3 ms·

My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward aut

My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. The main argument against them, as I understand it, is always "that's a slippery slope toward authoritarianism". Truth is, when fascists get into power, whatever the law says will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before then only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1]. > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Arn_Thor 1y ago
Hear hear!
theodric 1y ago
I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.
- thrance 1y ago
  Got it, no need for such abrasiveness. I tweaked my previous comment, you're right: not every free speech absolutist is a hypocrite.
- pjc50 1y ago
  > absolute free speech So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state? (people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Fraud is illegal because it's fraud, not because it's the wrong kind of speech. I mean, yes, fraud usually involves an element of saying something. But the issue is the act of defrauding someone, not the words they used in the process. Free speech has never been conceived as giving you a right to commit fraud, extortion, bribery, criminal conspiracy, blackmail, treason, leaking classified information... the list is long. If you're going to commit a crime, and part of the crime is implemented as communication, "free speech" is not a defense. Never has been. If you think otherwise, your understanding of what "free speech" means in the US is faulty.
    - thrance 1y ago
      Well then, aren't death threats a form of speech? Because they're clearly illegal. What about a nazi saying "death to all <insert minority>"? It's just words at the end of the day, and most of them won't act on it, right? > people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here Grand parent neatly predicted your response, you are trying to categorize every kind of illegal speech forms as something else than speech. Either you can say whatever you want or you can't. There's no absolutism with restrictions.
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        First: I'm not saying "that's not actually speech". I'm saying that the crime isn't that it's speech; the crime is that it's fraud. You can't take fraud, speak it, and now it's OK because speech. No, it's still fraud, and it's still illegal because of the fraud, not because of the speech. Second: There's no "free speech absolutism". Not only does speech not erase other crimes, there are also certain restrictions on free speech as speech. Imminent incitement to violence is one of them.

Arn_Thor 1y ago

Hear hear!

theodric 1y ago

I believe in due process of law and absolute free speech. Guess I don't exist. Honestly, that's such a relief.

thrance 1y ago
Got it, no need for such abrasiveness. I tweaked my previous comment, you're right: not every free speech absolutist is a hypocrite.
pjc50 1y ago
> absolute free speech So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state? (people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Fraud is illegal because it's fraud, not because it's the wrong kind of speech. I mean, yes, fraud usually involves an element of saying something. But the issue is the act of defrauding someone, not the words they used in the process. Free speech has never been conceived as giving you a right to commit fraud, extortion, bribery, criminal conspiracy, blackmail, treason, leaking classified information... the list is long. If you're going to commit a crime, and part of the crime is implemented as communication, "free speech" is not a defense. Never has been. If you think otherwise, your understanding of what "free speech" means in the US is faulty.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Well then, aren't death threats a form of speech? Because they're clearly illegal. What about a nazi saying "death to all <insert minority>"? It's just words at the end of the day, and most of them won't act on it, right? > people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here Grand parent neatly predicted your response, you are trying to categorize every kind of illegal speech forms as something else than speech. Either you can say whatever you want or you can't. There's no absolutism with restrictions.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      First: I'm not saying "that's not actually speech". I'm saying that the crime isn't that it's speech; the crime is that it's fraud. You can't take fraud, speak it, and now it's OK because speech. No, it's still fraud, and it's still illegal because of the fraud, not because of the speech. Second: There's no "free speech absolutism". Not only does speech not erase other crimes, there are also certain restrictions on free speech as speech. Imminent incitement to violence is one of them.