• capital@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Those with the power in Germany chose exactly what to ban that would make their country a better place.

    Because one place had a good out come means all will? And that it will continue being good for them over time?

    I have no idea why you and others think that overt racism should be allowed when it is an implicit call for violence.

    I just told you why. Without the bedrock of free speech, we risk speech you and I like being banned. I don’t know about you but I would like to go on saying things like “god does not exist”, “I’m an atheist”, or “fuck the police”.

    What’s more, I believe in free speech the way the ACLU used to. That is, the principle of free speech, not just token free speech that really just means speech I like.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There is no “bedrock of free speech.” There are many things you can’t say. You can’t slander or libel. You can’t foment violence. You can’t threaten people.

      Racism is a threat.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          You can make this argument about anything.

          The left: “Healthcare is a right!”

          The right: “Gender confirming care isn’t health care.”

          All you are arguing for is maintaining a status quo which has been responsible for countless murders and assaults and rapes and all sorts of other oppression because the right might find a way to abuse something even though we have a real-world example of that not happening.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            The left: “Healthcare is a right!”

            Feel free to point this one out to me in the Bill of Rights the way you can free speech.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Again, free speech is not a legal absolute, so your argument that it is an absolute based on the Constitution doesn’t work. There are already restrictions on speech.

              • capital@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I didn’t say it was absolute. I’m well aware there are restrictions.

                Your example of healthcare just makes no sense in this context.

                Not using the state to stop the sharing ideas we think are disgusting IS bedrock of free speech. And the ACLU used to think so even back when the KKK was far more active and overt.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  If there are restrictions, then one of those restrictions can be “racism is not allowed.”

                  There are hate speech laws in many countries. The U.S. is not a unique and precious snowflake that is unlike every other country on the planet and therefore unable to do the same things they do.

                  • capital@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I edited too late previously but I’d like to remind you of the arrests that were made for criticizing King Charles III in the UK. Maybe you don’t but I would also like to go on being able to say “fuck Trump” or whoever is president at the time.

                    Your faith in the US to ban the right speech is naive.