🇳🇱
This right here is yet another example of why freedom of speech is so important and why I am appalled by the tendency of the fediverse to demonize it.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/25/third-of-poland-lgbt-free-zone-atlas-of-hate-homophobia/
Uspol
@freemo I don't want to demonize the concept of freedom of speech in general. It's a good tool. It can be useful.
However, in the current context of American culture, freedom of speech is one of those ideas that nationalists and fascists have latched onto in a bid to further their own violent ends.
Freedom of speech is the cudgel with which they strike at people such as me, confident that liberals will blindly side with them because, after all, freedom of speech is integral to America, right?
Fascists use the freedom of speech that they are afforded to advocate for violence (in the abstract, and with dog whistles) which would ultimately result in those rights being removed from those they perceive as enemies.
(Cont)
Uspol
@freemo on top of that, the idea of "freedom of speech" in the United States, is integral to the cultural identity. However, people don't understand the context for it, that it is a tool to try to achieve greater truths, or for the advancement of discourse. Freedom of speech is seem as an end unto itself, and through its position as a cornerstone of American culture, it is easy for fascists to gain sympathizers by appealing to nationalism.
"These people hate you and me, they want to destroy our way of life, they even hate freedom of speech! They would have it taken away from us!"
But this is another way to gain sympathy from less politically critical people, in appealing to nationalists identity, as well as pre-excuse their actions.
This isn't really a new idea. Germany has strong bans in place against fascistic speech for just this reason. I don't think that German discourse would be enhanced by the decriminalization of fascistic speech.
Uspol
@Anarkat Well the truth is people who attack freedom of speech **are** one of the most dangerous elements of society, in fact controlling peoples speech is pretty much the definition of fascism. So by virtue of that anyone who says "they even hate freedom of speech" to demonize someone, well, they are right, presuming that is actually what is being done. If its a fascist calling out another facist for being anti-freedom of speech or just an ordinary person calling it out, the truth is there is no place for fascism and that means there is no place for anyone who is against freedom of speech.
Hate what people say, shun the for it, attack them for it, block them and ignore them. Whatever you wish and I'll support it. But if we are talking as a principle of law there is no excuse for a society without freedom of speech IMO.
re: Uspol
@freemo See, I'm an anarchist, and advocate for community self-governance without the imposition of unjust hierarchies.
So then, under the context of a community that governs itself, what is the difference between a principle of law banning this violent speech, and the community as a whole ostracizing an individual for spreading hate?
On top of this, the only place I mentioned a state is Germany.
I didn't say anything about banning speech in law. I talked only about why I don't like "freedom of speech" as an end unto itself because of the way in which it is exercised in the United States to further the aims of fascists and nationalists.
I don't really care for the State doing the job of eradicating fascism, because the State is ultimately in league with fascists, anyway. I'd rather just punch fascists myself.
I explained my position on why "freedom of speech" should not be an aim unto itself, because separating freedom of speech from its purpose as a tool of finding truth, and associating it with a national identity and culture allows these fascists to advocate for violent acts under the guise of freedom of speech, while these violent acts themselves would necessarily bring about a restriction of freedoms in other people.
re: Uspol
@Anarkat The difference is typically rather large.
A law would follow the following pattern: Iif certain things are said a person looses some civil rights, this usually takes the form of prison time but can also take many other forms like fines or deportation (exile) etc.
Similarly if we are talking personal reactions then it takes a very different form, namely stuff like the community not liking you, no one wanting to talk to you, a poor reputation, your sex of interest not wanting to date you, etc.
Actually you did mention states, you mentioned america multiple times. So that was the context I picked on. Freedom of speech really has no meaning of any kind outside of law anyway, freedoms deal directly with where we think laws can or can not extend to.
re: Uspol
@Anarkat Freedom of speech in america only exists as a cultural identity in the sense that many americans support, strongly, the law. Nothing more. No americans think or beleive they are obligated to listen to anyone or that everyone has a right to speak in a private space. So its confusing to call on american culture around freedom of speech without reference to laws.
If we are talking specifically and only culturally though what does freedom of speech even mean in that context. Outside of actual rules or law the idea has no meaning or definition.
re: Uspol
@freemo I referred to America in the context of a cultural identity which fascists rally behind. Fuck the state itself.
Also fuck prisons and the "Justice" system.
I guess what I'm getting at is I don't really want more laws against fascism, but I'm totally behind people locking fascists out of public spaces.
Make fascists afraid again.