• Chetzemoka@kbin.social
      12·
      1 year ago

      No. You don’t have the right to debate other people’s right to exist. Such speech is an act of violence and should be treated as such.

      I don’t want a group of people sitting around “discussing” whether or not black people are inherently inferior either. That is not speech we should accept in the public sphere

        • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
          12·
          1 year ago

          Says the person who’s never heard their own right to exist or the rights of their loved ones called into question publicly.

          You don’t have the right to “debate” other people’s equal rights.

        • Walk_blesseD
          8·
          1 year ago

          “Speech is never an act of violence” mfs when I use a public platform to smear them as child molesters, while simultaneously encouraging acts of vigilantism against “paedos”: 😯

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            6·
            1 year ago

            He knows. That’s why he’s desperately trying to hold on to his little platform.

            Pick almost any mass shooter at random and look at their online history and you’ll find the same story over and over again; “progressively radicalised by social media”.

            They’re absolutely aware these domestic terrorists come from their midst. Find a far-right enough chat room and they openly celebrate it.

            • czech@kbin.social
              2·
              1 year ago

              The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States.

              In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

              As long as the government isn’t arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with “free speech”. Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a “disgrace to the principle of free speech”.

                • czech@kbin.social
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re talking about a “free speech” that only exists in /r/conservative echo chambers. You are free to say what you want but you are not free from the consequences. We do not have to listen. And it’s not a “disgrace” that nobody cares to hear what you have to say.

                • danhakimi@kbin.social
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  the principles of free speech do not guarantee you a platform upon which to spread hatred. They do not give you the right to force others to serve your positions over the internet.

                  there might be something to be said about “platform neutrality,” but it’s still a competition of rights that doesn’t really justify forcing a platform—especially a small platform like kbin—to host content it views as extremist, or especially likely to result in violence. Maybe you can argue that we should have higher scrutiny in the case of a monopoly or similar large social network due to the power of strong network effects, but… I don’t know how much scrutiny would you need to apply to say “aha, this company is banning terfs for insidious reasons!” no, they’re obviously banning terfs because their bigotry is dangerous and hurtful and giving them a platform just feels incredibly shitty.

                  A while back, I thought—well, I still do think—that platform neutrality should be used to frame the issue of large social media sites that ban talk about their competitors, like when Twitter deprioritized Substack (facebook messenger has banned competitors as well). I’d also argue this principle could be used to ban, for example, Facebook from manipulating its algorithm overtly (expliciltly, specifically) to favor a particular political party or an advertiser (outside of the ad itself—that one is already illegal, ads need to be disclosed as ads). But applying such a rule to general political standards and where you think the norm or neutral position should be is dangerous and stupid.