4 ms·

> no one monitors these groups In a country that values freedom of speech and association, this is considered a feature, not a bug.

mschuster91 4y ago
US-style absolutist interpretations of "freedom of speech" always come at a serious cost - and in almost all cases marginalized people (people of color, jews, and most recently trans people) end up bearing that cost, while the majority society feels no impact.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  US-style absolutism about freedom of speech comes from hard earned lessons about the other options being much worse. It seems that much of the world has forgotten or willfully ignore these lessons. The cost of freedom is that people will use it to do things you don't like. Freedom isn't necessary for a society to function, lots of societies function without it, and have for most of human history. Given the choice though, I prefer to live in a society that chooses to maximize liberty. Without freedom of speech, all other liberties are irrelevant. There's a reason why it's the first amendment.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    >comes from hard earned lessons about the other options being much worse. Your country is barely 300 years old and has had a single constitution for its whole existence. The US has learned _no_ lessons through its existence. It's a country founded by colons who didn't want to pay taxes to the UK. The amount of lessons the US can give the world is about... none.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > US-style absolutism about freedom of speech comes from hard earned lessons about the other options being much worse. I'm German. My ancestors should have shown the world just enough on where not restricting hate speech and conspiracy crap leads: into murder, into genocide, into the dissolution of democracy itself. It's astonishing that the US hasn't realized this as well after Jan 6th. You all don't realize just how fucking close you came and how thin the edge is you all are standing on.
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      I suspect that you may have learned the wrong lessons. In the history of German regimes, perhaps take a look at the degree to which each one suppressed free expression, and think about which were better.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        > I suspect that you may have learned the wrong lessons. Holocaust denial is banned in the majority of European countries, and at least in some countries Nazi symbolics are banned as well [1]. I live maybe an hour away from the KZ Dachau and have visited it. It's hard to have any other stance than "antisemitism, racism and other similar discrimination must be banned at all costs" when you personally see the evidence just how depraved humans can be. Let humans go unchecked and you get anything from online mobs driving trans people to suicide (Kiwifarms) over murder (Heather Heyer) and lone wolf terrorism (Christchurch) and finally, a putsch attempt. Then, once a strongman/dictator has taken over, you will eventually see ethnic cleansings and genocide (see e.g. Russia's Ukraine invasion). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
        claytongulick 4y ago
        While liberty does indeed carry a steep price tag, the alternative has been shown throughout human history to be horrifically worse.
        philippejara 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  But see, if you are in a place that isn't free-speech-abolutist, then who gets shut out by the free speech limitations? Marginalized people. You are right to say that the impact falls on the marginalized. You are wrong to blame the free speech policy for that.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  And it's also precisely what helped such people the most. Abolition, and other pertinent topics, were regularly and vigorously discussed and debated in America. This was happening at the same time that in Britain calling for the end of the monarchy was punishable by death, later converted to merely life in prison. And incidentally, that is still the law in the UK [1]. Quite a relevant aside since while it was ostensibly not actively enforced, police are currently being quite heavy handed with protesters against the royal accession process, and that law gives them every legal right to do so. The point there is that had we lived in a country where censoring speech was legal, there's every reason to believe even speaking of e.g. abolition could have landed you in jail, or worse. Would this have deterred change? Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing is for sure is that it'd have made the country a far less free place for everybody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848

mschuster91 4y ago

US-style absolutist interpretations of "freedom of speech" always come at a serious cost - and in almost all cases marginalized people (people of color, jews, and most recently trans people) end up bearing that cost, while the majority society feels no impact.

claytongulick 4y ago
US-style absolutism about freedom of speech comes from hard earned lessons about the other options being much worse. It seems that much of the world has forgotten or willfully ignore these lessons. The cost of freedom is that people will use it to do things you don't like. Freedom isn't necessary for a society to function, lots of societies function without it, and have for most of human history. Given the choice though, I prefer to live in a society that chooses to maximize liberty. Without freedom of speech, all other liberties are irrelevant. There's a reason why it's the first amendment.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  >comes from hard earned lessons about the other options being much worse. Your country is barely 300 years old and has had a single constitution for its whole existence. The US has learned _no_ lessons through its existence. It's a country founded by colons who didn't want to pay taxes to the UK. The amount of lessons the US can give the world is about... none.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > US-style absolutism about freedom of speech comes from hard earned lessons about the other options being much worse. I'm German. My ancestors should have shown the world just enough on where not restricting hate speech and conspiracy crap leads: into murder, into genocide, into the dissolution of democracy itself. It's astonishing that the US hasn't realized this as well after Jan 6th. You all don't realize just how fucking close you came and how thin the edge is you all are standing on.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    I suspect that you may have learned the wrong lessons. In the history of German regimes, perhaps take a look at the degree to which each one suppressed free expression, and think about which were better.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      > I suspect that you may have learned the wrong lessons. Holocaust denial is banned in the majority of European countries, and at least in some countries Nazi symbolics are banned as well [1]. I live maybe an hour away from the KZ Dachau and have visited it. It's hard to have any other stance than "antisemitism, racism and other similar discrimination must be banned at all costs" when you personally see the evidence just how depraved humans can be. Let humans go unchecked and you get anything from online mobs driving trans people to suicide (Kiwifarms) over murder (Heather Heyer) and lone wolf terrorism (Christchurch) and finally, a putsch attempt. Then, once a strongman/dictator has taken over, you will eventually see ethnic cleansings and genocide (see e.g. Russia's Ukraine invasion). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        While liberty does indeed carry a steep price tag, the alternative has been shown throughout human history to be horrifically worse.
      - philippejara 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
But see, if you are in a place that isn't free-speech-abolutist, then who gets shut out by the free speech limitations? Marginalized people. You are right to say that the impact falls on the marginalized. You are wrong to blame the free speech policy for that.
somenameforme 4y ago
And it's also precisely what helped such people the most. Abolition, and other pertinent topics, were regularly and vigorously discussed and debated in America. This was happening at the same time that in Britain calling for the end of the monarchy was punishable by death, later converted to merely life in prison. And incidentally, that is still the law in the UK [1]. Quite a relevant aside since while it was ostensibly not actively enforced, police are currently being quite heavy handed with protesters against the royal accession process, and that law gives them every legal right to do so. The point there is that had we lived in a country where censoring speech was legal, there's every reason to believe even speaking of e.g. abolition could have landed you in jail, or worse. Would this have deterred change? Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing is for sure is that it'd have made the country a far less free place for everybody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848