Consider putting the power, and setting the precedent, of altering the first amendment in the hands of this conservative SCOTUS. Is that really a great idea? Fascism arrives as your friend.
Again, when have progressives done this? How are progressives responsible for how a conservative SCOTUS rules on First Amendment rights? Specifically, what legislation has been drafted by progressives that censor hate speech? I have yet to see anyone aside from social media, who have their own set of codes of conduct, be censored by the government over hate speech.
A perfect example would be how Republicans say the craziest racist shit and aren’t censored for it. If anything, it gets plastered all over the news. So your logic is highly flawed, champ.
Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.
Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow “free” speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn’t.
The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True “free speech absolutists” basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.
I completely agree, I was just thrown off by OP’s statement that progressives censor hate speech since I am not aware of any legislation specifically passed that makes it illegal for the common person to make hate speech.
Not at all. I don’t need laws to be a respectful person. Do you need religion to be a good person?
I’m educated enough in political science to know that one of the most common ways to create a dictatorship is to leverage fear of the right to enact socially controlling legislation with the support of the left, then slowly begin to leverage that same legislation against the leader’s enemies. It’s prevalent throughout human history, and a proven system for inevitable authoritarian control.
Incidentally, the other most common way to create a dictatorship is by leveraging the military and police forces against the people, as Trump plans to do in Project 2025. Just food for thought.
In modern history, it’s typically the right wing dictators that got voted in through “legal” means, and it’s the right wing dictators that achieve power by slowly controlling what can and cannot be said by the media. The leftist dictatorships, if you want to call the soviet-style ones as such, do so through violence and the military. You have it exactly backwards which sins here come from which wing. It doesn’t pass a common sense test, so I think you may need to go back to school.
And let’s not get bogged down in utter bullshit. We’re talking about “progressive” censorship here, which almost certainly means hate speech laws. There have been exactly zero dictatorships that flowed out of political movements of intentional inclusivity. Neither the Nazis nor Soviets were concerned with “hate speech”. They both were all about it.
I didn’t say the dictators were left wing. You’re right, they’ve been almost exclusively right wing leaders. I said they begin by getting support from the left to enact social legislation against the right, then begin to leverage that newly created power against the enemies of the government, including media. It’s the most common first step onto the slippery slope.
You said it yourself. Media censorship leads to authoritarian control.
But literally all modern states have media censorship. Literally all of them. For example, prohibitions on libel or fraud. That’s censorship. Confidentiality of national secrets is a form of censorship. Hell, even copyright laws can be interpreted as a form of censorship.
Libel/slander is a civil suit, not a crime. Fraud is falsification yielding a gain. Private institutions can and should determine their own code of conduct.
The problem comes into play the day that SCOTUS puts an asterisk on the first amendment to determine an intangible. As soon as the government has the precedent to enact censorship legislation, the tool will be available to whatever corrupt leader decides to wield it.
I’m not deflecting. I don’t understand your question. Fraud involves a contract or gain. That’s not protected by free speech.
I think the problem stems from your lack of understanding of how the Constitution protects freedom of speech. I’m simply saying once we grant the government permission to silence our enemies, they can use that power to silence us.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now. I’m learning tonight that it’s not actually the case. It was the primary reason I drifted from the ideology.
I am very aware of how free speech is already regulated in regards to inciting violence or a riot, as well as its hierarchical place regarding a content or conduct policy. What concerns me, is regulating speech in regards to an intangible.
I’m a very empathetic person, and it’s painful for me to say, but I don’t believe it’s safe to empower our government to legislate speech in regards to feelings. Unlike inciting violence, the impact is subjective. If we define it as verbal or written attacks on a protected class, then who is to define what classes are protected? How often do we amend it as new classes are created? How do we define a verbal attack? That is a slippery slope of precedent that can be used against all of us, as well as journalists, under the wrong administration.
With that being said, I’m very surprised to learn that all of the calls for hate speech censorship from the far-left have faded away. I’m very happy to hear it, and I’m sorry for causing such a commotion with my misunderstanding.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now.
Progressives prefer direct means to combat hate speech, instead of relying on legislation. And if you see one punch a nazi, no you didn’t. That nazi fell.
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe private platforms owe their users a content policy that protects them from attacks. I just don’t think it should be legislated. If Elon want to turn X into a cesspool, it’s no different than your local bar becoming a racist dive. You just find a new place to go with your friends on a Saturday night.
Since when do progressives censor speech?
