Follow

"Bad acts are done by bad people, not bad words. You either believe in unrestricted free speech or you don't believe in free speech"

Fuck free speech then I guess 🙃

genocide, nazis etc 

genocide, nazis etc 

genocide, nazis etc 

genocide, nazis etc 

genocide, nazis etc 

genocide, nazis etc 

@sophia That has to be the worst defense of free speech I ever read. Who's the idiot who should have rather used his freedom to shut the fuck up?

@lertsenem someone in reply to a 'nazis should fuck off' post 🙃

@sophia Ah. Of course. Damn I miss the days when hating nazis was not a controversial opinion. :(

@sophia And of course, lest we forget: "All issues are either positive and negative, black and white, for or against, because that's how human perception and language works, and no grey areas can ever be found!"

I'm just tired of this bullshit ..

genocide mention 

@sophia Bad words are bad acts.

I'd accept an argument that a word on its own is neutral, so something equivalent to a dictionary can discuss a bad word.

But bad words are an act of communication, which makes them bad acts.

@sophia Sometimes I feel like the abstract concept of Free Speech has turned into a monster.

@stolas freedom of speech is just as essential democratic freedom and until recently, a mostly uncontroversial one. It's been demonized so I guess that counts as being turned into a monster.
@sophia

@strypey @stolas Until recently it wasn't being used to give a pass to hate speech and fascism. It also wasn't being used to mean freedom from criticism or a right to be heard or given a platform.
It's become controversial because its use has become controversial and stretched beyond recognition.

We don't have it in my country, we have freedom of expression. It is not absolute,and to argue as such is absurd, but still we hear the same arguments.

@sophia @stolas I'm sorry, these comments have been declared Extremist(TM) and Anti-Democratic(TM) by the #AcceptableSpeechCommittee. Please remove them from public view, or the host of your website will be asked to do so, and you will face criminal charges under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. If the website host refuses, they will also face charges, and their cloud host vendor or ISP will be asked to take down the website. If they refuse, they will lose their HDCA webcasting license.

@sophia @stolas fighting fascism, and authoritarianism of any kind, is indeed important work. One of the most essential tools in that work is freedom from government restrictions on speech. In a digital environment, "government" includes *anyone* who has formal powers to remove your speech from public view. Restrictions on #CivilLiberties are inevitably used by authorities against the radical left. Claiming they're intended for white supremacists et al is just window dressing.

@sophia @stolas
> "I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult."
- Rich Shera interview on #MediaWatch
radionz.co.nz/national/program

This guy from #NetCensor all but admits that "violent extremism" is being used as the thin end of the wedge, to justify a crackdown on information freedom that would otherwise be clearly unacceptable in any kind of democratic society.

@strypey @sophia I don't think I quite agree. It's commonly understood that you don't give groups like ISIS and nonces rights to organise, but when it's a white fascist group suddenly the powers that be lose their nerve and wave it through.

I feel like a dogmatic faith in an absolute Ideal Freedom Of Speech is ultimately self destructive for a society because it just gives bad actors free reign to lie and bullshit and that there's a middle ground to be met between the freedom of individuals and the need for security.

@sophia you can't say that, and if you do you'll be arrested.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
glitterkitten

sparkle sparkle, bitches