• urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Freedom of speech means the government can’t suppress your speech. We have this in place to protect everyone from anyone who wants to use government to suppress speech.

    The speech you are “supporting” amounts to “Those minorities disgust me, I don’t think they should exist/have rights”. Some TERFers are going to support removing the freedom of speech from Transpeople. You’ll have trouble finding one who will state it directly, I imagine, but transphobes everywhere are working diligently to marginalize trans people, or even incite violence against them.

    No private citizen (read: people who host kbin/lemmy servers) is obligated to host/platform/listen to anything. I certainly wouldn’t host TERF opinions if it was my server. I wouldn’t allow it at my dinner table. We must be intolerant of the intolerant to protect those whom the intolerant seek to attack.

    It doesn’t mean I think the government should start suppressing TERF views, that’s not their place. This is what freedom of speech means.

    • 10A@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, like several others in this thread you are conflating the principle of the freedom of speech with the US First Amendment. They are not the same thing. The First Amendment was predicated on the principle of the freedom of speech. The principle of the freedom of speech is foundational to western civilization, and is applicable to kbin. The US First Amendment is inapplicable here, as it only applies to the government.

      When you support free speech, the specific nature of the speech doesn’t matter. I’m no TERF, or even close, but I’d gladly fight and die to protect their right to say whatever they believe, no matter how repulsive it may be.

      No private citizen is obligated to support freedom of speech — legally that’s correct. But for those of us who live in the West, we must fight to uphold western civilization lest it crumble around us. It’s a moral duty, not a legal obligation. And once freedom of speech is abolished, goodbye kbin, and goodbye to all of our ability to express any of our thoughts in any context.

      • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And once freedom of speech is abolished, goodbye kbin

        Then wish it goodbye then, because even under it’s current operation this does not exist. Doing things like posting specific threats (threatening shootings, bombings), doxxing users, illegal porn, and other various behavior is still speech, we just all agree it’s harmful.

        I am going to descend into hyperbole for a minute, apologies. I think it’s necessary because in my opinion you are already being hyperbolic. If Kbin.social chooses to ban this magazine, will you personally go fight kbin.social to unban it? Will you show up to this admin’s house with the intent to persuade them? You said you’d fight and die, gladly, for what you see as free speech, so would it apply here? I don’t think you would. This is why I am confused about whether you’re speaking about the first amendment or not. When we start talking this way I can only assume you are speaking about fighting against a fascist government, because I don’t think you mean to literally go threaten someone.

        I support the idea that anyone should be able to say mostly whatever they want as long as they’re not advocating harm for other groups of people. I also support instances moderating things they don’t want to see on their platform. If a platform is too restrictive, I’ll leave, sure. I will point out you’re working awful hard to fight for a group a lot of other people think are deeply harmful to marginalized groups.

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yikes, thank you for calling out me out on this. I definitely did not mean to threaten anyone. I see how it could have been interpreted that way though, so thank you! What I meant is that if this dispute is eventually to devolve into a literal war, I will go to battle to fight in favor of free speech. So it’s not quite right to say I was hyperbolic, but at the same time I was certainly not threatening anyone.

          Based on your last paragraph, it honestly sounds like you and I mostly agree on this topic. And yes, if kbin started shutting down objectionable magazines, I’d close my account.

          As your final point, thank you, I take that as a complement, though I’m no TERF, by any means, and I understand you didn’t mean it as a complement. I really do support free speech that genuinely and completely.

          • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I appreciate you being able to understand what I was trying to get at, even though it’s clear we disagree. I will restate that I don’t think forcing any private service to host content has anything to do with freedom of speech. This is doubly true for a service like Kbin, where anyone can host their own instance and host whatever they want.

            • 10A@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed on that — I don’t support force either. Ultimately it’s up to Ernest.