4 ms·

> I’m all for freedom of speech, but not all cultures are the same and neither are local laws. Sometimes what works for America doesn’t work elsewhere. If free

> I’m all for freedom of speech, but not all cultures are the same and neither are local laws. Sometimes what works for America doesn’t work elsewhere. If free speech doesn't work in some particular culture, then it's that culture that needs to be discarded, not free speech.

darth_avocado 3y ago
Okay that argument makes sense. The culture cannot change overnight when majority of your population is not educated. So what do you propose we do till then? Give free speech to everyone and let it all burn down?
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Oh no, uneducated people might express unapproved opinions! How improper, I think I might faint /s
Matheus28 3y ago
You'll be surprised to learn that the way free speech exists in the US doesn't really exist in most other countries. In many western countries, hate speech, racism and nazism are prohibited speeches.
- sakjur 3y ago
  To add to this, I’d say as a European that I’m more concerned with the US limiting speech than our own laws. The US is good at excercising its diplomatic, trade and military power to prevent other countries from wielding free speech wrong. Trading with Iran is one example of that. You can be effectively shut out from the financial system of the world if you decide to ignore US sanctions, even when you don’t have entities, customers, suppliers, or employees in the US. Cuba and Panama’s existence are other examples of when countries ignored the US and paid the price. I don’t think the US is particularly evil or anything like that, but true free speech is a whole lot easier to safeguard when you’re not relying on the patronage of a superpower. And today, most countries either are a superpower in their own might or rely on one for participation in the global economy and modern world. …and there’s some cruel irony in suggesting the dismantling of a culture to leave room for free speech. I believe any sort of sustainable freedom of speech will have to grow organically into the culture. And that unfortunately takes time.
o11c 3y ago
Paraphrasing XKCD 1357: citing "free speech" is bad, because it's admitting that the best argument you have is "it's not literally illegal to say this". And when it's literally about Nazis (it seems like it always is) ... Rumble isn't the one looking like they have standards here.
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  You have a very dim view of the world if you actually believe most victims of censorship are "literal nazis"
anon291 3y ago
[flagged]
tibbydudeza 3y ago
Nope. Seeing some your nuts in the US in positions of power - Jewish Space Lasers and QAnon adherents it shows me how unregulated free speech don't work so well. It might have been the case when the reach was the next town by donkey but in this day and age all it takes is an unhinged person to start a new cult around kids being molested at a Pizza Palour.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  It's not even unregulated, libel and defamation are illegal for example. They've just grown up with those speech restrictions and so they don't view them as a threat. This is the essence of conservatism, whatever exists is good and whatever is different is bad. Reasons are then created to justify the predetermined conclusion that the current balance of speech restrictions is perfectly correct.
- Boatfaceing 3y ago
  [dead]

darth_avocado 3y ago

Okay that argument makes sense. The culture cannot change overnight when majority of your population is not educated. So what do you propose we do till then? Give free speech to everyone and let it all burn down?

Georgelemental 3y ago
Oh no, uneducated people might express unapproved opinions! How improper, I think I might faint /s

Matheus28 3y ago

You'll be surprised to learn that the way free speech exists in the US doesn't really exist in most other countries. In many western countries, hate speech, racism and nazism are prohibited speeches.

sakjur 3y ago
To add to this, I’d say as a European that I’m more concerned with the US limiting speech than our own laws. The US is good at excercising its diplomatic, trade and military power to prevent other countries from wielding free speech wrong. Trading with Iran is one example of that. You can be effectively shut out from the financial system of the world if you decide to ignore US sanctions, even when you don’t have entities, customers, suppliers, or employees in the US. Cuba and Panama’s existence are other examples of when countries ignored the US and paid the price. I don’t think the US is particularly evil or anything like that, but true free speech is a whole lot easier to safeguard when you’re not relying on the patronage of a superpower. And today, most countries either are a superpower in their own might or rely on one for participation in the global economy and modern world. …and there’s some cruel irony in suggesting the dismantling of a culture to leave room for free speech. I believe any sort of sustainable freedom of speech will have to grow organically into the culture. And that unfortunately takes time.

o11c 3y ago

Paraphrasing XKCD 1357: citing "free speech" is bad, because it's admitting that the best argument you have is "it's not literally illegal to say this". And when it's literally about Nazis (it seems like it always is) ... Rumble isn't the one looking like they have standards here.

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
You have a very dim view of the world if you actually believe most victims of censorship are "literal nazis"

anon291 3y ago

[flagged]

tibbydudeza 3y ago

Nope. Seeing some your nuts in the US in positions of power - Jewish Space Lasers and QAnon adherents it shows me how unregulated free speech don't work so well. It might have been the case when the reach was the next town by donkey but in this day and age all it takes is an unhinged person to start a new cult around kids being molested at a Pizza Palour.

hackerlight 3y ago
It's not even unregulated, libel and defamation are illegal for example. They've just grown up with those speech restrictions and so they don't view them as a threat. This is the essence of conservatism, whatever exists is good and whatever is different is bad. Reasons are then created to justify the predetermined conclusion that the current balance of speech restrictions is perfectly correct.
Boatfaceing 3y ago
[dead]