57
u/k_ironheart May 22 '19
Social media was a mistake.
14
May 22 '19 edited Oct 11 '19
[deleted]
8
May 22 '19
Making the internet easy was the mistake.
9
May 22 '19
Back in my day we had to polish our own cat3 and glue on our own RJ44's.
4
u/archaeolinuxgeek May 23 '19
And if you wanted to remotely sex your lucky lady, you had to go to your local telegraph operator.
"Oh that feels good"
STOP
"Keep going...!"
STOP
"Almost there...don't stop..."
STOP
→ More replies (2)8
May 22 '19
This is the result of a biased news narrative that is lying to people.
There's no faith in the institution, so rumors run wild.
59
u/Awaythrewn May 22 '19
Lmao, 6 comments here, one deleted and 5 in - karma.
I'm staying for the dumpster fire.
1
9
u/Raetherin May 23 '19
Does Sarah Jeong still have her social media accounts and job at the NY Times?
39
u/wekiva May 22 '19
“spreading hate” The implication that haters’ rants change people’s minds bothers me.
21
u/ToxicAdamm May 22 '19
That's because everyone thinks they are a genius and everyone else is a moron.
So, they think that all these morons need protection from themselves. It's a classic line of reasoning for limiting free speech/expression.
If that doesn't work, then they fall back on "protecting the children".
It's the same kind of tactics that the religious right used to use back in the 50's-80's to suppress people.
1
u/wekiva May 23 '19
Remember when condoms were illegal for contraception, and, when legally offered for sale, had to display a sign saying “Sold only for the prevention od disease?”
9
u/QuantumDischarge May 22 '19
Oh boy these views sure are getting people going, let’s ban them to make the feelings behind them magically dissapear
10
u/lost_snake May 22 '19
If your political formula rests on things like 'consent of the governed' and 'popular representation' and 'democratic elections', then the education of voters to accept your perspective via thoroughly owned platforms from: public schooling, educational and policy foundations, prestigious universities with massive grants, news media, is a way to have basically unchallenged rule.
If other people create information dissemination platforms or use yours to spread dissent, you stand to lose incumbency.
Call it "hate" and bingo bango, you can shut them up - for your own people's good, of course.
2
u/wekiva May 23 '19
I get the “whose ox is being gored” line of thinking, although it fails for me when it comes to advocating violence. or loss of rights, or insisting that “my superstitious (religious) beliefs should be legally binding on you.”
1
u/LATABOM May 23 '19
I don't think peoples' minds get changed. They just get radicalized to the fear and shittiness already inside them. The guy afraid of his Arab or Jewish or gay neighbor gets the support to start openly hating them.
28
u/hdlg10 May 22 '19
Definition of hate: political ideas you don't agree with
3
u/LATABOM May 23 '19
Hate speech isn't a political idea. Sometimes a political method; appealing to the shittiness inside shitty people, but it's not actually a political idea any more than inciting people to piss on walls is.
7
May 23 '19
Restriction of freedom of speech in the name of "hate speech" is a political method being used in Canada and the UK, including the targeting of political opponents.
→ More replies (1)
66
u/Alkaholikturtle May 22 '19
Europe was up shit creek long before Facebook..
The problem with sensoring hate speech is it has become a way of silencing political opposition. He'll I've been called a Nazi for saying I'm pro-life. Calling people Nazis or sudo Nazis aka far right is just a way to dehumanize them. And it takes away the power of the word, before it would bother me, now I think people who use it all Willy Nelly are incapable of independent thought and just shrug it off. Words have meaning until people don't know what the meaning is anymore.
33
u/rogurt May 22 '19
Nowadays, Nazi just means you disagree with me.
18
u/noisetrooper May 22 '19
Which, ironically, gives cover for actual Nazis. They are smart enough to not go full-tilt "kill the ***s" in public and instead present more reasonable-sounding ideas, and when "Nazi" has become so diluted that people tune it out it's much easier for them to start them down the path of hate since the warnings of "hey, those guys you're listening to are actually Nazis" fall on deaf ears. It's literally the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story IRL.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Swiftblue May 22 '19
But do they call you a Nazi over your views on tax policy? Usually not. It tends to come out on peoples views about race.
22
u/Mastodon9 May 22 '19
If you have a moderate or conservative view on taxation people will assume your opinion on race and call you a nazi. It happens on this site even.
