• Hard disagree. Hate speech shouldn’t be censored. I believe in freedom of speech. Prosecuting people for “hate speech” misunderstands what freedom of speech is.

      As long as you don’t threaten direct harm to a particular individual, you should not be censored or punished for it. If you do threaten harm to a particular person, you should not be censored but instead restrained, and what you said should be noted down and preserved for the date of a fair trial.

      One person being upset shouldn’t mean the other (who didn’t know any better) has to spend the rest of their formative years in prison.

      • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)

        The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.

        I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.

        • growingentropy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          The repercussion to bad speech and ideas is inherent to the current paradigm of the internet: downvotes and ostracization.

          Maybe they will wind up on their own forum saying despicable shit, but they were probably going to do that anyway. Bad ideas love a vacuum away from prying eyes and outsiders.

          • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It can lead to prison in some countries (more than I imagine you’d think), which I think is very bad.

            Also, the opposite of what you’re describing can happen. Governments and big media/tech companies can use censorship to prevent ideas they don’t like from spreading online.

      • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.

        You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted it’s not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.

        I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Stuff like “gay people are unnatural and should be corrected” and “drag queens/trans people/[insert bogeyman here] are pedophiles coming for our children” and “n***ers oughta be whipped”

        • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)

          For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.

          Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?

                  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people “hey, we’re all human, why can’t we just get along” when one group wants another to stop existing.

            • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.

              Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.

              What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.

              • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it

                If that’s how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn’t be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.

                Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don’t care. As long as I’m allowed to live my life however I want, and you don’t come into my face and tell me not to, we’re good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who hold different beliefs than you live their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we’re gonna have a problem.

                • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  This is (mostly) a different point and I’m not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn’t a slippery slope it’s the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.

                  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    I agree that censorship is evil. I disagree that people being banned from internet forums because of opinions they hold is censorship.