This is something I've been shouting from the rooftops every time people online cheer on the idea of "cracking down" on hate speech. It eventually will be used against you because some dipshits will redefine what "hateful" means.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
262 points (93.1% liked)
World News
38978 readers
2659 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Hate speech isn't even mentioned in this article, and hate speech is a term with specific legal definitions (depending on your country). You're spreading misinformation against laws that protect minorities.
Bad actors using illegitimate bad faith definitions is not a valid reason to do nothing about a problem.
Politicians are also redefining climate protests as terrorism. That doesn't mean that we should ignore terrorism OR climate catastrophe.
Sooo nothing should be done about hate speech bc you might be incorrectly defined as a bigot? That's fucking ridiculous, how the hell can you support hateful fuckers being allowed to spew their bile? Surely it's not because you're a bigoted fucker who says a lot of hate speech right? That would be ridiculous
Checked your comments just to be sure I wasn't way off base and holy shit I wasn't xD defending hate speech against black people, defending trump being on the ballot, saying the government should never do anything about hateful ideologies. You're the scum of the earth, I hope your fascist ass gets put in a camp by the people you think are defending free speech
Is this a joke? In one of your recent comments you're using the word Zionist negatively. That would already be considered hate speech somewhere.
using the word Zionist negatively. That would already be considered hate speech somewhere.
Which is also bullshit. Zionism is a political ideology, not an ethnicity. In fact, failing to make that distinction is antisemitism, as is the "Israel = Jewish people in general" bullshit that genocide deniers also use to silence dissent.
"Some people incorrectly call me a bigot, therefore nothing should ever be done about bigotry ever." Grow the fuck up
TIL the government is some people
hate speech is a different thing from the government's definition of extremist groups.
I'm talking about the state, not whatever it is you choose to do in your personal capacity. I don't care what you call me. I care if the state labels me something that they can jail me for. This article is about the state labeling pro-Palestine solidarity as extremist. I can't speak for you, but I don't think that the state should have the right to quell that speech. If you do, then I think we have fundamentally different philosophies.
I'm 1000% against governments labeling criticism of Israel or support for Gaza hate speech too, but ffs the problem here isn't that the government should just allow all hate speech all the time. If you think a republican's right to say I'm a groomer and call for my execution/lynching is good or more important than my safety you can go fuck yourself (edited phrasing a bit)
Calling for violence against anyone should be illegal imo. But yes that includes things like telling people to punch nazis.
Otherwise if they actually do convince people you're a groomer they'll think it's ok to punch you too. "Group x is an exception" or "subject matter y isn't protected" is the problem, not disallowing certain rhethorics.
Hey look, it's a cishet white guy who thinks his opinion on hate speech is relevant!
Punching Nazis will always be necessary and based, no matter what a spineless centrist on the internet has to say about it
U got the white part correct, congrats.
And no, I just have principles. And well, the intelligence to realize that it's not the greatest wau forward. Would still press a magic button that instantly kills all nazis, but that doesn't exist.
If your principles are that nazis should be allowed to exist peacefully and spew their hate wherever they want, your principles are shit and you should get some new ones, like actually giving a shit about your minority friends who nazis are actively trying to kill
Way to miss the point entirely.
Oh well no point trying to talk to someone not even trying to think about things.
My point is that my safety is more important than your right to call me slurs and call for my death. Your point is shit and irrelevant because you think fascists need to be protected and supported rather than fought against. Have a shit day :)
And my point is that allowing calls for violence potentially compromises safety of any marginalized group as it removea hurdles when the wrong people get into power, and punching nazis is just going to radicalize them more anyway, so that's also not gonna help.
But, yknow, imagine thinking.
And again, your point is shit :) why do you feel the need to stretch so fucking far to explain how restricting hate speech and fighting nazis is actually bad? (rhetorical question)
BTW you're blatantly lying about the punching nazis bit, we punched the fuck out of them during the trump administration and as you know there were a lot fewer nazis going out and demonstrating near the end of that administration. Many of them specifically said they're too afraid of physical violence to continue spewing their hate on the street. But again, you know that, and that's exactly why you're against it. Go to hell nazi trash, maybe try a little harder next time if you're trying to convince people to oppose civil rights (or just unalive, that'd be best for everyone 🌸)
- Spewing their hate on the street is different from just being a nazi
- yes obviously it'll stop them from doing that but it won't stop them from harboring their ideology. A large reason ppl end up in extremist circles is feeling like they don't fit into society, what's gonna happen when you continue isolating them?
You're also making an awful lot of assumptions about me, given that i went to demos against a far right party here before lmao
Btw, how the fuck would i know if ppl got violent against hateful shitheads in some other country and especially what the shitheads' reaction was (even if it's fairly obvious)
"i went to demos against a far right party" as a counterprotestor I'm sure. For someone who halfheartedly claims to be against the far right you sure do write a lot of paragraphs defending their right to call for my death
So you're from a country that isn't full of nazis. That means you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about. Punching nazis works, this is a fact, one you're either fully aware of and that's why you're against it, or one that you know nothing about bc you have no idea how to deal with nazis. Americans are pros at dealing with fascists, you should stay in your lane and quit putting your heart and soul into defending the evil fuckers 💖
I'm from the country that spawned nazis lol, pretty sure if you're going that route you're the unqualified one for not being german.
Violence works great for keeping people out of political discourse (part of how the nsdap rose to power), it doesn't work to have them consider changing their minds.
k
They never do understand, no matter how many times you tell them.
Suddenly, being against freedom of speech is okay if you're cracking down on speech you don't like. WTF is going on?
Hasn't that always been the case on the far right? Isn't that, like, almost part of the definition at this point?
Same thing that happened before a certain German dude with a mustache got elected 100 years ago...
What an anti-semitic law.
the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others
This describes Zionism, and anti-Zionism is anti-semitism in some jurisdictions.
It isn't a law. They haven't bothered to go through any of the necessary processes to make it a law, because that would require a consultation phrase, instead they've just announced this. It amounts to absolutely nothing and everyone can safely ignore it.
This is just the insane rumbling of a failed government. No one pays any attention to anything they do anymore because it's all so irrelevant.
We went from 0 to CCP in half a year. Good bye free speech we hardly believed in ye.
It's been a lot longer tha half a year my freind.
Yeah the banning of protests happen right after Brexit if I recall correctly
Governments only tolerate the right to protest as long as you aren't actually protesting something they don't want to change.