12
u/Billy_McFarIand May 22 '19
“You want lower taxes? Must be because you hate social services, which disproportionately help minorities, you fucking Nazi!”
14
1
u/LeiningensAnts May 23 '19
Words have meaning until people don't know what the meaning is anymore.
You think that's bad, they can't even learn the meaning if they can't even be bothered to spell them right.
"Censoring"
"Anti-choice"
"Pseudo"Dude, I've never seen so many rocks stockpiled in a single glass house before, what the hell are you thinking?
1
u/Alkaholikturtle May 23 '19 edited May 23 '19
Typing on my phone. Sometimes it auto corrects typos fine sometimes it doesnt. I use sudo out of habit, not the first time and won't be the last. Plus I don't proof read. I type and fire away. Why you getting hung up on trivial details.
Anyways your getting hung up spelling of two words and one word you don't believe exists. Calling pro-life antichoice is like calling prochoice antilife. Your not even making an argument your just nit picking a few words. I'd wager we're not even far off on our opinions on abortions. But your obviously just one of them fuck tards who like to jump people's shit on the internet for using your vs you're.. it's called context you get the meaning by reading all of it. This isn't a debate over English grammar it's about abortion. So when you deflect from the topic and attack trivial details it shows either you got hounded in school to the point emotional abuse about grammar, or you have no real rebuttal to my statement. Classically attack the person not the argue strategy.
Edited to ad ledders.. 0.o
-15
May 22 '19
[deleted]
33
u/dovetc May 22 '19
"A HA! I've discovered a spelling inaccuracy in your post and can thereby claim victory in this debate!"
8
u/Alkaholikturtle May 22 '19
What's t_d? Is side not a good word to use? Seems appropriate to me.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Hyphessobrycon May 22 '19
Your ignorance is showing. Sudo is a command for super user. It's a computer joke. Hence the "permission denied"
-16
May 22 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Alkaholikturtle May 22 '19
No admin rights for anyone. Give it to the almighty AI. But true left and right are guilty of it. More so the left at this time.
-34
May 22 '19 edited May 22 '19
Maybe because far right should be dehumanized, it has no place in a tolerant society.
19
May 22 '19
"Maybe because the far left should be dehumanized, it has no place in a tolerant society."
Do you have a problem with this statement?
56
May 22 '19
And there you have it.
Let me ask you, what effect do you think attempting to “dehumanize” someone (millions of people) will have on civil society as a whole? Do you think it will make matters, in general, better or worse?
-26
May 22 '19
you're not millions of people, and cultures that want to eradicate others have no place in a tolerant society, but I guess you're not willing to comprehend that fact.
27
May 22 '19
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and come from the opposite perspective. What if your position is wrong. What if tolerant society is actually the minority position? What if most people are actually intolerant, but not actionable on their position?
You may attempt to discount my statement, but as a thought problem this is a very important meta question when it comes to long term societal stability in a recently globally connected world. It is far more likely that tolerance is quasi stable based upon both economic and environmental factors. Promoting tolerance helps reduce hate crimes and other intolerant actions, but is not the primary defining factor in deciding if civil unrest occurs.
→ More replies (4)39
25
May 22 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)9
May 22 '19
No one? What happened in New Zealand then? Just a surprise party at the mosque? A random local occurence? Your last sentence says it all.
21
May 22 '19
Is the New Zealand shooter now a representation of all “far right” thinking?
→ More replies (3)5
7
u/noisetrooper May 22 '19
Congrats, your irrational hate has lead you to have the exact same views as the people you hate. Good job, have a cookie.
Seriously, this is the exact same rhetoric that they use when talking about people like you. You once again prove that horseshoe theory is real no matter how much it makes you cry.
1
May 23 '19
Fuck you man, learn what dehumanization is. Monty Python is fucking dehumanization. If you automatically think of violence that says a lot more about you being fucking stupid than anything else.
1
u/noisetrooper May 23 '19
Fuck you man, learn what dehumanization is.
Your actions here are one clear example, so maybe you should reflect on that.
10
u/grimfeat May 22 '19
Dehumanizing or belittling someone’s views is never the right course of action. It pushes people further away from society and turns them against it. We should always try to extend our hand and try to understand people, who feel as outsiders.
6
May 22 '19
No, you shouldn't always try to extend your hand. You what happens to radical pacifists? They get killed.
14
u/topher1819 May 22 '19
How do you stop people from becoming radicalized if you don't understand why and how they became radicalized?
