3 ms·

I live in a country which has an exception to free speech. There are things you can't say here. It hasn't hurt much. There have been minor scandals — someone g

• api 8y ago
  Interesting data point. I just don't trust our political process in the US enough to trust it not to slide down a slippery slope if one is potentially present. I'm 40 years old and have watched US political discourse get worse and worse over my entire life span. Today's political discourse is hyper-polarized and almost entirely devoid of rational discussion. The irony is that the Trump phenomenon is part of why I feel this way. Legitimizing censorship could ironically allow some future totalitarian movement to more easily use that censorship to its advantage. So if we ban Gab, we're creating a legal precedent that could be used by the very people we're banning if they (or anyone remotely like them) ever gain power. I also have a sense that if the Trump cult fails to obtain power we might see a "left" totalitarian movement next. There is so much anger in this country that whether we get fascism or totalitarian socialism/communism probably depends on which side is able to field the most compelling demagogue.
• Zuider 8y ago
  I think your perceptions may be compromised by the 'boiled frog' effect, where the increasing authoritarianism in Germany and throughout the EU has escaped your notice because it has occurred in small increments. For instance, any discussion of the migrant crime rate, even by victims, is treated as hate speech, and even prosecuted, making people afraid to talk. At any rate, again taking Germany as an example, the hate-speech laws of The Weimar Republic were vigorously prosecuted. Even so, they were ineffective in preventing the succeeding regime from taking power, and were simply co-opted by that vile regime to suppress dissent.
  • Arnt 8y ago
    Give me some examples of prosecution of discussion of migrant crime rate? Or at least what law/paragraph?