Comment by soco
14 days ago
Let me underline again that with the "fortune teller". I don't take the absolute view on the internet freedom of speech, that hate speech should be allowed. As hate speech is not allowed on the playground (you get your parents called in) and not allowed on the street (you get slapped) it's not acceptable on the internet either. We can talk details, that the current implementation is faulty, and please come up with proposal how to make it better without running into the full censorship which nobody wants, but also not allowing campaigns based on straight out lying - campaigns all too pervasive nowadays (and yes in real life lying is penalized as well, so there). Or ok if you think lying and aggression on the internet should be permitted because dunno internet, at least be sincere with that and don't beat around the bush showing an imaginary boogieman.
>that hate speech should be allowed
You're moving the goalposts to hate speech. When saying uncomfortable negative facts about government's actions are considered "hate speech" then you're no longer living in a free country. You must realize that.
The whole hate speech can of worms is such a dangerous slippery slope since the government can just sweep all criticism of itself and its actions as "hate speech" whenever it feels like it, and just ban it, problem solved, no more criticism, all citizens are happy, just like in USSR.
"Hate speech" is too broad of an umbrella to ensure it will never be used in bad faith because it 100% will be and it is. Whichever political party will come to power next will 100% gonna weaponize the existing speech censorship rules implemented by previous regimes, in its own favor to further entrench their own power. History proves this yet people are oblivious an think the solution is even more speech censorship.
Like you correctly underlined, we are talking here about a slippery slope. Because all what you present is imaginary implications - in the realm of possibility, I agree, just still imaginary in this moment. Now, what could be done to avoid the slippery slope? Is the law really saying "hate speech" without any qualifications?
Nothing I said is imaginary. That's like saying Hitler's rise to power was imaginary or that the Holocaust was imaginary. If it were imaginary they won't be spending so much effort on censorship.
It's the classic subversion and propaganda stages of denial, the deeper you dive: