5 ms·

I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better

I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better and put pressure on officials. These people are not friendly to any minority and should be disregarded. The people in power currently try everything to restrict speech, but it is also welcomed by a certain sheltered demographic whose worst part of the day is that they have to read an offensive internet comment that doesn't agree with their world view.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. people of minority X are subhumans and should not be allowed the same rights as the rest of us! Yes, minorities did not suffer from having free speech; they did suffer from others having it.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  My ethnicity is often called subhuman on the internet. I don't mind it because those that utter such statements are punished enough with being themselves that I don't feel it a necessity to even react to it. I also don't have to read it. I don't believe their position is popular in a way that it is in any way relevant. It doesn't phase me as much as others speaking in my stead or far worse, alleging a indemonstrable hatred or bias towards other ethnicities. People I like very much have been accused of hating me because some didn't like their politics. That is way more offensive to me than the usual vulgar bloke that tries to get a reaction for his self-confidence.
- Jtype 5y ago
  Whose speech do you think would have been censored though, the majority or the minority. Minority groups are always the ones who suffer from restrictions on speech. Supporting speech censorship will always lead to restrictions on minority groups, not the majority. I feel that there is confusion in this topic because there are so many people who think they are fighting hate-speech against minorities. Since it then feels morally superior to suppress speech that they don't agree with they think it's in the best interest of the minority. However the arguments and policies that are established to suppress free speech will inevitably lead to restricting the speech of minority groups. This is simply because the majority at any given point in time will only suppress the non-majority opinions. You see that now, none of these groups trying to restrict speech are trying to restrict popular speech that they agree with, only the minority opinions. The majority will always have the freedom of their speech.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    > Minority groups are always the ones who suffer from restrictions on speech. Minorities generally suffer more from any restriction, not just on free speech. As an example, CA is slowly increasing the cost of gun ownership in the state. Rich tech workers won’t have a problem buying a gun, but poor and otherwise less privileged groups now can’t afford to protect themselves. Then crime in those areas tick up, then more restrictions and so on.
scotty79 5y ago
Didn't jewish minority suffer because of too much of free speech in Germany at some point? What about too much of free speech Hutu enjoyed in Rwanda at some point?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  No, that was certainly not the reason, on the contrary. Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. That probably had a severe negative effect because people became more radical as they were disallowed to vent their grievances. Those that demanded restraint often did it because of their own vanity. Open hate speech with government propaganda which discriminated against Jews came later. At that point the Nazis already felt justified in their actions. I cannot say anything to Rwanda because I don't know the conflict. I tend to disbelieve those that said it was because of hateful speech.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    > Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. Nope. It had way too weak protections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_Republic_(1918%E2%80%931933) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_R...
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      > The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression. > The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information I believe Goebbels said something that the mistake was giving them free speech in the first place. He didn't like free speech at all, but he was also a propaganda expert and knew that some people would again try to censor speech which would work in his favor.
      - scotty79 5y ago
        When Nazi regime came to power it was already too late. And protections against ant-Semitic expression were too weak as evidenced by Nazi regime coming to power by being elected in democratic process. Another source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propaganda-and-censorship https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propa... "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. " But I concede that there are exactly opposite views. After all it's history so anyone is free to make stuff up about it that fits his narrative.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. people of minority X are subhumans and should not be allowed the same rights as the rest of us! Yes, minorities did not suffer from having free speech; they did suffer from others having it.

raxxorrax 5y ago
My ethnicity is often called subhuman on the internet. I don't mind it because those that utter such statements are punished enough with being themselves that I don't feel it a necessity to even react to it. I also don't have to read it. I don't believe their position is popular in a way that it is in any way relevant. It doesn't phase me as much as others speaking in my stead or far worse, alleging a indemonstrable hatred or bias towards other ethnicities. People I like very much have been accused of hating me because some didn't like their politics. That is way more offensive to me than the usual vulgar bloke that tries to get a reaction for his self-confidence.
Jtype 5y ago
Whose speech do you think would have been censored though, the majority or the minority. Minority groups are always the ones who suffer from restrictions on speech. Supporting speech censorship will always lead to restrictions on minority groups, not the majority. I feel that there is confusion in this topic because there are so many people who think they are fighting hate-speech against minorities. Since it then feels morally superior to suppress speech that they don't agree with they think it's in the best interest of the minority. However the arguments and policies that are established to suppress free speech will inevitably lead to restricting the speech of minority groups. This is simply because the majority at any given point in time will only suppress the non-majority opinions. You see that now, none of these groups trying to restrict speech are trying to restrict popular speech that they agree with, only the minority opinions. The majority will always have the freedom of their speech.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > Minority groups are always the ones who suffer from restrictions on speech. Minorities generally suffer more from any restriction, not just on free speech. As an example, CA is slowly increasing the cost of gun ownership in the state. Rich tech workers won’t have a problem buying a gun, but poor and otherwise less privileged groups now can’t afford to protect themselves. Then crime in those areas tick up, then more restrictions and so on.

scotty79 5y ago

Didn't jewish minority suffer because of too much of free speech in Germany at some point? What about too much of free speech Hutu enjoyed in Rwanda at some point?

raxxorrax 5y ago
No, that was certainly not the reason, on the contrary. Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. That probably had a severe negative effect because people became more radical as they were disallowed to vent their grievances. Those that demanded restraint often did it because of their own vanity. Open hate speech with government propaganda which discriminated against Jews came later. At that point the Nazis already felt justified in their actions. I cannot say anything to Rwanda because I don't know the conflict. I tend to disbelieve those that said it was because of hateful speech.
- scotty79 5y ago
  > Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. Nope. It had way too weak protections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_Republic_(1918%E2%80%931933) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_R...
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression. > The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information I believe Goebbels said something that the mistake was giving them free speech in the first place. He didn't like free speech at all, but he was also a propaganda expert and knew that some people would again try to censor speech which would work in his favor.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      When Nazi regime came to power it was already too late. And protections against ant-Semitic expression were too weak as evidenced by Nazi regime coming to power by being elected in democratic process. Another source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propaganda-and-censorship https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propa... "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. " But I concede that there are exactly opposite views. After all it's history so anyone is free to make stuff up about it that fits his narrative.