[blackeyeblitzar]

There’s no legitimate definition of hate speech. It’s just an ever expansive label used to undermine political speech and justify censorship or criminal charges. Free speech is the most fundamental civil liberty.

Also no one cares what the UN’s “international law” is. They just all support it or ignore it as convenient, because it means nothing.

[gchamonlive]

It's a dispute between Brazil supreme court and a US based company. I didn't want to refer to Brazilian law because it seemed circumstantial, nor could I refer to US law because the first amendment defeats it. Falling back to international law only seemed natural so I didn't think I should have explained my rationale.

But that was only to say, responding to who asked me the original question, that it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not a legislator. What matters is what's enforceable.

[nradov]

There's no such thing as international law. It's an imaginary concept. The UN is not a legislative body or sovereign entity.

[bumby]

Isn't all law* outside of natural laws essentially an agreed upon framework of convenience? Sovereignty itself only works in consensus (see the failures of the sovereign citizen movement in the US).

*I'm deliberately side-stepping religious law because there's no way to reasonably debate it logically. So this is meant to read "all secular law"

[gchamonlive]

It's all tangential to the point.

> So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?

That was the original question which was clearly designed to trap me in an opinion pitfall. I was making sure I was referencing external sources when responding to that, but nobody seemed willing to take what I wrote in context.

[bumby]

You’re right, I wasn’t making any comment on your point.