this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
763 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3167 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that giving the government the power to regulate what is and isn’t “proper speech” has the potential to inevitably shut down non-bigoted speech.

In your rush to fiercely defend the rights of nazis and bigots, you didn't notice that I was talking about social media, not the government. Mostly because when nazi shit whines about "censorship" they're usually whining that some platform isn't obligated to host their hate for them.

I was gonna say that the rest of your comment was predicated on making a rebuttal of something I didn't say, but you said something that needs addressing:

There’s a popular protest movement from black people - something like BLM.

Government says it’s racist and starts arresting people. It doesn’t face any legal challenges

Law enforcement was already packing BLM protesters into unmarked vans. Said law enforcement was not wearing any identification. Cops have already done what your nightmare scenario says, without consequence. They sure as fuck choose to protect people waving nazi flags though. Professional courtesy.

You're really willing to assert nazis' rights as being required if we are to protect the rights of the marginalized, while not noticing that in practice nazis have rights that we deny to the marginalized already.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In your rush to fiercely defend the rights of nazis and bigots, you didn’t notice that I was talking about social media, not the government

The comment you responded to was talking about hate speech. Hate speech is usually talked about in a legal context - ie European countries and their laws against hate speech. I don't think it fundamentally changes the argument either way though. I think private platforms should be able to ban whatever they'd like to a point. Once you reach a critical mass where you're big enough it becomes almost like a public utility - any lawful speech should be allowed.

Law enforcement was already packing BLM protesters into unmarked vans

Yes, and they were tracking the movement through use of surveillance technology. This isn't news. But they have to do it secretly - it limits their ability to disperse the protests. Now imagine they have the ability to remove any and all support for the movement on social media and openly arrest anyone with a tshirt or what have you. It can get a hell of a lot worse, trust me.

You’re really willing to assert nazis’ rights as being required if we are to protect the rights of the marginalized

Tell me, are you willing to give Trump the power to control what is and isn't valid speech?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And you're continuing to argue against things I haven't said. You can do that without my continued participation.