Free speech vs Hate speech
- Thread starter Yubel
- Start date
not what was said
read better
and also if you think online communities operate under "free speech/freedom of expression" you are misguided
wonder why people get warnings /temp bans for insults ?
yubel might say the same shit irl he said here without government restriction/penalty however thats not the case on online communities.
and what is this democratic agenda you speak of
and what fits this "agenda"
no "agenda" with the holocaust mate.
read better
and also if you think online communities operate under "free speech/freedom of expression" you are misguided
wonder why people get warnings /temp bans for insults ?
yubel might say the same shit irl he said here without government restriction/penalty however thats not the case on online communities.
and what is this democratic agenda you speak of
and what fits this "agenda"
no "agenda" with the holocaust mate.
why so serious
"know what free speech means in context of the law (government restrictions)"
so the government draws the line.. where is the free speech then... that is a contradiction
its funny because you then change the argument to something that is irrelevant to the governmental aspect but personal to the platform itself.. which is different and feeds a different (personal) interest .....
even if you wanna argue that there is some free speech in the platforms (drawn by regulations) you can't deny that these platform are influence by governments as well
a blatant example of that would be on Instagram where speaking against the genocide in Palestine.. would get your account banned...guess free speech is not really free to begin with.. when it doesn't meet the criteria of what adequate.... by the platform and those who influence it directly.
that is my point...
this should be called... restricted-speech..
"know what free speech means in context of the law (government restrictions)"
so the government draws the line.. where is the free speech then... that is a contradiction
its funny because you then change the argument to something that is irrelevant to the governmental aspect but personal to the platform itself.. which is different and feeds a different (personal) interest .....
even if you wanna argue that there is some free speech in the platforms (drawn by regulations) you can't deny that these platform are influence by governments as well
a blatant example of that would be on Instagram where speaking against the genocide in Palestine.. would get your account banned...guess free speech is not really free to begin with.. when it doesn't meet the criteria of what adequate.... by the platform and those who influence it directly.
that is my point...
this should be called... restricted-speech..
yeah you clearly didnt read
government restrictions means the government wouldnt penalize yubel for saying what he said in places where free speech is protected.
on wg however thats not the case, you can be cautioned for insulting someone here
in real life , would you face any legal consequence for doing so? Not really . learn that difference.
its a serious topic
if you want to have a little fun with it
dont waste my time.
"a blatant example of that would be on Instagram where speaking against the genocide in Palestine.. would get your account banned...guess free speech is not really free to begin with.. when it doesn't meet the criteria of what adequate.... by the platform and those who influence it directly.
that is my point..."
so your example is instagram
thanks for proving my point.
platforms set the rules of what they deem acceptable or not
its why we have moderators
they make the call on what is and what isnt acceptable. again yelling free speech without context of what it means by law is disingenuous at best.
government restrictions means the government wouldnt penalize yubel for saying what he said in places where free speech is protected.
on wg however thats not the case, you can be cautioned for insulting someone here
in real life , would you face any legal consequence for doing so? Not really . learn that difference.
its a serious topic
if you want to have a little fun with it
dont waste my time.
"a blatant example of that would be on Instagram where speaking against the genocide in Palestine.. would get your account banned...guess free speech is not really free to begin with.. when it doesn't meet the criteria of what adequate.... by the platform and those who influence it directly.
that is my point..."
so your example is instagram
thanks for proving my point.
platforms set the rules of what they deem acceptable or not
its why we have moderators
they make the call on what is and what isnt acceptable. again yelling free speech without context of what it means by law is disingenuous at best.
READ THE WHOLE POSSST
Oh shit... i get it what you are saying... and i complete took the part where you said "government restriction" out of context...
but lemme clarify my point it seems like my misunderstanding has made this messy.. anf honestly it wasn't about the analogy you were trying to make
what i meant was:
aside from legal penalty deemed by the government over an individual due to their supposedly
"radical" (as in an opinions going against the gov's interest speech (which again doesn't seem free) .. and the organization (gov) it self having null power over the free speech in freeplatforms... freedom of speech is still manipulated and distorted in such platforms by restricting individuals from expressing thier opinion through subduing their posts (opinions) which honestly cannot be justified by just sayin this
because it's no longer free but just an image of a semi-free or conditionally free platform
and bias towards certain ideas and notions ...
