!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Free speech means the government is not allowed to censor your speech.
Free speech does not mean you have carte blanche to say whatever you want with zero consequences, and those consequences may involve getting curb stomped by people who are deeply offended by reprehensible things you say. There is nothing in any social contract anywhere that says you can say literally whatever you want without any consequences whatsoever.
Hate speech is not a well-defined word.
I see that as THE major problem in this debate. But many of the campaigners/influencers/politicians avoid to define it clearly. They try to only discuss whether hate speech should be free or limited, but they don't say what it even is.
These are THE DISHONEST ONES among the campaigners!! Some of them try to limit every word you say so only a fine polished meaninglessness remains allowed, and no criticism anymore.
I have no problem with disallowing hate speech according to a most strict and narrow definition: if its purpose is to incite hatred on large scale, like a war or a racial genocide etc.
But all things like a common bar brawl or telling a politician what he is, that must always be free speech.
The American model of free speech is anything but. It's a narrative cover over reality.
The US government has always and will always choose what speech is unacceptable and repress it. They have been doing so for centuries. They have killed so many people for speaking. They have entire departments dedicated to media manipulation and censorship. They have vast financial incentives organized by the government to limit speech. There have been at least 2 open purges of communists and a third purge is burgeoning as we speak.
The American model is not actually that the government should not have the power to limit speech but rather that the government will limit violent speech if it goes against the government's goals and will protect violent speech if it supports the government's goals. That's why white supremacist hate speech is protected in the US - not because America is a shining beacon of free speech but because America is shining beacon of white supremacy.
Free speech is the idea that anyone can voice their own opinions, yes. However, if these opinions hurts others or restrict their free speech in some way, I feel like that shouldn't be allowed. I think most people would probably agree with this.
"Hate speech" is a very broad term that describes all sorts of nasty ideas, but let's give an example of a bigot who wants to relinquish women's suffrage (right to vote) and is advocating for this idea in a public area. This would be an attempt to block the free speech of women, and should not be allowed! You could insert other discriminated communities into this analogy, bigots hate anything that's even a little bit different from themselves.
Hate speech, in a nutshell, is advocating for the removal of rights and/or violence against certain groups of people. In either case, it restricts the freedom of speech of these communities. In many countries where free speech is not as strong, the removal of rights and state violence havd both been used to silence opposition.
In a larger scale of rights overall, your rights to do something should end when it restricts other people's rights. No one person should be above another. Not really how the world works, but it's the idealistic goal.
Of note, looking at their post history, the original poster seems to have unfavourable views on transgender folks. Yikes!
Their oldest post shows they seem slightly Islamophobic too, at least towards certain sects of Islam. It is titled "how the Sunnis are hiding their atrocities" with no additional context. I'm not religious, but I feel like that isn't very cool of you. In another post, they refer to people who are against Iran's current regime as "exmuslims", implying that OP believes that Muslim = pro-Iran. I also think naming yourself after deities is generally considered disrespectful to most religions, though that differs depending on where you live (e.g. in Latin America, "Jesus" is a common given name), maybe it was okay for OP?
Another thing, they recently posted a few pro-Zionist articles in the news communities, one that claimed the bombed school was actually caused by the Iranians, and another that was about Hamas by the pro-Israeli "YNet" newspaper. They have also been posting off-topic content in these news communities, like for some reason they posted an article about how LLMs would support Palestine over Israel (how is that relevant??)
Hate speech is free speech
So is criticizing the assholes who say it, turnabout it fair play.
There are some cultures, religions, etc. with pretty abhorrent customs that people should be free to criticize, and if you're not careful with how you craft and apply hate speech laws, people may not be able to speak out against those injustices like they should be.
I'd also rather have the assholes be out in the open about their shitty beliefs. If you're dumb enough to, for example, fly a Nazi flag at your home, business, on a bumper sticker on your car, etc. that's convenient for me because I know not to give you business, hire you, stop to help you with a flat tire, give you a friendly wave, etc. If you're keeping your nazidom in the closet and pretending to be a decent human being, how would I know not to give you the time of day?
I have a tiny bit of a libertarian streak, I'm not a "Big L" libertarian who thinks that roads should be privatized and corporations should be able to do whatever they want, and all of that other bullshit, I like receiving government services when I need them and I'm generally fine with my tax dollars paying for them for others (not that I don't have some strong criticism about some of what the government does with my taxes)
But I do like individual liberties, and I think that with the right guard rails in place (mostly strong public education and social safety nets to make sure that people can afford to "vote with their wallets" and the ability to make responsible, informed decisions about how they do that, as well as strong limits on corporate power to make sure that there can be alternatives that people can take their money to) capitalism can be a pretty neat and tidy solution to a lot of problems.
In my sort of ideal world if someone is spouting hate speech, they just become a social pariah, no one would want to hire them, no one would buy their products, no one would sell products or services to them, no one would give them a platform or an audience, and when they get up on their soapbox they'd be immediately shouted down off of it by everyone within earshot. And if the local bakery, car dealer ISP, grocery store, energy company, etc. happens to be owned by one of those pieces of shit, it should be within the reach of anyone to start up their own competing company and drive the asshole out of business because given the alternative everyone should want to give their business to them instead of the asshole.
Freedom of speech...
Yes, well
Free speech isnt just the speech we like, its ALL speech.
For example "HAIL HITLER" or "DIE YOU [insert extremely insultive words]"
All hate speech is free speech, but not all free speech is hate speech
People often mistake freedom of speach / expression to mean they can say anything they want without reprocutions while ignoring laws that already exist to set restrictions (perjury, libel/slander, obscenity, etc).
The rights of one person stops when it infringes on the rights of another. If a person's speach or actions is determined to be producing harm then there should be consequences.
Freedom of speach does not mean freedom from being responsible for that speach.
Didn't watch the nearly half hour video, so just answering your question.
Free speech is free,if you limit it, its not free speech anymore, I will not argue against that. If you are for free speech, then government shouldn't interfere and hate speech is part of that.
And honestly the way especially the UK but also other western countries are handling criticism against Israels actions under the umbrella of hate crimes is exactly what free speech proponents warned about. Hard to argue against that after the current events.
But I am not a free speech proponent, exactly because I think there should be limits to what is allowed to be said regarding lies and AlTeRnAtIvE fAcTs.
Hate speech is something that is regrettable, but nowadays I think it should be socially shamed and judged, not by the government (except if they are government workers). So moderators of social media are free to ban it in their rooms, but not enforced by the government.
Free speech is used nonsensically, because it is now mostly used by far-right extremists that try to manipulate their audience. It doesn't mean just "free speech" anymore.
I'm going to exercise my free speech here: what a good job ChatGPT did at summarizing this video. Is this really a thought provoking post or just a way to boost the views over at YT?
If the US model is so great, why is the country so royally fucked right now? The first amendment only tells governments not to limit what people can say. If you have enough money you can buy CBS or the Washington Post and silence critical voices or just scuttle the whole ship respectively. And that's not the government censoring, it's just a good buddy of the big guy or some brownnoser doing it looking for favors at the court of the king. Freedom of speech becomes something you need to be able to afford. When even the big guy files frivolous lawsuits against media outlets that didn't want to get up his ass for a gazillion dollars. Just to tie them down in courts hoping they will settle and in the meantime be extra careful not to incur more wrath. What happens when hate speech and libel laws don't work, you get Alex Joneses who make a business model out of being a despicable excuse for a human being. Your freedom of speech situation is very much like your healthcare system, in that it is very different from lots of other developed nations and the consequences are tragic.