The end game is politically controlled speech. First you can't share porn, then you can't share violence, then you can't share police abuse, until it starts to creep into the world of anything unflattering to those in power.

And of course, it will all be under the guise of safety and harm reduction, but the veil will keep getting thinner and the amount of things covered more comprehensive

▲

cm2187 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

We are way beyond that. In certain european countries you cannot legally share privately a sentence that would offend someone else.

▲

robin_reala 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Which certain ones would those be then? And which laws would it be breaking?

	▲	uzerfcwn 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Last month, a Finnish court judged that using derogatory words in an email sent privately to the offended person counts as defamation.[1] When this was discussed in the Finnish Reddit [2], some found it unjust that it counts as defamation even though the message wasn't sent to third parties, but it is indeed how the law was written. [1] https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/6c9a65fe-f706-449e-b0d9-1... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Suomi/comments/1mv9usq
	▲	cm2187 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The hate crime bill in Scotland for instance.

▲

9dev 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you have any source for that?

▲

Bender 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not the person you are asking but it is getting worse by the day [1][2]. Speech policing is becoming a higher priority than dealing with violent crime. Protests are also increasing in number and frequency.

[1] - https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-news/uk-free-speech-stru...

[2] - https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for...

	▲	9dev 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		These reports both seem to refer to the UK, not several European countries. I personally also think this should mostly not be a matter for the police to take care of, but then again do (should) dick picks and harassment really constitute the free speech you want to protect? I cannot speak for the UK, but Germany for example has had laws against gross insults since decades that have not threatened democracy; I would expect police to enforce laws, whether in real or virtual life just the same. On the other hand, it gets murky with unwanted political opinions. Due to historic reasons, there are some things very specific things you're forbidden from voicing publicly here, because they're incompatible with our constitution, and thus don't enjoy the protection of that constitution. But in recent years, things unrelated to our fascist past have also seen litigation, which I find problematic, regardless of my personal opinions. But given that Germany is probably the most strict European country when it comes to freedom of speech restrictions, I'm really opposed to announcing any kind of "free speech crisis in Europe".

▲

nickslaughter02 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you can't share porn, then you can't share violence

First Porn, Now Skin Cream? ‘Age Verification’ Bills Are Out of Control (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/first-porn-now-skin-cr...)

	▲	ndriscoll 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not seeing the connection to censorship at all with the skincare and diet products. It's illegal to sell certain things to children because they've been deemed harmful. Same with legal (for adults) drugs. If you don't check ID before giving it to a child, that's a crime, and I expect you to be prosecuted, yes. Actually the California bill seems absurdly weak, and it seems to be enough to just ask if they're 18. The Washington bill is stupid for restricting creatine supplements, which the evidence indicates provides physical and cognitive benefits with no real drawbacks. It's the one muscle building supplement that's actually known to work, and should be excluded like protein powder. But otherwise restricting people from selling dubious dietary supplements to children doesn't seem terribly wrong on its face.

▲

martin-t 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not often mentioned but violence is the greatest enemy of people in power.

They always say stuff like "violence doesn't belong in politics", "violence is always wrong". But look at the French revolution, they had to cut the dictator's ("king's") head off to stop him from trying to get back into power. Look at the US for for independence, how many redcoats had to get shot before the UK decided it's not longer economical to keep oppressing the colony. Look at the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, a public execution of a mass murderer.

And for now we're allowed to celebrate those events. Some are even national holidays. But we can not publicly discuss current events in the same manner. Those supporting recent assassinations or attempts usually get banned and many don't even dare voice their support. But there is some line where the fourth box of liberty _should_ come out. And I don't think we have enough freedom of speech currently to discuss where exactly the line lies. (Note to mods, I don't have an opinion on the recent shooting and this message is not related to it. I would have posted the exact same thing even if it didn't happen and have posted similar messages in the past.)

BTW this is funny: Brandon Herrera posted a video reconstructing the headshot by Gary Plauché where it's obvious both him and the commenters support the killing. He also reconstructed the, well, earshot by Thomas Matthew Crooks and denounced it. I wonder if he would support an assassination if it turned out Trump got, say, a massage with a happy ending from an underage girl trafficked by his friend. That would imply being a pedophile is worse than being a fascist[0] in his mind.

[0]: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...

---

Anyway, violence should be used carefully as a last resort but people in power are afraid of it because ultimately, no matter how much power they have, they still need a continuous supply of oxygen to their brain, which can be interrupted in a number of ways and the probability of such an event increases proportionally to the number of people they exploit.

▲

9dev 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or, say… posting condemning comments about Charlie Kirk online..?