[curtisblaine]

I don't think groyper speech is (or should be) automatically banned, though. It's a point of view that many find abhorrent, but it should be possible to express it. Same for far left messages encouraging the public to "eat the rich".

[thrance]

Please do not equate demands for more taxations with calls to do more genocides of jewish people. The far right is uniquely problematic in our modern political landscape.

And I disagree, free speech is a liberal value, you don't get to say nazi shit and hide behind free speech. Being a groyper is not a crime, but calling for genocide is and should be punished. Else we run the risk of normalizing these abhorrent ideas and repeating the worst times of our history, like the US seems on a course to doing.

[FergusArgyll]

What does "hide behind free speech" mean?

[immibis]

It means defending Nazi shit by claiming you're allowed to say anything you want.

Timmy: "I think it should be legal to kill Jews."

Moderator: (bans Timmy)

Timmy (elsewhere): "Help, I'm being persecuted for expressing my beliefs!" / "Moderator X is a fascist oppressing people based on their opinions!" / "Platform X hates free speech!"

XKCD covered this phenomenon years ago, but wasn't heeded: https://xkcd.com/1357/

You can see it even in the comments on this post about the UK. Most complaints about UK censorship don't say what was being censored. If Timmy said why the moderators banned him, his argument wouldn't even survive a cursory glance.

[curtisblaine]

Well, censorship has been recentky applied to Palestine Action supporters too (they're routinely arrested in the UK, and they're normally far leftists), so it's not only nazis. The thing that makes hate speech laws safe and fuzzy is that they're initially applied to restrict the speech of your enemies. Then the tide changes, and the same laws get applied against you and your friends.

[immibis]

They're not excusing themselves with "I can say whatever I want to" and "arrests for speech are invalid", are they? - they're not hiding behind free speech. They're excusing themselves with reasons like "You're arresting me for terrorism but I didn't do any terrorism" and "The UK is helping Israel do the next Holocaust, and it's important that we talk about that and hopefully stop doing it"

[curtisblaine]

Yet, they're being silenced thanks to hate speech laws, laws that originally were drafted "to control the nazis". See how it cuts both ways?

[curtisblaine]

> demands for more taxations

That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value.

> free speech is a liberal value

That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not.

> but calling for genocide is and should be punished

And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing)

I have this feeling you don't want to establish a line in the sand for free speech to be free - you just want to pick and choose the examples that you deem acceptable.

[thrance]

> That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value.

Very bad faith interpretation. You know full well that's not what is meant when this phrase is employed.

> That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not.

Free speech is a liberal value. Don't take liberal as meaning "american left", take it as meaning pro-freedom. Nazis famously don't believe in it. The Trump administration only believes in it when they're making themselves to be the victims of supposedly unfair censorship, but then use the full power of the state to silence media, or individuals.

Should we extend free speech to groups actively trying to suppress it? That's the paradox of intolerance: "if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance". Example of this to be found in the US.

> And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing)

You're completely muddying the waters, you know what is a genocide. And throwing in a line about trans people for some reasons, because your side is literally obsessed with making their lives as miserable as possible.

You're pretending that the line can only be arbitrary, when every jurisdiction already has one. Look at that, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[curtisblaine]

> Very bad faith interpretation. You know full well that's not what is meant when this phrase is employed.

I hope you're willing to extend this charitable way of interpreting intentions to the hyperboles made by the far right in their slogans. What if a anti-immigration group came out with the "eat the aliens" slogan? Should they be allowed to chant that? Make signs?

> Should we extend free speech to groups actively trying to suppress it

Again, it cuts two ways. Should we extend free speech to groups trying to suppress public discourse by deplatformimg, cancelling and banning people they don't like from speaking in campuses?

> You're completely muddying the waters, you know what is a genocide. And throwing in a line about trans people for some reasons

I only mentioned trans people because not believing their self appointed sexual identity was famously equated to erasing and genociding them. As you see, the waters are indeed very muddy. You see them clear just because you already made up your mind about what kind of speech you want to allow and what kind of speech you want to ruthlessly ban.

[n4r9]

I'm not sure I'd say I'm being "charitable" when I guess that the vast majority of left-wing activists are not in fact cannibals.

[jjgreen]

The rich don't make good eating in any case, too greasy, too much cocaine, if you must then you'd really want to slow roast ...

[curtisblaine]

It's a quote that justifies homicide of the wealthy class, popularised during the French revolution: "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich"