Funny how the “most disenfranchised” always ends up being Nazis and Nazi supporters.
Any time an actually disenfranchised person tries to use their legitimate free speech rights to advocate for their own liberty, it’s not considered an action against free speech at all to lock them in a cage, set up free speech zones, or do any number of things to prevent them from voicing their concerns.
I say we give Nazis the same amount of free speech rights as say, communists had in the 50-60s, blacks had before the civil rights act, or Kaepernick had while simply not getting up during the national anthem.
So, let me get this straight. You think hate speech is okay, because the disenfranchised need to express themselves? Why would the disenfranchised need to utilize hate speech to address systemic problems in their society? Surely the recipient of the hate speech is more disenfranchised.
Being allowed to exists IS free speech. The whole LGBT movement exists and spreads via free speech rules.
Plenty of people still think that being gay is immoral. In many places they’re still being jailed for “corrupting youth”. The only places that see social change are those with strong free speech protections. It’s so obvious, it hurts.
The society at large needs free speech protections to show their acceptance of any group. If Nazis are not to be accepted, which I agree with, then the pressure from society will drive that ideology down in popularity. However, the government of any nation will actively resist change to preserve the system of society that is already in place. So, they will actively want to control speech to resist change. Do you want an authoritarian regime? You won’t be able to control it.
Being an ass is not against the law. Not every social interaction needs to have a law associated with it. “Free speech is for journalists” is a useless statement. Who defines when you become a journalist? The government?
Free speech is the only tool available to the most disenfranchised and must not be infringed.
Funny how the “most disenfranchised” always ends up being Nazis and Nazi supporters.
Any time an actually disenfranchised person tries to use their legitimate free speech rights to advocate for their own liberty, it’s not considered an action against free speech at all to lock them in a cage, set up free speech zones, or do any number of things to prevent them from voicing their concerns.
I say we give Nazis the same amount of free speech rights as say, communists had in the 50-60s, blacks had before the civil rights act, or Kaepernick had while simply not getting up during the national anthem.
Are you completely blind to the fact that free speech is exactly why we no longer have separate water fountains in the US?
So, let me get this straight. You think hate speech is okay, because the disenfranchised need to express themselves? Why would the disenfranchised need to utilize hate speech to address systemic problems in their society? Surely the recipient of the hate speech is more disenfranchised.
I think hate speech is an unfortunate, but acceptable side effect of free speech. It’s a net positive.
Being allowed to exist is a much bigger law that overrules freedom of speech.
Plenty of things do, if you commit a crime, you can also still be jailed and that doesn’t infringe on freedom of speech.
Being allowed to exists IS free speech. The whole LGBT movement exists and spreads via free speech rules.
Plenty of people still think that being gay is immoral. In many places they’re still being jailed for “corrupting youth”. The only places that see social change are those with strong free speech protections. It’s so obvious, it hurts.
Removed by mod
The society at large needs free speech protections to show their acceptance of any group. If Nazis are not to be accepted, which I agree with, then the pressure from society will drive that ideology down in popularity. However, the government of any nation will actively resist change to preserve the system of society that is already in place. So, they will actively want to control speech to resist change. Do you want an authoritarian regime? You won’t be able to control it.
Free speech is a tool for Journalists to not get arrested for bringing light to subjects.
The people usually screaming about free speech are just afraid of the consequences of society for being an ass, not jail time.
Being an ass is not against the law. Not every social interaction needs to have a law associated with it. “Free speech is for journalists” is a useless statement. Who defines when you become a journalist? The government?