Are "Hate Speech" and "Disinformation" often just an excuse for government censorship?

I’ve seen that content before and agree that it is awful. Do you acknowledge that there has been hateful and harassing speech of LGBT and others or is it only one group that should be protected?

 

Wait so free speech isn’t the issue even though you specifically said in the other thread and in the post above it is about speech?

and yes I know and fully acknowledge that there is hateful and threatening speech going on. It has happened before with other groups again why the concept of “safe spaces”.
What it sounds like you’re saying above is that there should be safe spaces in campus where such hateful speech is not allowed.

 

Also going to point out that if we’re talking specifically about campus rules MIT and Harvard are private institutions just like social media companies. This thread started out to with the claim that social media companies were restricting free speech because of government pressure. Do you now feel they government pressure applied to
Private institutions like Harvard isn’t restricting free speech but is necessary?

 

Sorry I missed this back in October. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected under the first amendment because it causes direct and immediate harm and has no expressive content. The government already can and does have the power to punish words that directly harm others (fraud, criminal threats, calls to immediate violence). None of that has anything to do with "using Nazi terms". Your example that I was responding to was absolutely about unpopular speech. The fact that you are citing the dangers of social media also indicates you are talking about unpopular speech (hard to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a stampede on social media, and the amplification effects of social media are irrelevant to that issue, the danger is that the people in the immediate area will hear you and panic).

What you are talking about is someone saying something you don't like (Nazi terms - whatever that means, lebensraum? the Jewish question? propaganda? the final solution?) and someone else agreeing with them and based on those ideas doing harm to someone else. That is exactly the kind of unpopular speech that the idea of free speech is meant to protect (because sometimes the dangerous unpopular speech consists of are denigration of an oppressive regime and rousing of resistance, for example). The actual doing harm to someone else is of course punishable, but the government cannot punish someone because they say Israel is an apartheid state, or from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free, or everyone in Gaza is essentially fair game as a Hamas sympathizer. No one who cares about the principle of free speech punish those statements privately, nor encourage others to do so. The solution to speech you disagree with is to speak against it. I can say that when people are chanting "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" are advocating for the destruction of Israel, that I disagree with them, and that I think they are terrible people, but because I support freedom of speech, I don't advocate for censoring them.

 

No

DD

 

ATW, does your idea of suppression of speech ever is a result of powerful people wanting to supress power structure change?

You know the original intent of what people value freedom of speech?


Can I ask why ultra wealthy executives want to supress insulting trans people? How is your hate addiction to trans people affecting the bottom line and power held by the people who have actual power?

When you ask these basic questions you realize how empty your fake crusade in freedom is.

 

He doesn't care about protecting free speech if it doesn't agree with his agenda. He only wants to protect propaganda - his propaganda.