Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.
The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.
It's your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that's the problem
In modern societies, we're happy with the government banning the latter and not the former
In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one's which
Government censorship isn't just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.
The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making "political speech" that is only later determined to be hateful.
Even "Good" presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for example.
Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who were born and have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence. He has determined that this racist position is "political speech".
Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.
One important caveat: there is a difference between "speech" and "violence". Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be criminally prosecuted, not arbitrarily censored by the government.
As a US citizen, I wish I could upvote you more.
Political speech can involve hate.
Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.
You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump. You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.
"It is a less significant thing I do, than I have ever done."
I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can't allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don't exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.
Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.
Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas
What even is people's problem with autism? It can - even and does - make people super smart, after all.
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights ... so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc... Sure: they're free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it's important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It's important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently... and I'm saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Edit:
It's been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result.... genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed... but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻
their speech organizes and hate and destruction though
Hateful people will find each other regardless of my or anyone else's views on free speech. Very ominous statement though.
With that said:
Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be. It forces them to find proof and facts where there are none. It makes them look bad.
Nice comment that ignores the fact that hate speech actively harms people.
It also ignores that there are recognized limits to free speech everywhere - try to discuss the best way to murder someone in public and see what happens.
Human rights are supposed to protect human dignity, so free speech, like any other right, needs to be interpreted in that light.
@Ajen@sh.itjust.works correctly identifies this. Any ideals can be interpreted in bad faith to infer something that was not intended. If I said I prefer tea - someone would be more than happy to infer that I hate coffee.
My statement was a profession of what I believe to be correct. It is a brief summary of what I was taught and what I determined to be correct based on my experiences... and I stand by them. Admittedly I did bait a hook for a particular kind of person and am not displeased with the result. It appears to have yielded several great examples of what I was talking about.
Addressing your post despite the rather "loaded" opening which I imagine you know shouldn't warrant a response:
Hate speech doesn't exist until it is uttered. The damage is immediately done. It isn't - then it is. How do you propose stopping that? I'm genuinely curious. You appear to be holding my beliefs accountable for not employing precrime or espers... which admittedly, I don't factor in. They do, however, propose the solution: support the victim and admonish the person who was out of line. There are demonstrations of this, in action, in this thread.
People are social creatures: standing with someone is more powerful than simply removing an undesirable statement after the fact. It removes the isolation from the victim and provides support. It says: we, this group, will not stand for your actions. It isolates the perpetrator and makes them, consciously or not, aware that something is wrong. As I stated before: this may not change everyone but the net result is positive.
I'm happy to continue this discussion but it only seems fair that you expand on how you / your views would solve hate speech as it seems to be something you are passionate about... right?
Strawman. You're implying that OP believes hate speech can't encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.
A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn't go further than "freedom of speech = good"
You say rights exist until they encroach on others' freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others' basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.
You argue it's important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That's exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they're something to be "debated") creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.
You reference people being killed for scientific beliefs. But you're comparing the persecution of evidence-based scientific inquiry to the restriction of propaganda designed to harm others. These aren't remotely equivalent - you're actually trivializing historical persecution.
You're basically saying "we must protect Alice's right to a safe home by platforming Bob's right to debate burning it down."
Also your whole "But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong" - completely disregards the physical reality of the burden of proof - it takes 0 effort to say "yggstyle hates people of color and that's why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything" - and now it's on you to prove me wrong - but every time you spend time trying I'll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute "freedom of speech" is a godsend for bad faith actors.
I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody's "freedom of speech" to debate people's rights to exist.
So, I'm not the person you're responding to, but I have similar views. I'm going to skip some statements, as I can't speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.
You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.
Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there's no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.
You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.
Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.
There's a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I'd just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I'd done wrong and didn't respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn't've had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.
You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”
Again, education isn't the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn't understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.
but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.
The limit of "so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others" means it's not absolute freedom of speech though?
To me, this demonstrates importance of good faith arguments. It indicates that yes, some people should be effectively silenced for their beliefs.
I say “effectively” because he’s right that it IS a good safety net when things you say cannot hurt you. People correct toxic viewpoints like “Why are immigrants the cause of so much crime?” only by being allowed to ask the question and getting corrected.
The ideal case of fixing bad faith arguments would be: Someone engages in repeated zero-effort fake claims as you described at the end, and after the first round is corrected, everyone involved in that conversation declares “All right, this is a bad-faith argument; you’re not genuinely curious about the response, you’re just trying to force a reaction.” And then, ideally, finding ways to de-platform the individual. Again, “effectively” denying them speech by simply not assisting them with theirs. To me, that’s the role of what many call “Cancel Culture”, and I’d want it to be a stronger thing.
I will also say: You made a LOT of claims in your post that the above poster did not make. I was very much considering a downvote, although I agree with the dangers you’re talking about. Ironically you’re exemplifying some of the problems with cancel culture taking effect without conversation and understanding.
You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.
It is totally fine to be politically moderate. I'd go as far as to go full mathematics professor and claim without proof™ that centrists being tolerant of intolerance and extremism is a thing mostly made up by extremists to discredit them.
I can only speak for Europe, but pretty much every center party you will find here actively opposes such things. They don't go around and beat up nazis on the streets, yes, but that's not the kind of opposition I'd expect from a political party to begin with. If you wanna do that, that's fine by me. The thing is, I have a strong feeling that particularly far-left splinter groups tend to conclude that "centrists bad" or even "centrists basically nazis" because they don't agree with them or their methods.
That said, if you ever want to have any say, your only choices are compromise and violence. It is a huge problem that broad alliances are very hard to achieve among far-left, moderate-left and center parties. At least for people who wish to have a left or left-leaning government. Why do we hardly ever get one? Well, I'd say usually the moderate parties are there, ready to pick up the crown, while the left is fighting over which one to safe first and the most once they claim it. And all that is preventing the far-right from claiming power (if anything at all these days) are the center parties some people want to hate so desperately
I would sort myself into the social-liberal drawer. Moderate left. I think reasoning with nazis, tankies, religious fanatics etc. is a waste of time. I also think you're best off creating an environment where as few people as possible become either. And I think the main ways to achieve this are welfare, education and psychological support. The thing is, I want to make this happen at almost any cost and not just demand it for the next 50 years.
The reason MLK said that the white moderate is the biggest threat to blacks is the white moderate is because consent of the masses allows things like lynchings. Today, such consent building allows hate groups to target minorities with little or no opposition, or even using tax dollars to "help Israel defend its sovereignty," while actually committing genocide for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin profits.
I feel like it's more that centrists enable Nazis than are like them. It's not bad per se but it isn't good either.
People used to defend to the death others’ right to say things (that they may even disagree with): National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
[…] The injunction was granted, prohibiting marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. On behalf of the NSPA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the injunction. The ACLU assigned civil rights attorneys David Goldberger and Burton Joseph to Collin's cases. The ACLU argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves. The ACLU challenge was unsuccessful at the lower court level.
The ACLU appealed on behalf of NSPA, but both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to expedite the case or to stay the injunction. The ACLU then appealed that refusal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here is the interesting bit:
According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech, in part due to the realisation that the Illinois restrictions on Nazi "hate speech" were so broad they could have been equally used to prohibit Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrations in Skokie.
People so quick to applaud censorship need to consider how their arguments can work against them to.
...until you decide it's your right to publicly espouse a terrorist ideology like Nazism.
Then fuck you. Letting you Nazi motherfuckers hide behind the First Amendment was one of the worst mistakes America ever made, and I hope the Italian plumbers of the world make it very clear how welcome you are in decent society.