3 ms·

> ideologically opposed to me Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other is

> ideologically opposed to me Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other issues considered. Probably you are doing the same for others.

chmod775 4mo ago
Yeah. On pretty much every other topic important to me, their official positions are either diametrically opposed or lean into another direction far enough that supporting other parties would be a better choice.
root_axis 4mo ago
Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.
- lifty 4mo ago
  But do you agree this bill is positive?
  - shevy-java 4mo ago
    But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.
    - redsocksfan45 4mo ago
      [dead]
    - dmix 4mo ago
      > speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence Speech alone isnt sufficient to be charged with that, which is why it passed supreme Court scrutiny. Similar to criminal conspiracy laws, where you have to pursue tangible actions IRL not just talk about it with a friend.
      - fc417fc802 4mo ago
        Credible threats of violence are illegal despite "only" being speech. Also "obscene" material without any other redeeming quality. So there are definitely exceptions in the US. Also I believe you are wrong about incitement. It is the speech itself that is illegal, you (ie the speaker) don't have to do anything yourself or even really know or otherwise interact with the would be perpetrators.
      - cramer4next 4mo ago
        [dead]
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      [dead]

chmod775 4mo ago

Yeah. On pretty much every other topic important to me, their official positions are either diametrically opposed or lean into another direction far enough that supporting other parties would be a better choice.

root_axis 4mo ago

Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.

lifty 4mo ago
But do you agree this bill is positive?
- shevy-java 4mo ago
  But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.
  - redsocksfan45 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - dmix 4mo ago
    > speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence Speech alone isnt sufficient to be charged with that, which is why it passed supreme Court scrutiny. Similar to criminal conspiracy laws, where you have to pursue tangible actions IRL not just talk about it with a friend.
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      Credible threats of violence are illegal despite "only" being speech. Also "obscene" material without any other redeeming quality. So there are definitely exceptions in the US. Also I believe you are wrong about incitement. It is the speech itself that is illegal, you (ie the speaker) don't have to do anything yourself or even really know or otherwise interact with the would be perpetrators.
    - cramer4next 4mo ago
      [dead]
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    [dead]