Distasteful surely must be protected but that wasn’t my point, my point was that hate-speech is often not distasteful is is harmful. It seems that it is not harmful enough, and if a hateful tweet doesn’t make people go on a witch-hunt it’s ok?

Is the harm directly from the speech? Ideas aren’t actions & uncritically harming people is a choice.

We’re all capable of reading stupid shit then taking it upon ourselves to harm people. Yet how many of us do? If I harmed someone, I wouldn’t consider shit I read & uncritically acted on a valid excuse. I’d consider failure to think in the least bit critically before acting a total & culpable lapse in judgement.

Should we not hold every thinking person to that standard? Do you hold yourself to a different standard & think that would be a valid excuse?

Rights/liberties necessarily limit each other where they conflict. A right to be unharmed, for example, may limit freedom of expression.

Beyond necessary limits, principles don’t need compromises. The linked harm principle explains a well-recognized, necessary limit.

In practice, it’s treated as narrow limits on incitement to imminent, lawless action; deprivation to peace & privacy; defamation; violation of intellectual property. Basically, anything that directly harms no matter if ignored.

In contrast, merely offensive expression can simply be ignored (or reciprocated with expression of any kind) without conflicting with rights, so it doesn’t need to be limited.

Thus, terroristic threats or targeted, persistent threats (that put a reasonable person in fear of their safety, thus depriving their rights) aren’t protected. Neither are false claims that deprive them their livelihood nor false warnings that cause panic & reckless endangerment.

Blanket statements that vilify a group of people, ill wishes, falsehoods that don’t incite immediate action, etc, don’t directly raise conflicts that necessitate limits.

See? When tested, they don’t really care about free speech: weakness of conviction.

it looks like doxxing someone or driving them to suicide on-line should also be considered free speech and protected

If the information is publicly available, then it’s not a violation. If it’s an invasion of privacy or harassment (according to legal standards), then that’s a violation that isn’t protected.

In general, even in the strongest realizations of free speech, expression that directly harms (rather than merely offends) isn’t protected.

Or, get this, free speech means real free speech, no bitchass compromises.

A lefty with conviction & integrity would defend free, unadulterated speech no matter how distasteful, & especially if it is distasteful. A principle demands no less.

Same goes with justice & the rule of law. We would uphold & defend principles of a legal system to protect the least among us, so we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we can’t reasonably expect those principles to protect us when we need them.

That’s how principles work.

Queer climate deserves better than a coverup like this.

Then explain comments we can find right here or common sentiments you can find at lemmy for restricting hate speech (rejecting they’re part of the same coin). Messaging from the left opposing or skeptical of free speech

• check the comments
• comment skeptical anyone believes in free speech.

I didn’t make this up.

Free speech is dead easy & at one time a lefty cause, then a new generation of fuckwits lost their way to devalue it.

Mastercard: “Sex with children is illegal. Get rid of those games.”

Games depicting it aren’t, which would be easy enough to state. Cool mental theater, though.

Gee, I wonder who people are going to believe.

Do other payment processors exist? Why is this hard for you?

From the article

So this seems like Mastercard are basically saying “it’s not us”.

According to lefties, free speech is only a weapon for conservatives, so they won’t care.

Cite sources of your claim, prove it, and spend ages providing material that I will dismiss as irrelevant!

That just seems like an objection whiners raise when they dislike challenges: they

• find the burden of supporting their argument coherently too taxing or
• don’t know how to resolve mutually accepted premises or
• don’t like assumptions questioned.

No one needs to answer challenges to their argument or “spend ages providing material”. By that same token, no one else needs to care about a weak, poorly defended argument.

It’s easy enough to ignore or reciprocate preposterous lines of questioning: seems like a skills issue.

As for “sowing discord”, there’s a strong philosophical tradition of doing pretty much that (ie, shamelessly, impudently breaking conformity to unchallenged conventions & assumptions) to dispel “false belief, mindlessness, folly, and conceit” in the pursuit of “mental clarity or lucidity”. They were called dogs & would even state “other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them”. Such classical philosophers might be called trolls nowadays.

Any system that treats them as trolls is broken in my opinion.

How do you know they’re not women trolling as men?

Isn’t gender a social construct based on self-identification (rather than your physical body) that can be fluid & vary from day to day? Isn’t a woman anyone who claims to be?

Some activists even say there is no such thing as a “male body”

A penis is not a male body part. It’s just an unusual body part for a woman.

Messages are genderless.

Are you complaining about unverifiable gender claims on here? Seems somewhat pointless & untenable.

How do you know they’re guys? Who decides who’s a woman?

Thankful for them trying to protect our virgin eyes from the ravages of a dirty word, but the extra letters r n are too triggering, and they’ve scarred our delicate, snowflake lives. Is there some remedy they can offer to atone for inflicting this trauma on us?

Moralizing kinks is just more kink-shaming, which is probably someone’s kink, and you know they’re totally schlicking it to those videos. I ain’t shaming your moralizing kink, though. 😉

Also, how do you know it’s not all some (consensual) elaborate kink-play if you don’t know their safe words? 🤔

You mean it wasn’t there already?

While those accusations sound bad, doesn’t Evanescence sound worse? Criminally bad?

cash.app taxes is another: OKish.

IRS provides a guide to file for free. Some state revenue departments provide similar guides.

Keeping unobtainium in the script unironically met bizarrely little criticism.