• snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is not saying that Germany is abusing the law, just that they have an ineffective implementation that shitty countries could use as an excuse to enact their own abusive practices.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            you can’t bring facts and actually reading their source to the discussion, you are supposed to just agree!

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Norway

          Honestly, I’d rather deal with people abusing hate speech laws and punishing them for abuse than to not have legal protection from hate and discrimination.

          The past 200+ years have shown that the founding fathers’ absolutism and interpretation of social matters in terms of speech alone is faulty. It didn’t take into consideration the failings of the people as a whole and allowed for genocide, slavery and civil war, and enabled the very same tyrannical government they sought to oppose.

          And this is because it’s not a speech issue. It’s an intent issue, and society needs to be completely restructured to account for intent, which despite popular belief is actually pretty easy to determine.

          Banning Nazis is the first step toward that necessary change. And if social and moral progress is to continue, it must.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Here’s the thing, I agree that hate speech is bad. But then I look at countries like China and think “I like having freedom of speech”.

            How about when a republican gets in office, and he gets to define hate speech?

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Here’s the thing. I used to think freedom of speech was a good idea. Then I saw the rise of fascism in the U.S., saw how close to genocide we are, and saw those same Nazis were establishing the very authoritarian government the Constitition claimed to prevent with its own tenets like freedom of speech, and realized preventing tyranny is not as simple as that.

              The Nazis you’re protecting already are in office and defining acceptable speech, like Florida, where one of your own is having LGBTQ+ books banned outright.

              If this was about freedom of speech, you’d be calling for the Nazis to be banned on those grounds, yet here we are.

              With you defending your brothers exploiting our greater understanding of social dynamics to subjugate and kill us all.

              Here, I’ll prove it to you. Answer this question honestly, no vagueries, something specific, quantifiable and easy for other people to determine:

              What words could we say to you right now to convince you to stop commenting in the thread and go away silently?

              • Throwaway@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                God I’m so tired the wannabe tyrants on lemmy. Y’all do realize you’d wouldn’t be in the party, right? At best you’d be ignored and working in some sweatshop, and worst you’d be against the wall.

                And don’t think I didn’t notice the casual white washing of Nazis, you anti-Semite.

                Don’t worry, I’m more than willing to just go.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In other words you actually are just here in bad faith. But we already knew that.

                  Don’t worry, I’m more than willing to just go.

                  Well shit, I wish it was that easy in the real world.

    • Riyria@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      The United States. Speech that is used to incite violence, commit fraud, or is perceived to be a true threat are not protected under the first amendment.

        • Riyria@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know about that. I think the more appropriate stance is that it’s almost impossible to have people appropriately prosecuted when they do violate the law. Federal courts are afraid to be the court that starts the chain reaction of more appropriately defining how violation of the law and prosecution should work.