5 ms·

The rise of outspoken fascists and racists is precisely what makes me question whether "free speech at all costs" is a wise political stance, especially when it

The rise of outspoken fascists and racists is precisely what makes me question whether "free speech at all costs" is a wise political stance, especially when it is patently obvious that the creators of that content are not everyday people, but an entity intent on inciting hatred and violence. None the less I do recognize the danger of limiting free speech.

Nasrudith 8y ago
That is even more of a reason to oppose it in my opinion as an American. The last thing you want to give fascists is a preboxed mechanism for control to say label those who call death camps unconsciousable "hate speech against native citizens". Since they /will/ twist laws every way they can and ignore them against themselves.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  thank you. this is exactly my point. the only reason this is implemented is to shield those in power further and allow them to hunt down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Note that this is not yet implemented. However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      if you have a radical group on the left that would remove these people from power then these would automatically be labeled fascists. fascists are automatically terrorists if their ambition is to overthrow the status-quo. So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference. A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        You don't have to convince me that this proposal is bad - I agree with you. I'm pointing out that your alternative (supporting terrorists, fascists, or whatever) is even worse. If you support terrorists that terrorise those trying to get this passed, that support will also help terrorists that, say, want to terrorise people who campaign for Catalan independence.
mnx 8y ago
The rise of fascists is EXACTLY WHY we should make sure such values are protected, not an excuse to abandon them. Do you really think you can prevent the rise of fascism by forbidding speech? How would that work?
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  It's based on the observation that what counts as a 'viable position' is based on social control and totalitarianism is put into place by replacing these social control mechanisms with fear and terror. In case you didn't get the memo, here is a primer on how to turn a democracy into a totalitarian system: 1. Invent an external scapegoat ('the enemy') 2. Polarize: Either you're with us or with them. Mediating center positions and compromises belong to 'the enemy'. Argue that you're for the simple, honest-working men and against the elites, who belong to 'the enemy'. 3. As part of point 2, push radical radical positions into the public discourse to erode social control mechanisms. ('Why can't I say X' where X is something despicable, like being a racist, being for for genocide, etc., but dressed into a seemingly legitimate 'arguments' and 'concerns'.) 4. Instil fear of the external enemy and, as much as possible, terror against the internal enemy on the streets. Ideally, there should be bands of people on the streets who mug or kill perceived enemies (e.g. the S.A., Bürgerwehren, death squadrons, etc.). 5. As a result of 3-4, once a certain threshold is reached, public discussion has been radicalized and mediating center positions have been quenched. Voting will become a false dilemma between us and them. 6. Seize power by vote or coup, eradicate the remaining control mechanisms, eradicate free media and put them under state control (in a fight against 'fake media'), eradicate remaining political opponents by abusing the justice system (anti-corruption laws work well). The idea behind limiting freedom of speech is to prevent 2-3 from reaching a critical threshold that enables 4 & 5.
  - mnx 8y ago
    Yeah, but unless you're going full totalitarian, I don't see how it can work. It will just add additional legitimacy to the speech which is 'suppressed'. So unless you want to do a china style great firewall, and punish people for speaking out, maybe it's better to actually defend freedom, instead of limiting freedom in the name of protecting freedom? Sorry if I sound frustrated. But I just think all this anti-free speech is a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms of the rising far-right, not a well thought-out strategy of preserving liberal democracy.
malvosenior 8y ago
> The rise of outspoken fascists and racists Do you have any data to backup "rise", because it sure looks like increased media coverage of fringe groups and not any sort of actual rise in these things. If you want to protect "everyday people", "free speech at all costs" is the way to do it. Otherwise the people in power will decide what speech is allowed and what isn't.

Nasrudith 8y ago

That is even more of a reason to oppose it in my opinion as an American. The last thing you want to give fascists is a preboxed mechanism for control to say label those who call death camps unconsciousable "hate speech against native citizens". Since they /will/ twist laws every way they can and ignore them against themselves.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
thank you. this is exactly my point. the only reason this is implemented is to shield those in power further and allow them to hunt down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Note that this is not yet implemented. However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    if you have a radical group on the left that would remove these people from power then these would automatically be labeled fascists. fascists are automatically terrorists if their ambition is to overthrow the status-quo. So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference. A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      You don't have to convince me that this proposal is bad - I agree with you. I'm pointing out that your alternative (supporting terrorists, fascists, or whatever) is even worse. If you support terrorists that terrorise those trying to get this passed, that support will also help terrorists that, say, want to terrorise people who campaign for Catalan independence.

mnx 8y ago

The rise of fascists is EXACTLY WHY we should make sure such values are protected, not an excuse to abandon them. Do you really think you can prevent the rise of fascism by forbidding speech? How would that work?

jonathanstrange 8y ago
It's based on the observation that what counts as a 'viable position' is based on social control and totalitarianism is put into place by replacing these social control mechanisms with fear and terror. In case you didn't get the memo, here is a primer on how to turn a democracy into a totalitarian system: 1. Invent an external scapegoat ('the enemy') 2. Polarize: Either you're with us or with them. Mediating center positions and compromises belong to 'the enemy'. Argue that you're for the simple, honest-working men and against the elites, who belong to 'the enemy'. 3. As part of point 2, push radical radical positions into the public discourse to erode social control mechanisms. ('Why can't I say X' where X is something despicable, like being a racist, being for for genocide, etc., but dressed into a seemingly legitimate 'arguments' and 'concerns'.) 4. Instil fear of the external enemy and, as much as possible, terror against the internal enemy on the streets. Ideally, there should be bands of people on the streets who mug or kill perceived enemies (e.g. the S.A., Bürgerwehren, death squadrons, etc.). 5. As a result of 3-4, once a certain threshold is reached, public discussion has been radicalized and mediating center positions have been quenched. Voting will become a false dilemma between us and them. 6. Seize power by vote or coup, eradicate the remaining control mechanisms, eradicate free media and put them under state control (in a fight against 'fake media'), eradicate remaining political opponents by abusing the justice system (anti-corruption laws work well). The idea behind limiting freedom of speech is to prevent 2-3 from reaching a critical threshold that enables 4 & 5.
- mnx 8y ago
  Yeah, but unless you're going full totalitarian, I don't see how it can work. It will just add additional legitimacy to the speech which is 'suppressed'. So unless you want to do a china style great firewall, and punish people for speaking out, maybe it's better to actually defend freedom, instead of limiting freedom in the name of protecting freedom? Sorry if I sound frustrated. But I just think all this anti-free speech is a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms of the rising far-right, not a well thought-out strategy of preserving liberal democracy.

malvosenior 8y ago

> The rise of outspoken fascists and racists Do you have any data to backup "rise", because it sure looks like increased media coverage of fringe groups and not any sort of actual rise in these things. If you want to protect "everyday people", "free speech at all costs" is the way to do it. Otherwise the people in power will decide what speech is allowed and what isn't.