5 ms·

Eh, it gives them more ammo to allow them to spread their bullshit without any law forbidding it. I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished f

Eh, it gives them more ammo to allow them to spread their bullshit without any law forbidding it. I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.

d4v3 1y ago
That's shortsighted. Today it's the holocaust. What is it tomorrow?
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  "what will be of us if we can't call black people monkeys anymore? RIP freedom".
  - d4v3 1y ago
    Once you open the door to criminalizing ideas, even vile ones, you risk that power being misused later in ways no one intended. Defending the principle of free speech isn’t the same as defending the content of the speech. It’s about protecting the framework that allows us to challenge bad ideas rather than bury them.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      And once you open the door of vile ideas being treated as valid information, you risk them becoming the norm. "Your knowledge is as valid as my ignorance" is a scocietal disease every country is facing right now to varying degrees of severity because bad ideas spread fast. The thought that bad ideas can be challenged fairly in an open marketplace is a utopia. Most people are not interested in truth. They would rather touch themselves.
      - d4v3 1y ago
        Vile ideas are not automatically accepted as 'valid information'. You're assuming that society can't handle challenging ideas while ignoring the possibility that free speech is what allows for those ideas to be openly criticized, debated, and disproven. A robust system of free speech is what actually ensures bad ideas are not given a free pass but are subject to critique and debate
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Hard disagree, and I wonder how you can say that when we live during times when society in general is definitely is unable to handle "challenging ideas". Also, far too many times past societies accepted vile ideas as valid information with terrible results. You are very optimistic that unshackled free speech will ensure that bad ideas are not given a free pass, but in reality bad ideas very often smother the discussion when people adopt a stance of "my ignorance is as valid as your knowledge". By the way, you applied a suspicious change of rhetorical focus when the original terminology was "vile ideas" and you switched that to "challenging ideas". I'll consider that an accidental slip instead of malice.
        d4v3 1y ago
        > Hard disagree, and I wonder how you can say that when we live during times when society in general is definitely is unable to handle "challenging ideas". A century ago, mainstream society openly embraced racial hierarchies as scientific fact. Three centuries ago, slavery was not only legal, but morally justified by churches and universities. In 17th-century New England, people were executed for witchcraft based on superstition and mass hysteria. Well into the 20th century, eugenics was considered respectable science across Europe and North America. So I don't think these current times are any worse than they were before in terms of bad ideas existing in the mainstream, at least from a historical perspective. In fact, I'd probably argue it's better. > Also, far too many times past societies accepted vile ideas as valid information with terrible results. This is true of any society. The key difference is that they are easier to challenge in a place with strong free speech protections. Bad ideas will always exist, but it's better to test them out in the open rather than let them fester in dark. > You are very optimistic that unshackled free speech will ensure that bad ideas are not given a free pass, ... You're right, I am. I believe in a marketplace of ideas because it's better than any alternative that involves gatekeeping truth. The notion that "my ignorance is as valid as your knowledge" is a cultural problem, not a legal one. I trust free speech over any system that relies on a sanctioned arbiter of truth. And I think that protection of people from bad ideas often backfires (see European history and the Catholic Church, McCarthyism, Nazi propaganda, Soviet censorship, etc.)
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Let me give you an actual real-world example. At one point, Russia decided to enact anti-extremist legislation similar to your enlightened European hate speech laws. It criminalized hateful speech directed at "identifiable social groups". Then we found out that "identifiable social groups" include the corrupt police and members of parliament.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      Which is a terrible comparison. This is not what Ireland is being required to implement.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
voidspark 1y ago
[flagged]
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > So you are against the First Amendment. Thankfully I don't live in the US. No such cancer here. > Authoritarian control of the narrative. North Korean style. Nice false dichotomy there.
  - voidspark 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      By your standard, every single country that is not the US is authoritarian, because no other country is extremist in their interpretation of what freedom of speech means. I want people to have freedom to criticize the government and question those in power. I don't want people to have the freedom to say that blacks or jews are subhuman, because the results of that freedom are not good.
      - voidspark 1y ago
        [flagged]
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        > You have singled out the most extreme examples Yes, because it is the topic of this thread. It's about Ireland implementing the EU directives on hate speech, such as Holocaust denial. > and yet even with that freedom to say racist things, so many non-whites are trying to move INTO the United States We are taking about Ireland and the EU. I have no idea why people want to move to the US. More power to them, not my problem. > Your limits on free speech are a slippery slope. Yes most of the world is authoritarian. I experienced it during the pandemic in a so called First World country. Ah... I see the problem now. You are one of those people. I won't reply to you any further. Feel free to have the last word. This conversation will never get anywhere.

