>Being anti-censorship makes you a Nazi apologist
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
14
@scathach not directly related but the term "free speech" is going to forever bother me because it does not exist. No i dont mean "everything is so censored" now i mean it literally does not exist as a concept. Ive never once heard anyone define it in a way that didn't sound like handwavy schizophrenia.
@RustyCrab @scathach lol how do you mean?
@RustyCrab @scathach It's not an apriori thing as such, it's a doctrine with a specific goal: to prevent power from leveraging an ability to control communication (and therefore thought) into a destructive tyranny.
in edge cases there's room for interpretation but the overall intent of it is pretty clear and useful.
@bajax @scathach its "useful" but its not at all clear. When people say that they normally mean "freedom from consequences" which does not make sense in any world. The law is full of exceptions on this and discussions always fall into "well THATS not free speech thats..."
my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together
my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach communists don't believe in it in the first place but they'll happily use it while you're in power to undermine you, until they are in power.
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach no it isn't. they admit they don't believe in it. the reason my comment is relevant is because when you see someone bitching about it on fedi there is a high probability they believe in no version of it so a debate over its exact definition with the person is pointless
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach no one agrees on what anything means even if they say they agree, but lots of people get along for long periods of time on approximations of agreement
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I know what you're talking about because for example someone in america might say that child porn is illegal so it isn't free speech and someone in germany says well then holocaust denial isn't free speech because it's illegal, and then you have to figure out how to explain how it's actually different without appealing to some cultureally specific value that undermines a universal principle. or something. I'm not saying you don't have a point just that I don't think it's so strong to say no one believes in it in reality.
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I have read several supreme court rulings and transcripts. I am not a lawyer but you can work through the rational process, or obvious lack of it, in them. a lot of them are surprisingly badly reasoned. but a lot of the speech ones are really good and have accumulated over time into a fairly-coherent idea. I like it and mostly agree with it. there are places it has unprincipled exceptions but a lot fo the exceptions are for practical governance reasons. not all of them.
tons of people don't boil free speech down to just my speech. they make exceptions for a lot of things for a lot of reasons but a lot of people very clearly believe you have a right to voice an opinion even if they think it's wrong. a lot of people don't have a coherent idea of it but a lot of people do even if it varies. there are people that say they support free speech then just punish their enemies. they are just hypocrites, that doesn't undermine the concept. you can always argue over the line. but I found most of the time it's a trick. "oh this person got punished for criticising" and you look closer and they just pissed off someone with their speech and dug up a skeleton in their closet and legally fried them. not a free speech issue in reality.
the reason I say its this way for everything is I have argued with somebody about almost everything over my entire life and if you go long enough every argument ends with "I can't get any further without just appealing to my prerational value system, I want my values not your values this argument is over". but some peoples values include your freedom to hold/express opposing ones.
tons of people don't boil free speech down to just my speech. they make exceptions for a lot of things for a lot of reasons but a lot of people very clearly believe you have a right to voice an opinion even if they think it's wrong. a lot of people don't have a coherent idea of it but a lot of people do even if it varies. there are people that say they support free speech then just punish their enemies. they are just hypocrites, that doesn't undermine the concept. you can always argue over the line. but I found most of the time it's a trick. "oh this person got punished for criticising" and you look closer and they just pissed off someone with their speech and dug up a skeleton in their closet and legally fried them. not a free speech issue in reality.
the reason I say its this way for everything is I have argued with somebody about almost everything over my entire life and if you go long enough every argument ends with "I can't get any further without just appealing to my prerational value system, I want my values not your values this argument is over". but some peoples values include your freedom to hold/express opposing ones.
Replies
2
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I guess I am just saying I have met many many many people I greatly disagreed with that expressed in good faith why they disagreed about something including exactly what free speech covers, people like hillary clinton or trump are obviously acting in bad faith of course they don't believe in anything.
@sun@shitposter.world @RustyCrab@clubcyberia.co @bajax@baj.ax @scathach@stereophonic.space
surprisingly badly reasonedvirtually every president, Jefferson and onward, has complained about how trash the supreme court is and how prone they are to pulling shit out of their asses. Of course with the notable exception of Lincoln who somehow got everything he wanted.
We were warned by the likes of George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and Luther Martin exactly how this would turn out. There's a reason they wanted juries and for multiple different bodies to fill different seats. Among other alterations ignored by the federalists at the time.