>Being anti-censorship makes you a Nazi apologist
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
16
@scathach not directly related but the term "free speech" is going to forever bother me because it does not exist. No i dont mean "everything is so censored" now i mean it literally does not exist as a concept. Ive never once heard anyone define it in a way that didn't sound like handwavy schizophrenia.
@RustyCrab @scathach lol how do you mean?
@RustyCrab @scathach It's not an apriori thing as such, it's a doctrine with a specific goal: to prevent power from leveraging an ability to control communication (and therefore thought) into a destructive tyranny.
in edge cases there's room for interpretation but the overall intent of it is pretty clear and useful.
@bajax @scathach its "useful" but its not at all clear. When people say that they normally mean "freedom from consequences" which does not make sense in any world. The law is full of exceptions on this and discussions always fall into "well THATS not free speech thats..."
my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together
my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach communists don't believe in it in the first place but they'll happily use it while you're in power to undermine you, until they are in power.
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach no it isn't. they admit they don't believe in it. the reason my comment is relevant is because when you see someone bitching about it on fedi there is a high probability they believe in no version of it so a debate over its exact definition with the person is pointless
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach no one agrees on what anything means even if they say they agree, but lots of people get along for long periods of time on approximations of agreement
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I know what you're talking about because for example someone in america might say that child porn is illegal so it isn't free speech and someone in germany says well then holocaust denial isn't free speech because it's illegal, and then you have to figure out how to explain how it's actually different without appealing to some cultureally specific value that undermines a universal principle. or something. I'm not saying you don't have a point just that I don't think it's so strong to say no one believes in it in reality.
@RustyCrab@clubcyberia.co @sun@shitposter.world @bajax@baj.ax @scathach@stereophonic.space free speech is whatever the oligarchy (supreme court) feels like it is at any given moment.
@RustyCrab@clubcyberia.co @sun@shitposter.world @bajax@baj.ax @scathach@stereophonic.space though if you are wondering what it means as it's proponents intended, it would be quite extreme in its protection. Because the point is that congress can't make these kinds of decisions. It is the states that make these decisions. You actually have no freedom of speech at the state level, even if the supreme court likes to pull imaginary clauses out of their asses to say you do.
The State sets the restrictions and definitions of what speech is and what is allowed.
The State gets to issue out punishments, trials, and woodchippering.
The federal government gets jack all to say about it.
Because Congress can make no law and federal courts cannot enforce it.
No matter how extreme of an example you can think of, it probably is protected from federal power (as intended and on paper). The only real exception I can think of would be declarations of treason.
Not that the federal government cares of course.
@lolitechengineer @RustyCrab @scathach @bajax there are Supreme Court rulings since the civil war that lay out a legal framework for which of the bill of rights states can and cannot violate. Some are collective rights and some are individual
Replies
5
@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach
>Some are collective rights and some are individual
Not properly understood. The Bill of Rights was declarative and restrictive on the government; the 14th, just applied that on the states.
The worst SCOTUS rulings involved government power, and not strictly speaking, the Bill of Rights.
The three worst, IMHO:
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
Reverse those decisions, and the centralized rot is limited.
>Some are collective rights and some are individual
Not properly understood. The Bill of Rights was declarative and restrictive on the government; the 14th, just applied that on the states.
The worst SCOTUS rulings involved government power, and not strictly speaking, the Bill of Rights.
The three worst, IMHO:
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
Reverse those decisions, and the centralized rot is limited.
@LoliHat @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach you’re right they’re bad and unprincipled rulings when you read them but just saying that for a long time now you do have an individual right to free speech even at state level
@LoliHat @RustyCrab @bajax @lolitechengineer @scathach the entire civil war is an unprincipled because we killed until you capitulated argument
@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach
The original principles of the Civil War were that those in the North opposed the African ideology of slavery while the Southern elites were addicted to the means by which they oppressed poor Whites.
It was only when the North had the moral upper hand, when it came to foreign relations of the Europeans, that they openly denounce the Confederacy’s addiction to African norms and crushed the rich elite’s, due in no small part to the poor White Southerner’s help.
The reality is that chattel slavery was alien to our culture and those elite who benefited by it were an alien-influenced cancer that had to be culled.
And it was culled.
@LoliHat @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach exit is a right. Fought to drag them back in and comply. Slavery is completely wrong and immoral and an alien value to the principles of freedom yes