WHERE IS THE DRAWN NOW :.. well by saying what i said above doesn't mean i condone an oppressive demeanor under the umbrella of free-speech...its logical coz the system of free-speech was primarily built to take opinions for the betterment of the society (or with that thought in mind) and not to justify oppression (which if it was would just render free-speech and the basis it was built upon.. useless) while having some substance to what being said in the name of free-speech.. which is exactly why you have mods here and regulations on other platforms to restrict the misuse of free speech.... and the this comes under the parameter of what's adequate and fits in the spectrum of free speech... but this line turns into a ragged circle when it comes to certain opinions and interests that aren't condoned due to personal biases of those platforms and/or by those who influence it.. and here's when things get interesting yea, thi there sre alot of irl examples but I'll be using the social platforms as the premise of my argument here..where government intervenes the frame of free speech in those Platform subduing certain opinion from being publicized and spread..
an ideal example again in controlling algorithms and blocking accounts to subjugate the expression of opinions and videos that reveal truths from FPPOV.. soo saying this
is like promoting taking biases against certain opinions into consideration by these platforms anf those influence them..
so just becuz you don't get legally penalized doesn't mean your speech of your opinion isn't being subdued...
nvm nvm nvm
Oh shit... i get it what you are saying... and i complete took the part where you said "government restriction" out of context...
but lemme clarify my point it seems like my misunderstanding has made this messy.. anf honestly it wasn't about the analogy you were trying to make
what i meant was:
aside from legal penalty deemed by the government over an individual due to their supposedly
"radical" (as in an opinions going against the gov's interest speech (which again doesn't seem free) .. and the organization (gov) it self having null power over the free speech in freeplatforms... freedom of speech is still manipulated and distorted in such platforms by restricting individuals from expressing thier opinion through subduing their posts (opinions) which honestly cannot be justified by just sayin this
because it's no longer free but just an image of a semi-free or conditionally free platform
and bias towards certain ideas and notions ...
WHERE IS THE DRAWN NOW :.. well by saying what i said above doesn't mean i condone an oppressive demeanor under the umbrella of free-speech...its logical coz the system of free-speech was primarily built to take opinions for the betterment of the society (or with that thought in mind) and not to justify oppression (which if it was would just render free-speech and the basis it was built upon.. useless) while having some substance to what being said in the name of free-speech.. which is exactly why you have mods here and regulations on other platforms to restrict the misuse of free speech.... and the this comes under the parameter of what's adequate and fits in the spectrum of free speech... but this line turns into a ragged circle when it comes to certain opinions and interests that aren't condoned due to personal biases of those platforms and/or by those who influence it.. and here's when things get interesting yea, thi there sre alot of irl examples but I'll be using the social platforms as the premise of my argument here..where government intervenes the frame of free speech in those Platform subduing certain opinion from being publicized and spread..
an ideal example again in controlling algorithms and blocking accounts to subjugate the expression of opinions and videos that reveal truths from FPPOV.. soo saying this
is like promoting taking biases against certain opinions into consideration by these platforms anf those influence them..
so just becuz you don't get legally penalized doesn't mean your speech of your opinion isn't being subdued...
Post automatically merged:
nvm nvm nvm
Last edited:
I honestly thought I could put this thread to rest, but some of the ideas in here are just downright...
this is the same shit as rEaL cOmMuNiSm HaS nEvEr BeEn TrIeD.
democracy as not the least evil system. far from it. the least evil system is self governance.
any form of government is a necessary evil. and here lies the problem. a government that means it has to do more than the bare minimum has failed its purpose and should be replaced by another system.
democracy should be the polar opposite of hearing minorities voices specifically.
everyone gets a say, but everones voice has equal value. this is the ideal.
be 5% of the population, get 5% say in things.
a democracy that puts an emphasis on minorities is absurd. its completely nonsensical.
for both of your statements we are currently at a stage in modern democracies where both principles are failing rapidly.
democracies become increasingly evil and corrupt and they give minorities too much leverage.
what we are witnessing right now is how societies of the past have collapsed.
this is the same shit as rEaL cOmMuNiSm HaS nEvEr BeEn TrIeD.
democracy as not the least evil system. far from it. the least evil system is self governance.
any form of government is a necessary evil. and here lies the problem. a government that means it has to do more than the bare minimum has failed its purpose and should be replaced by another system.
democracy should be the polar opposite of hearing minorities voices specifically.
everyone gets a say, but everones voice has equal value. this is the ideal.
be 5% of the population, get 5% say in things.
a democracy that puts an emphasis on minorities is absurd. its completely nonsensical.
for both of your statements we are currently at a stage in modern democracies where both principles are failing rapidly.
democracies become increasingly evil and corrupt and they give minorities too much leverage.
what we are witnessing right now is how societies of the past have collapsed.