Edit - I never read any comments since the first two.
Edit - it’s ironic that the uncompromising ideology of the left is making Trump 2.0 inevitable. Absolute shame. Read the room folks.
Edit - next day: wow, 60 downvotes. I must have hit a nerve close to truth to illicit a response beyond indifference. 16 upvotes, decent ratio. I’m pretty sure that speaking in support of speech protections will become more of a freedom of religion issue in the years to come, as post-Marxist critical theory takes on more and more of a dogmatic, theological place in intellectual society. I can assure not each of you is at the end of their political and ideological journeys, and happy to have planted this seed. May it bloom. -Omar
…
Lemmy might hate me for this… Musk is right on speech. It’s not often that those in power will have the moral compass to justly decide what ideas can be said and what cannot. Without free speech protections, none of the LGBTQIA+ movement, or other social movements, would have taken hold. It sucks that extremists will espouse hurtful views, but it’s absolutely critical that the speech of minority voices be protected. What will the world be like if the assholes win and say the only legal speech is something that would completely abhor us today. Look at speech in Russia. I believe the country has just designated LGBTQIA+ activists terrorists. What will happen if the wrong people get power in the USA or Europe?
Edit: I’m not going to reply any more. I’ve said my piece.
Edit: one more edit for the downvotes. Someone you don’t like can have a correct idea. Someone who you admire can have the wrong idea. There’s an argument that speech protections should extended into the defacto town squares (short of harassment, etc…), and because of the reasons I stated above, it’s an important humanitarian issue. I’m not some asshole troll trying to stir anything up, just wanted to voice an idea I feel is important. Wish you all well.
Another edit 30 mins later: I’m an HSP with PTSD, so as much as I would like to chat and learnt some other perspectives, my nervous system has a hard time with stimulation when I don’t feel safe that I can be speaking to someone in good faith. I understand this may seem counterintuitive to my argument, but I still think speech protection is an important humanitarian issue that is worth dealing with speech I don’t agree with.
Edit: 1 hour later. Well, I never thought it would get this much disapproval. May you all live life with wisdom and honor and light. And may you never be silenced in your pursuit of justice. Peace.
He has the right to free speech, and advertisers have the right to walk. What's your point
I agree with you. Except, many don’t - look at Europes speech laws.
You're genuinely just talking out of your ass here. There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and freedom from consequences. Quit lying to yourself
Oh, please don't involve Europe. The US is an ultimate "can't do or say things" place right now.
I mean, there are countries where people don't have any rights, but US is a country with major problems, bust still somehow considering itself "a free country"
Europe is dozens of countries, each with their own laws. So which ones are you referring to?
He owns a major social network and his remarks are regularly repeated in the press. Who or what is harming his free speech? The constitutional right to free speech is protection from the government punishing someone. The advertisers are exercising their right to be associated or not with what happens on “X”.
Yeah, some Yung Fucky Dee rapper can flip birds all day, catering to his fans, but he won't expect that Disney will offer him a collab project. There's a completely different level of requirements for being a successful major social network owner/ceo
Free speech is certainly under threat. Arguments against free speech have never been as popular as they are now in the U.S., for instance.
It doesn’t sound like you know what “free speech” means and you didn’t address anything I said about it.
“Who or what is harming his free speech” - I never made that claim. You’re talking to your own mind, not mine, and trying to incite a response in me with your dismissive tone. Have a nice day.
What? Anyway, I can’t really tell what you’re saying. Hope you have a lovely day too.
I don't agree with the guy above, but what he's saying is, that he never commented on Musk's free speech. He's talking about free speech in general for the regular users on social media platforms.
And I have no idea where he's going with the Europe talk. Sounds like he never lived there, that's for sure.
The gist is hate speech is not protected in some European countries. For instance it is straight up illegal to be a Nazi and say Nazi propaganda in Germany.
The fear is the "left" is going to ban hate speech and they won't be able to say racist and sexist things anymore.
I read it more and gathered that, but it still makes almost no sense as there’s the huge distinction between government restricting your speech and other people reacting to it. Plus, Musk is nowhere near a champion of “free speech” and to think he represents the principle in good faith is a severe delusion.
Free speech is in no shape or form under threat here in the USA. People standing up to bigots is not an attack on free speech.
Elon is not free speech, he regularly bans, fires or bullies anyone that disagrees with or makes fun of him.
Elon is free to say or agree with whatever wild point of view he chooses and advertisers are free to decide they don’t want their brand associated with that kind of take. That isn’t a free speech issue, it’s the free market that Elon pretends to love in action.
He doesn’t want free speech, he wants consequence free speech which has never been a thing.
If you look at musjs actions, he shuts down speech he doesn't like. He is only a proponent of free speech that benefits him.
I agree, minority voices should be able to freely say what they want. Nobody has the right to force others to listen, though.
The principle of free speech is good, but it too has limits. Musk is not a proponent of free speech and Twitter is no longer useful for activists or political organisation. Probably why the totalitarian governments invested in it. To shut down that type of use.
I am a huge proponent of free speech personally, and I exercise it regularly. However, I do not believe it is a right to be able to force your speech into places it is not wanted.
Free speech should also include other people's right to be free from your speech, if they so wish. It is not a right to force your speech onto others against their will.
In actual fact, it is only one thing, and that's the letter of the law. Congress shall make no law that infringes. It says nothing about corporations or individuals, who have the right to do as they wish. And frankly, if you want to fuck up some corporations, we'd probably be happy to help with that. Don't listen to conservatives trying to say woke is censorship. It's a lot more complicated than that, as usual.
Feel free to pm me a reply if you'd like to have your say, but rather not engage in public.
Why don’t you want to engage in public? Just curious, I don’t have any contentious viewpoint to express
I was extending the offer to the person I was replying to. As they were taking heat from several different people, which can be a stressful situation, they rather reasonably decided to stop replying.
In the event that he had something he wished to say to me, but did not want to come back to the thread, I extended an invitation to pm me, if he wished.
That's all. I don't personally need to pm, but thought I'd be polite.
Oh I see, in my app your comment shows up as a top level comment not a direct reply to someone. But that explanation makes sense !
Entirely sure that lgbtqia people were actively silenced despite "free speech" laws in America and were arrested and beaten plenty for it
Fwiw, you got my up vote for contributing an honest opinion to the thread. Totally excellent in that regard.
Where I disagree is in thinking that muskrat is making decisions based on a moral compass defending free speech. He will gladly suppress speech he doesn't like, given a chance.
I would also point you towards the so called tolerance "paradox". There must be limits to what is tolerated, or the whole thing breaks down. And that's coming from someone that's pretty damn tolerant of extreme speech as a matter of principle. But the truth is that musk has free speech. He has publicly made statements, and has not received governmental interference in his ability to say dumb shit. Nor have any of the idiots spewing bigoted rhetoric.
I will also exercise my free speech and say that I will gladly put my foot up the ass of anyone that says the same shit as musk approved of in my presence. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequences of speech. That includes my preference for kicking the shit out of bigots, advertisers backing away, etc.
Edit: I would also encourage anyone finding this to go and upvote the person I'm responding to. They made a comment in good faith, that was on topic and honest. That should be an opportunity to have a good conversation about it, no matter how many times it's been covered before. It's an important conversation to repeat. The boundaries of one of the core human rights (that of freedom of speech/expression) is too important to not merit repeated discussion.
The limits are violence, no? The point of free speech is that the government doesn't get to use violence against you for words. When that turns into actions such as violence or credible threats, then self defence and law enforcement come into play.
If you meant that their intolerant language should warrant intolerance from you, then great, that's covered under free speech. But that's not what you mean, you want to respond to intolerant language with violence and want to pick which language is intolerant enough.
Ah, I'd say that when it's the government, any application of the power of state against speech has to be rigorously prevented. Not just violence.
I'm not claiming perfection for myself, I do hold contradictory beliefs (on the surface anyway, underneath they're extensions of a more complex thought process). But, yeah, there's a point at which intolerance becomes such a threat to a stable society that only eradicating it when it arises is going to allow for stability. Once you get into nazi territory, all bets are off for me.
@elonjet et al would like to have a word. Musk and free speech is a good example of preaching water and drinking wine.
Lemmy is even worse than than Reddit when it comes to sharing a different opinion. Don't even try that here. I also do agree Trump will get elected again mainly because the left continues to silence the right. So instead of communication, people from the left have no issues doing whatever it takes to silence voices they dont like. And they call it free speech lmao. This is why I left Democrat and became a Republican. Though last time I refused to vote for Trump, this time I will. Cause the yinyang is broken. We need a balance.
