117 sats \ 13 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul \ on: Censored news
I don't agree to the radical viewpoint about 'Freefom of Speech' is a lie in America.
Actually, freedom of speech in the US is as close to ‘absolute’ as it gets. It allows, for instance, hate speech against gay people at their funeral. To a normal person - and country - this would be utterly inappropriate. Not so in America.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about what freedom of speech is. It was supposed to protect the people from the federal government preventing speech of any kind. What you are referring to is empowered by government.
In a society that respects property rights the owner of a property can and should censor the behavior of those on their property.
Hate speech is not something that can be defined in law since it is subjective. Even if you and I agree that your example is indeed hateful.
The next thing related to this that is misunderstood is the freedom of association. Every individual should be free to not associate with people they find hateful, offensive, or just don't like. You will always have people that hate other people for things outside of their control or for reasons they do not see eye to eye on. Government cannot fix this.
And let us remember that all government action is violence at the core. So when we say there should be a law, we are saying men with guns should throw someone in a cage for doing x. If they resist they should be violently detailed and possibly killed.
Hate has no place in our culture but it exists. I think it will always exists so we have to figure out ways to deal with it that do not escalate the hatred. Empowering individuals to make choices is to me the most logical way to do this.
reply
I completely agree to your points.
reply
Then do you also understand that politicians push ideas like hate speech because they seek to gain the power to censor those that threaten their power?
You see, both sides in the US cry to daddy government to fix all their problems or stop the other side. They are both building the monster we call the state. Giving it more power over our everyday lives. They both lie. They care about their privileged lives and gaining wealth and power. They do not care about the people. They do not care about defending whatever. They care about votes. They say what they think they need to say to get power.
Its all in the incentives.
reply
Yes, I understand and I can easily see it happening in every nation!
I also understand 'politics is for perks, not for people's welfare.
I was only trying to point out that 'the freedom of speech' as practiced in America is much closer to its aim than it is in other countries.
reply
Fake news is another concept similar to hate speech but I haven’t heard that phrase in a while
Maybe COVID retired it
reply
The fact is that using the FBI to force private companies to censor speech is illegal according to our constitution, and from a human rights standpoint.
The problem with constitutions is they can’t enforce anything, they need people to use force to uphold them.
“ And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
-Thomas Jefferson
reply
Undoubtedly, Jefferson here sounds a bit more practical than others. But, I don't align my views with his. I would rather read Gandhi than such Jeffersons to find out what liberty and life actually is!
"We must first make good the right of free speech and free association before we can make any further progress towards our goal. [...] We must defend these elementary rights with our lives. Liberty of speech means that it is unassailed even when the speech hurts; liberty of the press can be said to be truly respected only when the press can comment in the severest terms upon and even misrepresent matters…. Freedom of association is truly respected when assemblies of people can discuss even revolutionary projects.
Civil liberties consistent with the observance of non-violence are the first step towards Swaraj. It is the breath of political and social life. It is the foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution or compromise. It is the water of life.”
reply
That is considered "inappropriate" in America. Freedom of speech is about legal consequences, not decorum.
reply
considered "inappropriate"
Why not illegal? Can you easily move on without getting any penalties for spreading hate speech!
reply
It's not illegal, because allowing the state to decide which opinions are allowable is incompatible with a free society.
We do have laws against harassment, which these sorts of people can be guilty of, depending on how they're expressing themselves.
There are social penalties for behaving this way. In all likelihood, you'd be fired from your job and shunned by most people. Like I said, it is considered inappropriate.
reply
Ohh! Thank you so much! I was talking in comparison to India. India, so far doesn't have any code for free speech. From 'Social Media' people are regularly picked for abusing this 'freedom'. They are taken to custody and then sent to jail.
There's so much political debate here but publicly people are reluctant. Religious intolerance is also seen as an attempt to kill Indian culture!
Such things are just 'inappropriate' in US!
reply
India is often described as the largest democracy in the world.
Is political expression generally allowed, but other subjects punished?
reply