Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2

5 days ago

[flagged]

Defending all speech however deplorable would be consistent and defensible. The administration isn’t doing that. They are targeting speech they don’t like. Don’t speak out against our genocide in Gaza or be deported/expelled. Don’t share your pronouns or lose your job. Etc.

  • Sure, but is it a good idea for us to abandon that idea and not defend it, while it is under assault from the administration. I personally would argue no, but I am very, very biased.

    What I do not understand, and I do mean it, is why on earth would anyone argue to limit their own right to speech? Isn't it clear that you are, at best, undermining your own rights in the long term?

  • HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization. It is the U.S. government's job to keep out foreigners who overtly do things like support terrorist organizations, do human trafficking, etc.

    It's quite simple, IMHO, and not a free speech issue. Americans don't owe entry to everyone who shows up at their borders, nor do they owe them a full suite of rights and legal protections once they're admitted.

    • Do you really believe that most of the people being deported or imprisoned by ICE this year are truly supporters of terrorism? Since no due process is being followed what gives you any confidence that the accusations against these people are true?

      1 reply →

    • How does that relates to the parents post ? For sure you can understand Hamas is a terrorist organisation AND any the same time that some wants to talk about the genocide in Gaza.

      Also, using a terrorism judgement as an argument is a bit weak because it’s subjective, and because our western gouvernement do trade times to times with terrorist organisations. Heck my own countries is classified as a terrosist and I’m totally free to come visit the USA (which are themselves a terrorist state).

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

      3 replies →

I was one of the people who briefly tried to take right wing “free speech” arguments at face value, eg when Elon Musk bought Twitter. Almost instantly he began allowing white supremacists and actual declared neo-Nazis back onto the platform, while kicking people off for any speech he didn’t like. I don’t think the claim “the recent right wing enthusiasm for ‘free speech’” does, in fact, selectively benefit Nazis and white supremacists” is actually wrong when you evaluate the effects.

  • Would you argue that the "kicking off" is more or less intense under Elon vs. the other guy?

    My impression that the rate of censorship overall has plummeted. Pre-Elon, it was easy to get banned for wrongthing. People would gang up on wrongthinkers, mass-report them, etc.

    I wonder what the rates of actual bans have been.

    • https://fortune.com/2024/09/25/twitter-x-account-suspensions...

      tripled.

      They just want to protect nazi speech, like I said in the downvoted comment.

      I don't care what your vibes are here.

      They aren't even against actual anti-semitism. Happy merchant memes, george soros conspiracies, protocols stuff, that's all A-ok because it's nazi stuff.

      If you have the wrong opinion on israel palestine, it's the concentration camp for you.

      The first group the nazis sent were social democrats, peace activists, journalists ... The famous nazi book burning was at an lgbt institute. I mean they're just doing nazi shit. I don't know why this isn't clear.

      12 replies →

  • This is a general argument and has nothing to do with Elon Musk. He capitalizes on a weak position some of his political opponents bring forward. Not giving him the opportunity for that would have cost nothing... on the contrary.