I've never understood the phrase "free speech absolutist." We either have free speech or we don't, there is no in between.

I personally don't think hate speech should be illegal. If someone feels that way I'd rather know it and act accordingly than them keep it to themselves.

Others may well disagree with my view there and that's totally fine, but they do want limits to what one can say which means they don't want free speech.

▲

root_axis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

So are you saying free speech doesn't exist? What's your point by casting this in absolute terms?

	▲	_heimdall 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No my point is that free speech isn't a spectrum, we either can say whatever we want or we can't. As far as whether we have it, no in the US we don't have it today as certain speech is still made illegal. I don't cast free speech in absolute terms, I take issue with those that do since it isn't a spectrum.

▲

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

> there is no in between

However there is a difference. A balance of free speech on social media could look like

1. Anyone can say anything they want

2. The algorithms are simplified such that they are chronological and your direct network, rather than the anxiety boosting, "editorial" choice in promoting or limiting the speech of others, especially with how reposts and quote tweets amplify a given post.

We need to rethink and regulate algorithms while we are working on Ai regulation. Let's not let the tech companies that brought us the mess we are in slip by in this moment of seemingly bipartisan cooperation.

Let us also make targeted advertising illegal to remove the incentives that make the "anxiety algorithms" so profitable. Go back to a world of context based advertising like magazines.

▲

_heimdall an hour ago | parent [-]

One huge distinction to raise here is that free speech is a protection between the individual and the state. Corporations are free to regulate speech on their own platform, especially when users agree to terms of service that stipulate as much.

We can debate where the line on regulation should fall, but that isn't a free speech debate.

	▲	verdverm 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		At the same time, the people can petition the state to regulate corporations use of our speech, and generally our data They have been abusing their power, something has to change

▲

Capricorn2481 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You probably shouldn't be able to threaten somebody or direct people to kill somebody, so I guess by your definition, I don't believe in free speech.

▲

_heimdall 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Threats are the gray area. I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want. A person acting on it is a different story, including preparations like a person collecting materials for a bomb or something like that.

I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.

▲

VectorLock 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some people may not be as privileged to be immune to being terrorized by violent threats as you are.

	▲	_heimdall an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two. Words aren't terrorism or violent. That doesn't mean people can't interpret them that way and feel harm, but a word alone can't harm anyone.

▲

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

> I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want.

Where does that put someone calling out a public hit? It is just words after all.

> I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.

They say there’s no atheists in foxholes.

▲

_heimdall 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When you say "calling out a public hit" what do you mean exactly?

Vaguely saying "someone should" is very different from offering a bounty or plotting to do it yourself.

▲

koolba 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Run the full range. From, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” all the way to “10K to whoever takes out heimdall”.

▲

_heimdall an hour ago | parent [-]

The former isn't a legal issue, in my opinion. The latter would be as its actively offering a reward or bounty for a hit.

▲

Capricorn2481 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

So words aren't violent action in anyway, because you haven't acted on anything. But offering money is violent enough to be legal even though you haven't paid anyone?

	▲	_heimdall 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Speech isn't violence because its nothing more than words and our speech is a protected right. Offering money to murder someone is almost certainly illegal because they are doing more than talking, they are choosing to collude in the act of murder and a jury is much more likely to agree there. My point wasn't that money had to change hands or be offered, I was responding to an earlier comment. A person directly taking part in plotting to commit murder I'd also likely breaking the law and likely to lose a jury trial if they are actively plotting a murder whether money I'd involved or not. Saying "someone should" simply isn't a plot.

▲

unethical_ban 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Calls to violent or hateful ideology (brown people are all bad because of their skin color, judge a class of people based solely on their born traits) leads to nasty outcomes. We learned that many times through history, notably in the mid 20th century.

▲

_heimdall an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The real question there is who is to blame, the person who days something hateful or the one who acts on it?

Don't forget that we also learned in the 20th century that millions can support and die for genocide while only a few dozen will be charged while the rest returned home. We also learned that the winner of said conflict can wipe out entire cities and go home the victor without consequence.

▲

charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Believing that people's behavior is not based off born traits also will lead to nasty outcomes.

	▲	_heimdall an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What is your argument here? That hate, violence etc is genetic?

▲

calvinmorrison 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]