your own server. The text of your argument is that you are in favor of restricting privacy rights because you don’t like the way a limited number of people have misused privacy to post illegal material.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 months ago
Am an admin of another instance
In case you missed that bit.
The text of your argument is that you are in favor of restricting privacy rights because you don’t like the way a limited number of people have misused privacy to post illegal material.
Correct, that is what I’m saying. When it comes to data that I host on my server, I am responsible for it, and my government would agree with that. Which is why again, I say if you do not like it, feel free to host your own server. That’s the beauty of the fediverse, if you don’t like the way one server hosts things then spin up one and do it your way.
Paragone@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Define “free speech”:
Mass-shooters exercise mass-murder as their free speech, even though that style of free speech is illegal.
The denser the population, the more each expression deforms other’s lives.
Tribal villages can just move elsewhere, to create space, but NYC can’t.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Mass murder isn’t free speech, because it directly infringes on the rights of other people. To wit, your freedom to swing your fists around in the air ends at my face. Expressions that do not cause direct harm, by their nature, are generally covered under 1A. Calls to commit genocide that don’t rise to the level of incitement, for instance, are covered by free speech protections (e.g., nazis marching in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL). Outright lies and yes, defamatory comments, are covered by 1A protections. (In the case of defamatory speech, the government has no course of action; Trump lost a suit brought by E. Gene Carrol for defamation, not a criminal prosecution by the gov’t.) Child pornography is not covered by 1A protections, because child pornography can’t be created without committing acts that are otherwise illegal. Generally speaking, when the gov’t has a legitimate interest in controlling certain forms of speech that are likely to cause harm–such as incitement–principles of strict scrutiny apply; the laws restricting 1A rights are supposed to be as narrow as possible to achieve the stated goals. Prior restraint is also usually not a thing without being very, very narrowly crafted.
elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You win today’s Godwin.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
X ruined Y, so lets take Y away from everyone because the small number of X ruined it.
Better?
It’s a dumb argument. It would be like saying that one person had an elective abortion with a viable fetus, and therefore we need to ban all abortions. Despite the fact that it’s a very, very rare occurrence, and can be handled in different way.
towerful@programming.dev 3 months ago
No, its more like “i own a library. I dont want people shouting in my library. Anyone shouting in my library will be kicked out”
Someone that shouts in a library is more than welcome to start their own library where shouting is allowed, even welcomed, encouraged or mandatory
quicksand@lemm.ee 3 months ago
elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This is wildly off-topic, but define “rare occurrence.” Because I’m sure it’s more common than you and I think.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 months ago
First, pretty much every state in the US has banned elective abortion past the point of fetal viability, even the dark blue ones that have liberal Democratic supermajorities. That means that past 24-26 weeks–which is generally the point of fetal viability–an elective abortion is already illegal. That’s six months for earliest viability. How many people do you think get up to seven months pregnant and say, “nope, changed my mind”? The answer is, almost none. The few people that get that far without wanting a baby are women that didn’t realize they were pregnant because they never gained much weight, they had wildly irregular periods before pregnancy, and had spotting during pregnancy, etc. Almost all of the women that have abortions later than 13 weeks only have them because the fetus is not viable. 94% of all abortions are prior to 13 weeks. So right there, only 7% of abortions–which makes it at least uncommon–are even past 13 weeks, much less right up on the 24-week limit.
Anecdotally, my ex-wife had a later term (about 18-20 weeks) abortion when she was a teen. She didn’t know she was pregnant because she wasn’t gaining weight, and was still spotting. Her doctor told her that she had twins, that it was highly unlikely she would be able to carry to term without miscarrying, and it would be significantly detrimental to her health to try.