• Cevilia (she/they/…)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 年前

    Surely the answer is “Depends which bit of it you’re quoting.” For example, if you quote something that calls for genocide then, obviously, yes. But if you were to quote something relatively innocuous, then yes because you’re quoting from a book that, among other things, calls for genocide.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 年前

      For example, if you quote something that calls for genocide then, obviously, yes.

      I disagree. If you quote it in a manner that encourages genocide, then yes, absolutely. But if you properly contextualize the quote, there is no such possible quotation that should be outright banned. Context matters, and intent matters. It’s important to be able to discuss difficult subjects in a respectful manner, and sometimes that requires verbatim reproduction of hateful artifacts of speech.

        • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 年前

          Then the question would be what sayings are resulting in consequences. And that’s when you start loosing freedom of speech. Banning someone from a TV show might be something different, as it’s not linked to judicial consequences though.

          But would you also forbid quoting Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden, Mao, …? This question is a very dangerous one. Because it will result in limitations of freedom of speech.

          • Cevilia (she/they/…)
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 年前

            Ah, my good old friend the slippery slope fallacy. I haven’t seen you for checks watch a couple of days.

            • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 年前

              The question always is, why it should be forbidden to say unpleasant things. First off, in many situations, people are making a joke of themselves. Secondly, you have to toughen up in life. Stop trying to cushion every aspect of communication. We cannot make everyone feel comfortable.

              • Cevilia (she/they/…)
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 年前

                Now you’re just putting words in my mouth. You clearly aren’t engaging in good faith so this conversation ends here. Have a nice day. :)

                • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 年前

                  Now you’re just putting words in my mouth.

                  It was not my intention to do so.

                  You clearly aren’t engaging in good faith so this conversation ends here.

                  I reject this accusation.

                  Have a nice day. :)

                  (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ I wish you a wonderful day as well.

              • anon@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 年前

                I haven’t watched the vid and cannot right now. But responding to the comment above, it should be “forbidden to say unpleasant things” when the law makes it illegal, because the law comes from the elected legislature in a democracy (i.e., ≈ the collective will of the people). This is not about cushioning people from unpleasantness, it’s about not breaking laws that exist for a reason.

                When should it be made illegal to say such things? When we collectively and democratically agree that it leads to net negative societal outcomes; for example, quoting the worst of the Old Testament, or Hitler’s Mein Kampf in the context of uncritically calling for genocide or apartheid is already illegal in some countries, because we know exactly where this leads. It’s not the books themselves that are problematic, it’s advocating for illegal things like discrimination or mass murder based on race, beliefs, etc. Anyone advocating for such things is already legally liable under several jurisdictions, regardless of whether they couch their argument in some third-party written text.

                Such laws were enacted precisely because of historical lessons learned at an expensive cost to humanity. We don’t have to repeat the same experiments just because we didn’t live through that era.

                • wagesj45@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 年前

                  Its a bad idea to rely on the good will of the majority when handing out rights. I think its easy to see in places like America and the UK, and in some places in Europe, public sentiment is slipping backwards. Humans have some terrible impulses and will collectively act on them sometimes. Look at how trans people are being treated right now. Just because its been decided by the state legislatures in Florida that you can’t educate children about sex or gender identity or that exposing kids to the “speech” of dressing in drag is a criminal offense does not make it moral. And yes private companies are not bound to any government laws regarding speech and association. But the ideal of free speech is also worth cultivating beyond strictly state sanctioned violence. It is worth hearing and listening to what people have to say, even if their only value is to used as an example of what not to be or become.

  • osarusan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 年前

    These comments… tell me you didn’t watch the video without saying you didn’t watch the video…