Edit:
Again, when have progressives done this? How are progressives responsible for how a conservative SCOTUS rules on First Amendment rights? Specifically, what legislation has been drafted by progressives that censor hate speech? I have yet to see anyone aside from social media, who have their own set of codes of conduct, be censored by the government over hate speech.
A perfect example would be how Republicans say the craziest racist shit and aren’t censored for it. If anything, it gets plastered all over the news. So your logic is highly flawed, champ.
Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.
Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow “free” speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn’t.
The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True “free speech absolutists” basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.
I completely agree, I was just thrown off by OP’s statement that progressives censor hate speech since I am not aware of any legislation specifically passed that makes it illegal for the common person to make hate speech.
I don’t think he’s being sincere.
I was. I’m learning now that I’ve been misinformed. I’m very happy to be wrong about this.
Not at all. I don’t need laws to be a respectful person. Do you need religion to be a good person?
I’m educated enough in political science to know that one of the most common ways to create a dictatorship is to leverage fear of the right to enact socially controlling legislation with the support of the left, then slowly begin to leverage that same legislation against the leader’s enemies. It’s prevalent throughout human history, and a proven system for inevitable authoritarian control.
Incidentally, the other most common way to create a dictatorship is by leveraging the military and police forces against the people, as Trump plans to do in Project 2025. Just food for thought.
In modern history, it’s typically the right wing dictators that got voted in through “legal” means, and it’s the right wing dictators that achieve power by slowly controlling what can and cannot be said by the media. The leftist dictatorships, if you want to call the soviet-style ones as such, do so through violence and the military. You have it exactly backwards which sins here come from which wing. It doesn’t pass a common sense test, so I think you may need to go back to school.
And let’s not get bogged down in utter bullshit. We’re talking about “progressive” censorship here, which almost certainly means hate speech laws. There have been exactly zero dictatorships that flowed out of political movements of intentional inclusivity. Neither the Nazis nor Soviets were concerned with “hate speech”. They both were all about it.
I didn’t say the dictators were left wing. You’re right, they’ve been almost exclusively right wing leaders. I said they begin by getting support from the left to enact social legislation against the right, then begin to leverage that newly created power against the enemies of the government, including media. It’s the most common first step onto the slippery slope.
You said it yourself. Media censorship leads to authoritarian control.
But literally all modern states have media censorship. Literally all of them. For example, prohibitions on libel or fraud. That’s censorship. Confidentiality of national secrets is a form of censorship. Hell, even copyright laws can be interpreted as a form of censorship.
Libel/slander is a civil suit, not a crime. Fraud is falsification yielding a gain. Private institutions can and should determine their own code of conduct.
The problem comes into play the day that SCOTUS puts an asterisk on the first amendment to determine an intangible. As soon as the government has the precedent to enact censorship legislation, the tool will be available to whatever corrupt leader decides to wield it.
You aren’t answering me. You’re deflecting.
Are we legalizing fraud or not?
I’m not deflecting. I don’t understand your question. Fraud involves a contract or gain. That’s not protected by free speech.
I think the problem stems from your lack of understanding of how the Constitution protects freedom of speech. I’m simply saying once we grant the government permission to silence our enemies, they can use that power to silence us.
When it’s hate speach
I have yet to see any legislation passed by progressives that censor hate speech.
It’s been my understanding that hate speech censorship has been a progressive ideal for many years now. I’m learning tonight that it’s not actually the case. It was the primary reason I drifted from the ideology.
I am very aware of how free speech is already regulated in regards to inciting violence or a riot, as well as its hierarchical place regarding a content or conduct policy. What concerns me, is regulating speech in regards to an intangible.
I’m a very empathetic person, and it’s painful for me to say, but I don’t believe it’s safe to empower our government to legislate speech in regards to feelings. Unlike inciting violence, the impact is subjective. If we define it as verbal or written attacks on a protected class, then who is to define what classes are protected? How often do we amend it as new classes are created? How do we define a verbal attack? That is a slippery slope of precedent that can be used against all of us, as well as journalists, under the wrong administration.
With that being said, I’m very surprised to learn that all of the calls for hate speech censorship from the far-left have faded away. I’m very happy to hear it, and I’m sorry for causing such a commotion with my misunderstanding.
Progressives prefer direct means to combat hate speech, instead of relying on legislation. And if you see one punch a nazi, no you didn’t. That nazi fell.
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe private platforms owe their users a content policy that protects them from attacks. I just don’t think it should be legislated. If Elon want to turn X into a cesspool, it’s no different than your local bar becoming a racist dive. You just find a new place to go with your friends on a Saturday night.
deleted by creator