Edit - I never read any comments since the first two.
Edit - it’s ironic that the uncompromising ideology of the left is making Trump 2.0 inevitable. Absolute shame. Read the room folks.
Edit - next day: wow, 60 downvotes. I must have hit a nerve close to truth to illicit a response beyond indifference. 16 upvotes, decent ratio. I’m pretty sure that speaking in support of speech protections will become more of a freedom of religion issue in the years to come, as post-Marxist critical theory takes on more and more of a dogmatic, theological place in intellectual society. I can assure not each of you is at the end of their political and ideological journeys, and happy to have planted this seed. May it bloom. -Omar
…
Lemmy might hate me for this… Musk is right on speech. It’s not often that those in power will have the moral compass to justly decide what ideas can be said and what cannot. Without free speech protections, none of the LGBTQIA+ movement, or other social movements, would have taken hold. It sucks that extremists will espouse hurtful views, but it’s absolutely critical that the speech of minority voices be protected. What will the world be like if the assholes win and say the only legal speech is something that would completely abhor us today. Look at speech in Russia. I believe the country has just designated LGBTQIA+ activists terrorists. What will happen if the wrong people get power in the USA or Europe?
Edit: I’m not going to reply any more. I’ve said my piece.
Edit: one more edit for the downvotes. Someone you don’t like can have a correct idea. Someone who you admire can have the wrong idea. There’s an argument that speech protections should extended into the defacto town squares (short of harassment, etc…), and because of the reasons I stated above, it’s an important humanitarian issue. I’m not some asshole troll trying to stir anything up, just wanted to voice an idea I feel is important. Wish you all well.
Another edit 30 mins later: I’m an HSP with PTSD, so as much as I would like to chat and learnt some other perspectives, my nervous system has a hard time with stimulation when I don’t feel safe that I can be speaking to someone in good faith. I understand this may seem counterintuitive to my argument, but I still think speech protection is an important humanitarian issue that is worth dealing with speech I don’t agree with.
Edit: 1 hour later. Well, I never thought it would get this much disapproval. May you all live life with wisdom and honor and light. And may you never be silenced in your pursuit of justice. Peace.
He has the right to free speech, and advertisers have the right to walk. What's your point
I agree with you. Except, many don’t - look at Europes speech laws.
You're genuinely just talking out of your ass here. There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and freedom from consequences. Quit lying to yourself
Oh, please don't involve Europe. The US is an ultimate "can't do or say things" place right now.
I mean, there are countries where people don't have any rights, but US is a country with major problems, bust still somehow considering itself "a free country"
Europe is dozens of countries, each with their own laws. So which ones are you referring to?
He owns a major social network and his remarks are regularly repeated in the press. Who or what is harming his free speech? The constitutional right to free speech is protection from the government punishing someone. The advertisers are exercising their right to be associated or not with what happens on “X”.
Yeah, some Yung Fucky Dee rapper can flip birds all day, catering to his fans, but he won't expect that Disney will offer him a collab project. There's a completely different level of requirements for being a successful major social network owner/ceo
Free speech is certainly under threat. Arguments against free speech have never been as popular as they are now in the U.S., for instance.
It doesn’t sound like you know what “free speech” means and you didn’t address anything I said about it.
“Who or what is harming his free speech” - I never made that claim. You’re talking to your own mind, not mine, and trying to incite a response in me with your dismissive tone. Have a nice day.
What? Anyway, I can’t really tell what you’re saying. Hope you have a lovely day too.
I don't agree with the guy above, but what he's saying is, that he never commented on Musk's free speech. He's talking about free speech in general for the regular users on social media platforms.
And I have no idea where he's going with the Europe talk. Sounds like he never lived there, that's for sure.
The gist is hate speech is not protected in some European countries. For instance it is straight up illegal to be a Nazi and say Nazi propaganda in Germany.
The fear is the "left" is going to ban hate speech and they won't be able to say racist and sexist things anymore.
I read it more and gathered that, but it still makes almost no sense as there’s the huge distinction between government restricting your speech and other people reacting to it. Plus, Musk is nowhere near a champion of “free speech” and to think he represents the principle in good faith is a severe delusion.
Free speech is in no shape or form under threat here in the USA. People standing up to bigots is not an attack on free speech.
Elon is not free speech, he regularly bans, fires or bullies anyone that disagrees with or makes fun of him.
