5 ms·

> what works for America doesn’t work elsewhere Free speech is the only exception. Bad ideas can be rooted out with good ideas. Banning opinions have never wor

> what works for America doesn’t work elsewhere Free speech is the only exception. Bad ideas can be rooted out with good ideas. Banning opinions have never worked ever and it will never work. It is a pure waste of everything.

yareal 3y ago
[dead]
darth_avocado 3y ago
It is not. You’re used to countries with strong law and order. Countries where this doesn’t exist, free speech often leads to devastating results. > Banning opinions have never worked ever and it will never work. It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany. Edit: Before everyone just points to communist states as what happens when you have censorship, you also need to acknowledge the extreme violence that happens when speech is unrestricted in every case. For example Rohingya genocide was fueled by unrestricted “opinions” on the internet. https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-... Besides, some form of restrictions on speech absolutely exist everywhere in the world. People look at censorship as either complete freedom or Soviet Russia, but in reality middle ground does exist.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >Countries where this doesn’t exist, free speech often leads to devastating results Never anything as bad as the murder of tens of millions of their own citizens committed in countries with no free speech like Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. >It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany If that's your metric for success it's absolutely failed, given the "Alternative for Deutschland" is now polling at over 20%.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    The Rohingya would like to disagree https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      If you have a government unwilling or unable to even enforce the laws against violence, they will be similarly unwilling or unable to enforce the laws against thoughtcrime, or will enforce them against the victims of the atrocity. Or you've got a case of someone in country A filing suit over something happening in country A under the laws of country B. Now what is the company supposed to do if the laws in country A and country B conflict? Was following the laws in the country where they're operating (i.e. the country committing the atrocity) the outcome you wanted? What about leaving that country, so that people there have to use a service which is in that country? "Everybody has free speech" doesn't solve every problem, but censorship doesn't solve any of those problems either, it just creates wicked new problems.
      - darth_avocado 3y ago
        The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. The argument that censorship creates new problems is true, however there are absolute cases when censorship is needed. In this case, it was the country’s Supreme Court requesting removal of users and it was related to speech causing violence. The same request would have been completely legal in US as well.
        josephcsible 3y ago
        > The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. It does? Here's the full text of the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Which part of it says that? I don't see it anywhere.
- abduhl 3y ago
  [flagged]
- gorwell 3y ago
  Free speech doesn't lead to devasating results. Just the opposite. Censorship does. Every time. Nazis, communists, every authoritarian or totaliatarian government, rely on censorship and restrict free speech heavily. Bad ideas require censorship to survive the light of day.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - findingFounders 3y ago
    you're 100% correct. seeing comments like yours downvoted and greyed out makes me very worried for the state of the internet, i can't tell if it's bots or people have really begun to believe that free speech isn't a fundamental pillar of democracy.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      The battle against free speech (I am in favour of free speech) has been being furiously waged pretty much since the concept was enshrined in law. The fact that the US 1st amendment still stands and appears to be broadly respected is very much the exception, not the rule.
    - Kiro 3y ago
      It's unbelievable and shocking. I really want to hear the reasoning from people downvoting these comments.
      - malermeister 3y ago
        "When our opponents say: Well, we used to grant you the [...] freedom of opinion - yes, you to us, but that is no reason that we should do the same to you! [...] That you gave it to us - well that is proof of how stupid you are!" - Joseph Goebbels You can listen to this part at around 15:05 at this speech (if you speak German, of course): https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143 https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143 The take above is a classic well-meaning, but ill-informed opinion from an American with a lack of understanding of how the Nazis actually operated and how they could've been stopped.
- sebastianconcpt 3y ago
  In the Soviet Union "worked". For making an absolute catastrophe "worked" remarkably well.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany. You can't know that for sure. If Nazi propaganda was not banned and the Nazi never took over again then free speech would work as well. We just don't know if banning speech has made less people pro Nazi.

yareal 3y ago

[dead]

darth_avocado 3y ago

It is not. You’re used to countries with strong law and order. Countries where this doesn’t exist, free speech often leads to devastating results. > Banning opinions have never worked ever and it will never work. It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany. Edit: Before everyone just points to communist states as what happens when you have censorship, you also need to acknowledge the extreme violence that happens when speech is unrestricted in every case. For example Rohingya genocide was fueled by unrestricted “opinions” on the internet. https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-... Besides, some form of restrictions on speech absolutely exist everywhere in the world. People look at censorship as either complete freedom or Soviet Russia, but in reality middle ground does exist.

logicchains 3y ago
>Countries where this doesn’t exist, free speech often leads to devastating results Never anything as bad as the murder of tens of millions of their own citizens committed in countries with no free speech like Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. >It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany If that's your metric for success it's absolutely failed, given the "Alternative for Deutschland" is now polling at over 20%.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  The Rohingya would like to disagree https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    If you have a government unwilling or unable to even enforce the laws against violence, they will be similarly unwilling or unable to enforce the laws against thoughtcrime, or will enforce them against the victims of the atrocity. Or you've got a case of someone in country A filing suit over something happening in country A under the laws of country B. Now what is the company supposed to do if the laws in country A and country B conflict? Was following the laws in the country where they're operating (i.e. the country committing the atrocity) the outcome you wanted? What about leaving that country, so that people there have to use a service which is in that country? "Everybody has free speech" doesn't solve every problem, but censorship doesn't solve any of those problems either, it just creates wicked new problems.
    - darth_avocado 3y ago
      The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. The argument that censorship creates new problems is true, however there are absolute cases when censorship is needed. In this case, it was the country’s Supreme Court requesting removal of users and it was related to speech causing violence. The same request would have been completely legal in US as well.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        > The constitution of United States, in the first Amendment prohibits certain speech, speech inciting violence is one of those prohibited speech. It does? Here's the full text of the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Which part of it says that? I don't see it anywhere.
abduhl 3y ago
[flagged]
gorwell 3y ago
Free speech doesn't lead to devasating results. Just the opposite. Censorship does. Every time. Nazis, communists, every authoritarian or totaliatarian government, rely on censorship and restrict free speech heavily. Bad ideas require censorship to survive the light of day.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  [flagged]
- findingFounders 3y ago
  you're 100% correct. seeing comments like yours downvoted and greyed out makes me very worried for the state of the internet, i can't tell if it's bots or people have really begun to believe that free speech isn't a fundamental pillar of democracy.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    The battle against free speech (I am in favour of free speech) has been being furiously waged pretty much since the concept was enshrined in law. The fact that the US 1st amendment still stands and appears to be broadly respected is very much the exception, not the rule.
  - Kiro 3y ago
    It's unbelievable and shocking. I really want to hear the reasoning from people downvoting these comments.
    - malermeister 3y ago
      "When our opponents say: Well, we used to grant you the [...] freedom of opinion - yes, you to us, but that is no reason that we should do the same to you! [...] That you gave it to us - well that is proof of how stupid you are!" - Joseph Goebbels You can listen to this part at around 15:05 at this speech (if you speak German, of course): https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143 https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143 The take above is a classic well-meaning, but ill-informed opinion from an American with a lack of understanding of how the Nazis actually operated and how they could've been stopped.
sebastianconcpt 3y ago
In the Soviet Union "worked". For making an absolute catastrophe "worked" remarkably well.
ImJamal 3y ago
>It absolutely works. There’s a reason Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany. You can't know that for sure. If Nazi propaganda was not banned and the Nazi never took over again then free speech would work as well. We just don't know if banning speech has made less people pro Nazi.