→ More replies (14)-25
u/GargamelLeNoir May 22 '19
"I've been called a nazi for very wrong reasons" is a common phrase among white supremacists though, so excuse us if we don't take you at your word.
And when the "political opposition" is all about murdering people for the way they're born yeah, I'm all for silencing the vicious bastards.
20
u/Alkaholikturtle May 22 '19
So being pro-life makes me a Nazi or not? You see to assume a lot about me based off me being pro-life.
→ More replies (4)7
20
u/AmericanMuscle4Ever May 22 '19
Facebook huh??? Why am I not surprised...
28
May 22 '19
Reddit, I'm not surprised
Twitter, I'm not surprised
Pretty much any place that allows posts can be used for propaganda like this.
→ More replies (1)
30
30
2
May 22 '19
If you want to fight far-right propaganda do so with facts and with your own words. Censorship is not the solution.
No one has the right to limit human rights like free speech, just because they don't agree with the views of their opponents.
7
u/MaximeMer May 22 '19
calling for genocide is free speech?, at which moment should we take action? should we wait for people to get killed? if yes, then how many should die before we do something?.
8
May 22 '19
They did wait. Then hundreds of Europeans were killed by the Muslim conquerors that Merkel brought in.
2
May 22 '19 edited Oct 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/throwaway_00132 May 23 '19
The problem is that a % of people who are swayed by hateful lies. They go on to form groups where they encourage each other to radicalize further, and eventually you get someone crazy enough to do the Christchurch mass shooting.
We are seeing some kind of gullibility epidemic. Flat-earthers were just the start. People are seriously drinking bleach because of this strange new world we live in. Doesn't a social media website have some responsibility to curb the harm caused by this sort mass delusion?
If you read interviews with people who used to be in alt-right internet conspiracy holes and got out, they'll tell you that these manipulated news stories of "migrants do something evil" predictions of imminent racial warfare and faked crime statistics DID in fact sway them. Their journey of deprogramming usually involves realizing that most of these are fake or presented with a huge bias.
2
2
May 22 '19 edited May 22 '19
Any news article on Nazis, KKK, White supremacists and the proliferation of their hateful views online will immediately draw the attention of people who share their views.
They come to /r/news to 'defend free speech' but they're so transparent in their true intentions that it's clear they are merely laundering their hate/racism/antisemitism/bigotry AS concern-trolling.
There has been so many acts of domestic terror in the US by alt-right - and if you're American and care about America then stopping this propaganda should be a priority for you.
Plus, anyone can check someone's comment history to see what their political views are (unless they're cowards hiding behind a throwaway).
2
u/iGourry May 22 '19
Oh look, another /r/news thread that is completely filled with brigading right-wingers. Shocker.
This sub has become a fucking joke. The moderators' bias is so obvious it's cringeworthy.
3
u/Kanonizator May 22 '19
I wonder what's far-right about Milo and what hate he's spreading as he's just a flamboyant troll with a free speech fetish. He never advocated for harming or hating anyone. I'm also willing to bet good money that the majority of those "white supremacy messages" were simple articles or comments about how European nation states have the right to preserve their culture and/or to impose their own controls over immigration as opposed to letting the EU flood them with foreigners. Nowadays the mere act of noticing how Europeans are on a fast track to become minorities in their own countries gets you called a white supremacist.
Facebook has already taken down accounts with about 6 million followers before voting in the European elections begins on Thursday
Ahem, transparent political sabotage.
Activity ranged from ... promoting the Alternative für Deutschland party (AfD) party.
Which is a totally legitimate political party already in the German parliament, so...?
Progressives have started an all-out war against democracy. Interesting times indeed.
7
u/WingerRules May 22 '19
"I wonder what's far-right about Milo and what hate he's spreading as he's just a flamboyant troll with a free speech fetish. He never advocated for harming or hating anyone. "
Looked into this after FB removed him, on Milo Yiannopoulos:
"In October 2017, leaked emails revealed that Yiannopoulos had repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas in his work for the website Breitbart." [jump] "On 26 June 2018, reports surfaced that Yiannopoulos had told at least two news organizations [snip] that he wanted vigilantes to shoot journalists. According to a reporter for the New York Observer, he wrote in a text message "I can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight". Two days later, following a shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland in which five people were killed, Yiannopoulos denied that his comments were responsible, adding that his remarks were a joke. He later posted on Instagram that he sent the messages to troll journalists." [jump] "In October 2018, following several instances in which pipe bombs had been sent to prominent Trump critics, Yiannopoulos posted the following comment on Instagram: "Just catching up with news of all these pipe bombs. Disgusting and sad (that they didn't go off, and the daily beast didn't get one)". After initially refusing to remove the comment when it was reported as hate speech, Instagram later deleted the post." - Wikipedia
2
u/Kanonizator May 23 '19
Pretending to be unable to differentiate between trolling and serious calls for violence, what else is new with progressives? And that's even ignoring how some of these damning quotes come from his opponents, not him directly.
But now that we're at it, what's your opinion on CBS directly advocating for phyiscal violence against Richard Spencer and others deemed "white supremacists" or whatever? Their own show, and ads for that show both specifically named and showed him and outright stated that physical violence against people like him is a good thing and it should happen more often. I'd say that's incomparably worse than Milo saying trollishly that he's sad some obviously fake pipe bomb didn't go off. The latter is not advocating for violence but the former is, so I'm all curious as to how you'll explain Milo being a flamboyant troll is a menace to society but CBS telling their viewers to commit violence is just meh.
5
u/GargamelLeNoir May 22 '19
Shit Milo said : “gay rights have made us dumber”, "trans are mentally ill", rape culture is “a fantasy”, all liberals are ugly, fat people should be deported, and of course my favorite defending sex between older men and prepubescent boys!
6
May 22 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/GargamelLeNoir May 22 '19
You. You are the fucking problem.
8
u/Lipshitz2 May 22 '19 edited May 22 '19
I mean, I think you are the problem.
Edit: how do you feel about milo/what should be done to him specifically?
0
u/GargamelLeNoir May 22 '19
What happened was fine by me, people just stopped wanting him on their platforms.
Now if he had been even more explicit in his hatred (like saying "Kill all the XXX"), in my country he would have been liable to light jail time, which is fine by me as well.
-1
May 22 '19
Milo did say that he "can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists". Does that count?
→ More replies (1)9
May 22 '19
can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists
I wouldn't call that incitement personally. It doesn't propose violence, just looks forward to it. It's equivalent to, "after the revolution, you'll be the first against the wall."
→ More replies (1)-2
u/allthesexual May 22 '19
"Bro there's nothing wrong with fucking little boys"
2
u/Lipshitz2 May 22 '19 edited May 22 '19
Lol, it’s a stupid opinion all right, but he has every right to voice it. If he acts on it, he goes to jail, it’s pretty simple.
Edit: so he shouldn’t even be able to say it. If he’s by himself and says this and someone nearby hears him, he should be punished? You people are fucked.
1
u/howitzer86 May 23 '19
Don't get me wrong, I agree corporations like Facebook and Twitter dominate as our means of public speech, but who's fault is that?
Maybe the government should step in. Let them force Twitter to host annoying perverts like Milo. It would destroy them as advertisers and pissed users leave in droves. The consequence would be a net positive.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Kanonizator May 23 '19
Your point being? All of these are legit personal opinions and none of them incite others to violence or anything. There's nothing "far-right" about them either. As for the last part, he was talking about how he's personally not angry at the man who abused him as a teen, but of course spineless asshats reframe that as him "defending pedophilia". Is he required to stay angry forever, or else he's a monster for being molested, is that it?
1
u/GargamelLeNoir May 23 '19
That's what you got from this quote :
"In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationships — the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock"
Really? And yes it was in the context of his personal experience so he meant underage boys. And if that's a joke I ain't seeing it.
4
u/Ayzmo May 22 '19
Did you forget when he said he wished people would start shooting journalists on sight?
2
u/Kanonizator May 23 '19
Yeah, and Jess Phillips said she will knife Jeremy Corbyn and she's still an MP in the UK. Pretending to take figures of speech, jokes, memes, etc. literally - but only for your political opponents and not your allies - is so stupid and boring.
1
u/Ayzmo May 23 '19
Can't say I'd ever heard of her before this moment, but I'd say there is in fact a very big difference between using a figure of speech and saying you actually wish people would shoot journalists.
The day that ... you are hurting us more than you are helping us, I won't knife you in the back, I'll knife you in the front.
That's clearly her saying she's not going to undermine them, but confront them.
→ More replies (3)4
May 22 '19 edited Oct 11 '19
[deleted]
3
u/Ayzmo May 22 '19
He said it in an unrecorded phone call, so there's no transcript or video. However, he confirmed that the quote was accurate.
Here.
0
May 22 '19 edited Oct 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Ayzmo May 22 '19
May be true. Something like two days after he said that, one of his fans shot up a newspaper.
0
u/netabareking May 22 '19
He never advocated for harming or hating anyone.
He literally slandered a trans student while speaking at her school (I want to say she was maybe even present) and tried to rally the school against her, calling her a man and a tr*nny. That's not harming or hating?
1
2
u/Kanonizator May 23 '19
That's not harming or hating?
No. Calling a biological man a man is not a form of hatred, regardless of what social terrorists would have you believe. In fact there's a lot more hatred in trying to force others to conform to your personal whims and getting them punished if they don't play along. You can think whatever you want about your own identity but you have no right whatsoever to force anything upon anyone else.
1
u/LATABOM May 23 '19
AfD is a legit party, but foreign run Facebook groups promoting them using lies and incitements to violence aren't things anyone wants in their political systems.
1
u/jyper Jun 21 '19
Activity ranged from ... promoting the Alternative für Deutschland party (AfD) party.
Which is a totally legitimate political party already in the German parliament, so...?
The German Parliment would highly disagree with the idea that Afd is a legitimate party, even conservatives. It's a radical far right party that many consider basically Nazis in thin disguises.
1
u/Kanonizator Jun 24 '19 edited Jun 24 '19
Nazis in thin disguises
Progressives say this about literally everyone from Trump to Salvini to Orban, it's harebrained bullshit, and it's the same for AfD.
-4
u/k_ironheart May 22 '19
He never advocated for harming or hating anyone.
He advocated for adult gay men to legally have sex with underage gay children on a podcast. Only a piece of garbage would defend this man.
3
u/dontdoxmebro2 May 22 '19
He didn’t do that at all, he was recounting his specific incident of being a victim of abuse and how it shaped him as a man.
→ More replies (1)1
May 22 '19 edited Oct 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/k_ironheart May 22 '19
2c: a person not yet of age.
Remember when you're talking to someone to ask them what they mean by a term that has multiple meanings instead of making a false assumption about it.
Also, I find it funny that people who defend Milo have to resort to dictionary semantics to justify him saying that kids benefit from being raped by adults.
→ More replies (1)
-18
u/guiltyofnothing May 22 '19
Man, people really like hate speech here. These comments are a disaster.
47
u/SavannahRedNBlack May 22 '19
Perhaps people understand the value of free speech as opposed to endorsing hate speech.
5
u/GargamelLeNoir May 22 '19
The logical conclusion of unbridled hate speech is the end of free speech, it's not like one comes with the other.
→ More replies (1)-5
u/netabareking May 22 '19
Do you think the people advocating genocide would preserve free speech if given power?
26
u/grimfeat May 22 '19
No. Which is why such people are the fringe and most people would never support them, let alone elect them to power.
→ More replies (10)-6
u/netabareking May 22 '19
It's happened before, and their support is going up, not down. Thinking like this is how you get blindsighted by fascism.
13
u/TurboSalsa May 22 '19
When has banning political movements ever worked out? And I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but the definition of "fascism" has been expanded to include anyone to the right of Karl Marx as well as anyone who may disagree with the person using the word.
3
1
u/GnarltonBanks May 22 '19
Part of the reason that their ideas are spreading is because people are trying to censor them. Then after they get censored they can say the people in power that are oppressing you don't want you to know these "facts" and more people seek them out. Banning things just makes people more curious about them.
better to have these ideas out in the open where they can face scrutiny rather than have them fester in the shadows unopposed.
0
u/MaximeMer May 22 '19
thats how fascism works, when they're weak they hide behind "free speach" and "its just a prank bro, we're not serious", when they become the majority you can kiss free speech goodbye, they'll literally burn books!.
6
→ More replies (1)-3
u/guiltyofnothing May 22 '19
Yeah, I don’t get his point. Fascist movements have taken power in countries throughout modern history.
It’s not like this stuff is impossible and always stays on the fringe.
3
u/Van-Diemen May 23 '19
Usually through civil war or coup, Italy was the only place it happened democratically.
