• 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