deleted by creator
Yeah it’s funny how much everybody has free speech in this country except kids or LGBTQ or black or cherokee or asian people or females.
They’ll aggressively monitor and censor each other, don’t worry!
This doesn’t even make any sense. The “controversy” is private companies enforcing content guidelines. Where on the internet is the US government actively suppressing speech?
Free speech absolutist!
Yeah that’ll be a no from here.Edit regarding downvotes:
So you don’t think there should be any limitations of free speech to protect kids?
How was protection of kids ever used to limit your freedom of speech?
Does that freedom of speech without protection of kids include child pornography? Get a grip!!!Edit2: You guys disgust me. I’m shocked that people here are so free speech absolutist.
Why are you here instead of on the thing formerly known as twitter, where Musk is protecting your freedom of speech for racism and bigotry.Edit 3: OK apparently we can’t even agree that there are situations where limitations of free speech is necessary!!
Thank you what a nice community!!the british government literally tried to outlaw encrypting anything online, because “it could be CSAM”.
the EU wanted to make chat history available to police, and they, again, tried to make it about CSAM.
the british government literally tried to outlaw encrypting anything online, because “it could be CSAM”.
OK that’s idiotic, and I’m guessing it didn’t go though, so your freedom of speech wasn’t really compromised.
the EU wanted to make chat history available to police,
IDK about that, but it should require a warrant as a minimum, and in that case sounds OK to me.
How was protection of kids ever used to limit your freedom of speech?
“Don’t Say Gay” laws
AFAIK it was never a law, but mostly a military thing.
Also that has nothing to do with protecting children.It sounds like you’re describing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I’m referring to the Florida law limiting the speech of teachers.
OK USA is a crazy place, I remember hearing about that. And I absolutely agree that is wrong.
But that’s not to protect children as I see it, that’s to protect religious bigotry.
I can see the excuse is that they claim it’s to protect the children, but there is nothing to back that up, except religious prejudice.You’re so close to actually understanding the comic with this comment…
Those laws aren’t actually meant to protect children. They are meant to LOOK like they are going to protect children. That’s why “terrorism” and “kids” are the wrapping paper. The idea is that the media is helping the government to limit speech by making it seem like those limitations are to keep us safer.
If the comic had “PRETEND it’s to protect children” and “PRETEND it’s for anti terrorism” Then it would be funny, and not free speech absolutism.
But that’s not what it says.That’s just not how political cartoons work (in America as least). They are meant to make you stop and think for a moment. Sometimes they are funny too but humor isn’t a requirement.
Think about it this way. When you receive the package from the cartoon, the outside of the package (the wrapping paper) is going make you think the thing inside is going to protect kids. However, once you tear away the paper all that has been revealed is something that limits your speech.
“Parental Rights in Education Act” certainly sounds like something that would be meant protect kids. It’s the wrapping paper on legislation that limits speech and promotes bigotry.
Oh, and just for the record, I don’t think that this is a particularly good political cartoon.
You’re thinking of “Don’t ask don’t tell.”
“Don’t say gay” refers to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act
Yes so much crazy in USA it’s hard yo keep up. As I mention in another response, the limitation on teachers to even mention they are gay for instance, is an actual violation of free speech, and is not to protect the children, but is 100% religious prejudice and bigotry. Such a rule or law would be 100% completely illegal here in Denmark, as it is clearly discriminating against a minority, based on their sexual preference, and that is without possibility of debate illegal here.
If the cartoon reflected things like that better, I’d 100% agree.Ah, your responses make more sense to me now that I know that you’re not American. Political cartoons can be tough sometimes when you’re not fully immersed in the politics they refer to. I doubt I’d have any frame of reference for a political cartoon from Denmark.
Absolutely USA is more extreme, but we also have problems of the same sort here.
I think it’s because my way of thinking is what may be called concrete. If the cartoon had a “PRETEND” in front of anti terrorism and protect children, It would be spot on. But as it is, it seems to me to regard actual anti terrorism and child protection.
But I can see now, that is probably how it is supposed to be understood.
this doesnt smell like absolutism to me.
and we know what happens when an empire like the us gets this kind of power.
i also have a feeling the nazis and other assorted scum will be fine here…
Does that freedom of speech without protection of kids include child pornography?
I have zero idea why you think child pornography is linked to “freedom of speech,” as child pornography is not a form of speech. Could you please elaborate?
as child pornography is not a form of speech
It is, just like art is a form of speech.
Lol who the fuck is whispering that shit in your ear? CP is %100 illegal basically globally…no amount of art or free speech protects it, it’s illegal. Period.
Of course it is, and for good reason, who here ever stated otherwise?
Art is a form of speech, and is under the rules of free speech. CP is also a form of speech, but is universally illegal for good reason.
Ergo being a free speech absolutist doesn’t make sense unless you don’t have any morals.
Alright could you define “art” for me because child pornography is not art by my definition.
Of course it’s not art?
Then why are you saying that the properties of art apply to things that are not art? Art is speech because it is used to communicate ideas. But you’re telling me that child pornography is not art.
What exactly is child pornography trying to communicate? How is it speech?
Are you referring to the legality of drawn CP? It’s important to clarify drawings or reality (CSAM), because the big Question is whether or not pedophiles can use drawings to avoid abusing real children. It’s an uncomfortable thought, and we couldn’t answer for every person, but society is going to have to have open discussions on how to solve this issue. Until then, the laws are going to be varied, across the country and the world.
I’m not an anything absolutist.
How was protection of kids ever used to limit your freedom of speech?
Seems pretty absolutist to me if even anti terrorism and protection of kids, is against your free speech ideal.
Anti terrorism I agree may be used as an excuse to make limitations we don’t really need. But protection of kids, I think for instance pedophilia, and that’s non negotiable. There are situations where freedom of speech is triumphed by other considerations. Your post seem to not consider that by including even protection of kids, as not enough to make any limitations.deleted by creator
Terrorism bad, pedos bad. We all agree on that.
Difference is I recognize freedom of speech actually can have limits in those regards.
I’m not saying we should limit freedom of speech willy nilly, I live in one of the countries in the world with the highest degree of freedom of speech, and I can say the American way of handling it isn’t it.
And the way of handling it isn’t removing the regulation that is there, but improving it. But most Americans have no idea what free speech really is, to them it’s just a slogan, and then we have idiots like Elon Musk who claim they protect it, while all they do is enable racism and bigotry.
You’re an idiot mate.
Thanks for the constructive criticism, I can see you are by far my superior. /s
deleted by creator