Elon is free to say or agree with whatever wild point of view he chooses and advertisers are free to decide they don’t want their brand associated with that kind of take. That isn’t a free speech issue, it’s the free market that Elon pretends to love in action.
He doesn’t want free speech, he wants consequence free speech which has never been a thing.
If you look at musjs actions, he shuts down speech he doesn't like. He is only a proponent of free speech that benefits him.
I agree, minority voices should be able to freely say what they want. Nobody has the right to force others to listen, though.
The principle of free speech is good, but it too has limits. Musk is not a proponent of free speech and Twitter is no longer useful for activists or political organisation. Probably why the totalitarian governments invested in it. To shut down that type of use.
I am a huge proponent of free speech personally, and I exercise it regularly. However, I do not believe it is a right to be able to force your speech into places it is not wanted.
Free speech should also include other people's right to be free from your speech, if they so wish. It is not a right to force your speech onto others against their will.
In actual fact, it is only one thing, and that's the letter of the law. Congress shall make no law that infringes. It says nothing about corporations or individuals, who have the right to do as they wish. And frankly, if you want to fuck up some corporations, we'd probably be happy to help with that. Don't listen to conservatives trying to say woke is censorship. It's a lot more complicated than that, as usual.
Feel free to pm me a reply if you'd like to have your say, but rather not engage in public.
Why don’t you want to engage in public? Just curious, I don’t have any contentious viewpoint to express
I was extending the offer to the person I was replying to. As they were taking heat from several different people, which can be a stressful situation, they rather reasonably decided to stop replying.
In the event that he had something he wished to say to me, but did not want to come back to the thread, I extended an invitation to pm me, if he wished.
That's all. I don't personally need to pm, but thought I'd be polite.
Oh I see, in my app your comment shows up as a top level comment not a direct reply to someone. But that explanation makes sense !
Entirely sure that lgbtqia people were actively silenced despite "free speech" laws in America and were arrested and beaten plenty for it
Fwiw, you got my up vote for contributing an honest opinion to the thread. Totally excellent in that regard.
Where I disagree is in thinking that muskrat is making decisions based on a moral compass defending free speech. He will gladly suppress speech he doesn't like, given a chance.
I would also point you towards the so called tolerance "paradox". There must be limits to what is tolerated, or the whole thing breaks down. And that's coming from someone that's pretty damn tolerant of extreme speech as a matter of principle. But the truth is that musk has free speech. He has publicly made statements, and has not received governmental interference in his ability to say dumb shit. Nor have any of the idiots spewing bigoted rhetoric.
I will also exercise my free speech and say that I will gladly put my foot up the ass of anyone that says the same shit as musk approved of in my presence. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequences of speech. That includes my preference for kicking the shit out of bigots, advertisers backing away, etc.
Edit: I would also encourage anyone finding this to go and upvote the person I'm responding to. They made a comment in good faith, that was on topic and honest. That should be an opportunity to have a good conversation about it, no matter how many times it's been covered before. It's an important conversation to repeat. The boundaries of one of the core human rights (that of freedom of speech/expression) is too important to not merit repeated discussion.
The limits are violence, no? The point of free speech is that the government doesn't get to use violence against you for words. When that turns into actions such as violence or credible threats, then self defence and law enforcement come into play.
If you meant that their intolerant language should warrant intolerance from you, then great, that's covered under free speech. But that's not what you mean, you want to respond to intolerant language with violence and want to pick which language is intolerant enough.
Ah, I'd say that when it's the government, any application of the power of state against speech has to be rigorously prevented. Not just violence.
I'm not claiming perfection for myself, I do hold contradictory beliefs (on the surface anyway, underneath they're extensions of a more complex thought process). But, yeah, there's a point at which intolerance becomes such a threat to a stable society that only eradicating it when it arises is going to allow for stability. Once you get into nazi territory, all bets are off for me.
@elonjet et al would like to have a word. Musk and free speech is a good example of preaching water and drinking wine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Lemmy is even worse than than Reddit when it comes to sharing a different opinion. Don't even try that here. I also do agree Trump will get elected again mainly because the left continues to silence the right. So instead of communication, people from the left have no issues doing whatever it takes to silence voices they dont like. And they call it free speech lmao. This is why I left Democrat and became a Republican. Though last time I refused to vote for Trump, this time I will. Cause the yinyang is broken. We need a balance.