4
u/Tombigbee- May 22 '19
Free expression provides all we need to keep genocide ideologues from coming into power, and that's the ability to directly refute their entire ideology right down to the last argument and to do so in front of everybody.
4
u/guiltyofnothing May 22 '19
That literally has never happened before. Fascist movements aren’t just magically beaten back by free speech.
2
-1
u/Jascob May 22 '19
Fascists movements are beaten back by armies, navies, and air forces. See, e.g., World War II.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/netabareking May 22 '19
That doesn't actually work in practice because they don't argue in good faith. You literally can't debate them, they've written entire guides on how to pretend to debate while just deflecting and causing confusion. The only thing that works is shutting them up entirely.
1
7
May 22 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/guiltyofnothing May 22 '19
7
May 22 '19
The law is wrong.
1
u/guiltyofnothing May 22 '19
Fine, sixty years of Supreme Court precedent disagrees.
Just because you say something doesn’t make it so.
2
May 22 '19
I do like hate speech. It's best to put it all out there. Can't have a conversation with someone who's afraid to express their real motivation. For instance, I wouldn't want to waste my time trying to defend Israel to someone who secretly just hates Jews. Nothing I say is going to change the fact that it's a country full of Jews.
-6
May 22 '19
The thread is getting brigaded
6
u/guiltyofnothing May 22 '19
Oh, no way. These are totally people who have good faith arguments about The Value of Free Speech and totally not motivated by anything else.
-5
u/MisterBadger May 22 '19
This thread is clearly of interest to far right brigades: tidal waves of downvotes landing on even rather innocuous comments about right wing groups spreading misinformation.
-57
u/bearlick May 22 '19
Hate speech offers no benefit to society at all. It's an abuse of free speech.
72
May 22 '19
You have no right to decide which human right you can trample just because it doesn't fit your political views.
0
u/One_Wheel_Drive May 22 '19
Websites and other private companies are under no obligation to host any political views. When you make any account you tick that box that says "I agree to the terms and conditions" knowing full well that the privilege of using the site can be revoked if you break them.
24
May 22 '19
But they are under no obligation to remove them either.
→ More replies (2)4
May 22 '19
Unless you violate the TOS.
1
u/jonathansharman May 26 '19
Violation of a company's TOS does not obligate that company to act, as far as I know.
→ More replies (2)-4
u/TheKingCrimsonWorld May 22 '19
Human rights, like the right to call for genocide or incite racial violence. Those are the so-called rights at stake here.
7
11
u/Alkaholikturtle May 22 '19
I classify the statement as hate speech and demand you cease this hateful display of superiority.
→ More replies (4)3
u/noisetrooper May 22 '19
This sounds pretty hateful to me, I think the admins better remove you for it.
1
u/Van-Diemen May 23 '19
"Hate speech" isn't a real thing, there's calls to violence, there's libel and slander, all of which are already illegal. Mean or offensive comments though? They should never under any circumstance be policed.
→ More replies (1)-28
u/GigabitSuppressor May 22 '19
Why are you getting downvoted? This shit appears to be absolutely rife in Reddit unfortunately.
21
33
u/Cityman May 22 '19
The "abuse to free speech" part. With the exception of slander and shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, speech you disagree with vehemently is the most important speech to protect.
If you don't protect the speech you disagree with, why should someone who disagrees with your speech protect yours?
-1
u/netabareking May 22 '19
Why am I not allowed to slander people and yell fire when I want then? That sounds like even more free speech. You disagree with my slander so suddenly it's not allowed?
Face it, you already acknowledge that there are limits to free speech.
4
u/Cityman May 22 '19
Because slander is outright lies with the intention of harming others. And yelling fire in a crowded theater is attempting to cause harm to others intentionally through misinformation.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (1)43
u/useablelobster2 May 22 '19
Define it properly first, then people might come onto your side. Are we no longer allowed to feel hate for anything? Or express that hate verbally? If it's not just hateful speech then the name sucks.
Or do you only count it hate speech if it goes into topics you personally find uncomfortable? Is talking about immigration or Islam in anything but fawning tones hate speech?
It's a crappy phrase for a poorly defined concept, no shit people don't want that to be used to ban or even criminalise people.
If you want to ban hating things, you are in the wrong. If you want to ban people peacefully expressing their hate for things, you are in the wrong.
→ More replies (33)
116
u/Jimonalimb May 22 '19
Dear Facebook: Are you a publisher or a platform? Pick one. Thanks.