381
4chan faces UK ban after refusing to pay ‘stupid’ fine (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/37491366

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I might not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to death, your right to say it kinda shit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Within reason. Libel, incitement to violence, hate speech, etc, should be illegal for obvious reasons

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    There is an obvious reason why countries like Germany make a strong stance against any "trolling" nazi joke/imagery/salute.

    But America's First Amendment seems to not understand that reason (or only understand when it is weaponized against communism, black people, trans rights and all the "woke culture" stuff)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago*

    But America’s First Amendment seems to not understand that reason (or only understand when it is weaponized against communism, black people, trans rights and all the “woke culture” stuff)

    Like alot of things in the USA, laws are selectively enforced to protect the status quo.

    "Youre anti fascist? Youre a terrorist!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Germany make a strong stance against any “trolling” nazi joke/imagery/salute

    And look how that's working for them: clamping down on pro-Palestinian protests as antisemitism, raids & arrests over calling a politician pimmel.

    America’s First Amendment seems to not understand that reason

    The 1st Amendment "understands" just fine. You don't understand and want a thought-police state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Everyone has a different definition, but yeah generally free speech in an ideal sense extends to just before you start causing what a reasonable person would concern harm to someone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Fuck that. People spreading racial hate and public lies with the intention to mislead the public should be locked up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I would say intent matters and while it's impossible to truly determine it, we still have a distinction for murder/manslaughter and negligence.

    If a politician lies or hides something for personal gain, that should be illegal, but there's so much stuff the state does where it's best if the general public don't know, public order would probably break down pretty quickly otherwise.

    Same with racial hate. If it's just stating an opinion, fine, I probably don't agree but go ahead. If you're actively trying to harm (mentally, economically, socially or physically) that group, or inciting others to do the same, then that's not fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I can't think of where "racial hate" could possibly be "just stating an opinion" without also causing harm that is both mental and social.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    It depends how you define "racial hate" and how you define mental or social harm. I also do mean social harm, not societal, meaning to catch things like sunset communities (ie restricting where people can live, or where they can go), rather than "society is worse off because of people's opinions."

    Again, in my opinion, it depends on intent. If you make a post on your blog with 200 followers saying "I'm tired of X race moving to my city," I don't think that should be illegal, even if it is disgusting behaviour. If you post it to (eg) a community group for those people, I'd say it should be illegal.

    That said, I'm very liberal on policing, so believe that the state shouldn't be responsible for policing morality, which people may not like when they realise it involves making things that are pretty much objectively immoral legal, regardless of what they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You seem to think that if something is indirect it isn't harmful, so being openly racist with your friends is OK as long as you're not telling the people you're dehumanizing directly? Sounds like you would think cheating on your wife is OK as long as she didn't find out.

    Personally, I don't think there is any good or acceptable racial hatred, and pretending that there is is what got the neofascists so much political clout around the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe, but what about when governments start saying being anti-israel is hate speech?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    hate speech

    Nope: unless you're arguing people are mindless automatons who must act on whatever message they're exposed to, people can be expected to self-control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Hate speech directly affects and impacts the parties targeted, regardless of whether anybody else is influenced by said speech.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago*

    Are you saying if you listen to hatespeech all day, then you feel compelled to commit violent acts? Or are you saying you need to lock others away for speech that merely offends you?

    If the former, then maybe you need to be locked up. If the latter, then you need help working on your authoritarian tendencies begging for a thought police.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent