This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
Well first off people who make the argument that hate speech is protected and is also equally valid usually are using it for political cover and have no intention of expending those rights to the rivals and enemies.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I also got to ask myself what kinds of people think hate speech against gay people, immigrants and others is even okay since it often leads to violence as hate speech is generally more violent speech in nature. It's kind of borderline to a threat without it being a direct threat.
But hate speech has also caused real violence, so I'm not understanding why it's okay to vaguely threaten someone and therefore, that should be a right.
But hate speech has also caused real violence, so I'm not understanding why it's okay to vaguely threaten someone and therefore, that should be a right.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Maybe you're right; I can't read their minds. It's still concerning that the amount of the future generaiton that wants to do away with free speech (because banning hate speech is doing that) is barely a minority.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Also, why'd you say "first off" but didn't say anything secondly? 🤔
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@BRUUH Umm no. Banning hate speech has fuck all with freedom of speech. Pretending it does suggests you want an excuse to justify hate speech. That is the only way that works.
A country where calling for the destruction of people is the kinds of countries that plunge into dictatorships. We have at a minimum a century of history that proves that.
A country where calling for the destruction of people is the kinds of countries that plunge into dictatorships. We have at a minimum a century of history that proves that.