• Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    And those that still think fReE sPEECh is an acceptable concept in the modern world?

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Ya know I never thought I’d see the day that a marginalized people would protest free speech fundamentally. This is just next level stupid.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Free speech is absolutely an acceptable concept, but it’s merely a restriction on government.

      Private platforms are free to drop you from their platform if they don’t like your speech, and you can be prosecuted if your speech violates a law (e.g. hate speech). Platforms can also restrict the types of speech allowed on their platforms. None of that is a violation of free speech.

      Free speech is only violated if governments place a restriction on the speech itself, or force private entities to enforce restrictions.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        but it’s merely a restriction on government.

        It isn’t. Free speech is a right the gov can give you, but it’s also just a concept.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              51 minutes ago

              It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what you wrote.

              The Bill of Rights in the US only exists to prevent encroachment on individual rights, they’re not necessary in order for people to have them. Arguably, governments only have rights explicitly granted to them, because they only exist due to the people submitting themselves to them.

              It’s an important distinction, and one so many seem to misunderstand. I’m not saying you do, I’m merely clarifying in case someone else does.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                46 minutes ago

                It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what you wrote.

                You ignored the point I was making to argue about semantics. Still are. That’s a strawman.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Free speech without consequences is what fascists are after. Free speech is an action to which they want no reaction or even worse when there is a negative reaction (also a desired goal) they will use that to attack the structures attempting to uphold peace.