Remix.run Logo
syspec 4 hours ago

Meanwhile, you can't even go on pornhub in certain states in the US, but yes let's let people go on X and engage in hate speech. In fact I'm sure bad actors will use that site FROM the us, to anonymize their hate speech from Russia/China

kjksf 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'm confused about your principles.

Do you want censorship (of porn, of "hate speech") or not?

Because it seems you don't want censorship of porn but do want censorship of speech.

"hate speech" is a made up thing that politicians use to jail people who complain about government.

If you're an American you should cherish 1st amendment. You should cherish the fact that founding fathers recognized that the greatest thread to your freedom is not another person with a gun but a thousand people with a gun i.e. government.

And giving government the power to censor speech they don't like is the fastest way to tyranny.

That's why freedom of speech is 1st amendment. Not second, not fifth. It's 1st because it's that important.

hdgvhicv 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Americans is land of the free until someone shows a nipple. Or copies a floppy. Or refuses to partake in flag shagging. Or says something critical of the president.

Basically America is very good at protecting hate speech, not so good at the rest.

beej71 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Meanwhile, you can't even go on pornhub in certain states in the US.

Hilarious to think that freedom.gov might be the workaround.

xp84 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> let people go on X and engage in hate speech

So interesting to see it become a popular opinion that we should "not let" people say certain things. Like, if necessary, we should jail people for speaking.

I remember learning about the ACLU[1] as a teen, 25 years ago, and how they took a lot of flak for defending people who said things we all agreed were gross, which at first glance seems disgusting. But the lesson we were taught was that the Constitutional guarantee of "freedom of expression" wasn't qualified with "as long as the opinions being expressed are cool ones."

Really, "hate speech" is defined as "any ideas counter to beliefs I hold dearly." Right wingers think some or all porn is the "bad" kind of expression and apparently banworthy, and left wingers think saying pretty much anything about trans ideology (other than full-throated endorsement) is hate speech.

I'm aware that many who are of the "don't let people do 'hate speech'" aren't Americans and don't owe any respect for the ideas of our particular Constitution, and that's fine -- but many Americans also now feel that citizens should only be able to speak the subset of ideas that one party endorses, and that any other ideas should be punishable, as they are in the UK.[2]

[1] If I understand it correctly, I think the ACLU is under new management, and no longer defends anyone whose ideas are uncomfortable.

[2] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/uk-arrests-for-twee... This fact-check points out that "only" 10% of the 30 arrests per day for online postings end up with convictions, and that it's rare to have "long" prison sentences. Very comforting.

jeroenhd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

American free speech laws are the exception, not the rule. All European free speech laws have always been balanced and weighed up against other laws. This is hardly anything new. If anything, the internet has brought forth a short time period where everything goes and the status quo is now recovering.

The legal definition of hate speech (or rather, its local equivalents) is not just "any ideas counter to beliefs I hold dearly".

dirasieb 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

12 thousand people arrested per year for social media posts is "balanced"? https://archive.ph/bdEqK

at this point it's the #1 principle of the UK government, everything else comes second after putting people in jail for saying the wrong things

MiiMe19 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

American free speech laws are the superior option. A government that has the power to arrest people for saying "hateful" things is no better than China or North Korea. But at least you won't need to deal with people saying mean things (that you can block) on your computer (that no one is forcing you to use for social media) anymore, right?

fgeg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

dirasieb 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

complaining about losing the freedom to watch porn without ID while in the same comment pushing for more people to face state action for social media posts

porn is ok, posts that hurt my fee fees and ideological bias bad :'( (both are ok in my opinion btw)