• atzanteol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is “false.”

    For when all the liberals who whine about how conservatives are “allowed to lie!”. In particular the ones taking the side of the Brazilian government against musk.

    Freedom cuts both ways. It needs to. You have to put up with speech you hate in order to have your own freedom to say what you want.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      In particular the ones taking the side of the Brazilian government against musk.

      Brazil doesn’t have USA’s First Amendment. So no matter which stance people have on what it should be, it was legally valid.

      And the whole fight was a political farce as Musk personally is known to comply with government censorship. Again, you can argue that the law is wrong and should be changed, but it’s legally valid.

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        Brazil doesn’t have USA’s First Amendment. So no matter which stance people have on what it should be, it was legally valid.

        I’m arguing “should” not “can”. It’s just another case of when libs will gladly dispose of their values when it suits their short-term goals.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          What would a liberal who doesn’t dispose of their values look like in this situation?

          I do mean this question sincerely, if possible please try to avoid the easy non-answer of “That doesn’t exist hahahahahahahahah”.

          • atzanteol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            “Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition… But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States#Holmes’s_dissent

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      Except you can’t threaten a president or lie about a corporation without being sued.

      However, the right to incite racial violence is very much protected

      Funny that huh?

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Except you can’t threaten a president

        Or anybody else if it’s a “true threat”

        or lie about a corporation without being sued.

        Or anybody else. And this is a civil tort not a criminal offense.

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Yeah, so, like I said, not so free after all, depsite the claims to the contrary.

          Well, unless its the right to incite racial hatred and violence. Then you’re free as a bird.

          I’m sure its just a coincidence and doesn’t cross reference with anything else from Americas history.

          • atzanteol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I have no idea what your point is. Do you have an argument that isn’t petty whining and vague hints at something nefarious? Because whiny “I’m sure it’s just a coincidence…” arguments simply aren’t worth engaging with.

            • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              If you say so, I agree, you have no idea what is being said to you. Maybe its because you’re too smart to understand.

              Maybe that’s a thing.

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Lets just ignore all the laws against murder. But seriously if you’re at the point where you’re willing to kill people over what they say then you’re a danger to us all.