Eh, it gives them more ammo to allow them to spread their bullshit without any law forbidding it. I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.

d4v3 1y ago

That's shortsighted. Today it's the holocaust. What is it tomorrow?

surgical_fire 1y ago
"what will be of us if we can't call black people monkeys anymore? RIP freedom".
- d4v3 1y ago
  Once you open the door to criminalizing ideas, even vile ones, you risk that power being misused later in ways no one intended. Defending the principle of free speech isn’t the same as defending the content of the speech. It’s about protecting the framework that allows us to challenge bad ideas rather than bury them.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    And once you open the door of vile ideas being treated as valid information, you risk them becoming the norm. "Your knowledge is as valid as my ignorance" is a scocietal disease every country is facing right now to varying degrees of severity because bad ideas spread fast. The thought that bad ideas can be challenged fairly in an open marketplace is a utopia. Most people are not interested in truth. They would rather touch themselves.
    - d4v3 1y ago
      Vile ideas are not automatically accepted as 'valid information'. You're assuming that society can't handle challenging ideas while ignoring the possibility that free speech is what allows for those ideas to be openly criticized, debated, and disproven. A robust system of free speech is what actually ensures bad ideas are not given a free pass but are subject to critique and debate
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        Hard disagree, and I wonder how you can say that when we live during times when society in general is definitely is unable to handle "challenging ideas". Also, far too many times past societies accepted vile ideas as valid information with terrible results. You are very optimistic that unshackled free speech will ensure that bad ideas are not given a free pass, but in reality bad ideas very often smother the discussion when people adopt a stance of "my ignorance is as valid as your knowledge". By the way, you applied a suspicious change of rhetorical focus when the original terminology was "vile ideas" and you switched that to "challenging ideas". I'll consider that an accidental slip instead of malice.
        d4v3 1y ago
        > Hard disagree, and I wonder how you can say that when we live during times when society in general is definitely is unable to handle "challenging ideas". A century ago, mainstream society openly embraced racial hierarchies as scientific fact. Three centuries ago, slavery was not only legal, but morally justified by churches and universities. In 17th-century New England, people were executed for witchcraft based on superstition and mass hysteria. Well into the 20th century, eugenics was considered respectable science across Europe and North America. So I don't think these current times are any worse than they were before in terms of bad ideas existing in the mainstream, at least from a historical perspective. In fact, I'd probably argue it's better. > Also, far too many times past societies accepted vile ideas as valid information with terrible results. This is true of any society. The key difference is that they are easier to challenge in a place with strong free speech protections. Bad ideas will always exist, but it's better to test them out in the open rather than let them fester in dark. > You are very optimistic that unshackled free speech will ensure that bad ideas are not given a free pass, ... You're right, I am. I believe in a marketplace of ideas because it's better than any alternative that involves gatekeeping truth. The notion that "my ignorance is as valid as your knowledge" is a cultural problem, not a legal one. I trust free speech over any system that relies on a sanctioned arbiter of truth. And I think that protection of people from bad ideas often backfires (see European history and the Catholic Church, McCarthyism, Nazi propaganda, Soviet censorship, etc.)
- int_19h 1y ago
  Let me give you an actual real-world example. At one point, Russia decided to enact anti-extremist legislation similar to your enlightened European hate speech laws. It criminalized hateful speech directed at "identifiable social groups". Then we found out that "identifiable social groups" include the corrupt police and members of parliament.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    Which is a terrible comparison. This is not what Ireland is being required to implement.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

voidspark 1y ago

[flagged]

surgical_fire 1y ago
> So you are against the First Amendment. Thankfully I don't live in the US. No such cancer here. > Authoritarian control of the narrative. North Korean style. Nice false dichotomy there.
- voidspark 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    By your standard, every single country that is not the US is authoritarian, because no other country is extremist in their interpretation of what freedom of speech means. I want people to have freedom to criticize the government and question those in power. I don't want people to have the freedom to say that blacks or jews are subhuman, because the results of that freedom are not good.
    - voidspark 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > You have singled out the most extreme examples Yes, because it is the topic of this thread. It's about Ireland implementing the EU directives on hate speech, such as Holocaust denial. > and yet even with that freedom to say racist things, so many non-whites are trying to move INTO the United States We are taking about Ireland and the EU. I have no idea why people want to move to the US. More power to them, not my problem. > Your limits on free speech are a slippery slope. Yes most of the world is authoritarian. I experienced it during the pandemic in a so called First World country. Ah... I see the problem now. You are one of those people. I won't reply to you any further. Feel free to have the last word. This conversation will never get anywhere.