Stating and establishing limits in free speech is not compromising it and Every single outspoken “free speech absolutist” has proven out to be an authoritarian extremist. There must be limits in order to prevent anti-social forces for undermining a free and just society. We have laws against fraud, libel, and slander. Why is genocide and anti-democratic speech, which is clearly of much greater potential harm special?
It’s easier to keep them out of government and positions of power if you know the enemy.
This doesn’t appear to be the case, in my experience. We still got Sinema and a guy in Eastern Washington who published a manifesto calling for genocide of non-christians (Matt Shay).
Also, we don’t have freedom to fascism - when they break the law, and they will, the full weight of the government - Feds - should fall on them like air dropped lava.
They should but they do not. Instead they have done things like conspire to off civil rights leaders, give nazis more rights and protections than communists (take a look at any Federal equal protection laws - they have carve-outs to make the laws not apply to anyone who is associated with the Communist Party but no such restrictions for any far-right extremists), and did absolutely nothing about the early-20th century fascist coup attempt which included the likes of JP Morgan.
don’t become a fascist to stick it to the fascists, don’t throw away our ideals - we’ve beaten these fuckwits before and we’ll do it again.
Being anti-authoritarian and pretty far left of center makes engaging in a far-right, authoritarian ideology unlikely. Putting limits on things intended to cause societal harm is reasonable. Doing nothing is not.
Also, if you follow that path, the feds will be dropping lava on pussy marches and BLM in record time.
Were you watching?.. The Federal Bureau of Prisons and others were abducting people in unmarked vans during the BLM protests in Portland, at the very least. They were also shooting people in the head with rubber batton rounds, attempting to kill or maim them (and succeeding in the latter at the least).
You are not the law. You are not the King of America. You are not better than the United States Constitution. You are a rank fascist in a different uniform trying to justify their despotic wishes.
Nah. I’m no right-winger or M-L. I want no power over anyone. Just an anarchist tired of people pretending that letting fascists run amok will magically result in anything but them continuing to consolidate power in the state institutions that they have compromised and use them to inflict violence on the populace.
A free, just, and tolerant society requires that we do not tolerate the those that seek to undermine it. Basic paradox of tolerance.
But, you do you. Bickering on the Internet only serves to cause is mutual harm and I don’t wish to participate in that.
Stating and establishing limits in free speech is not compromising it and Every single outspoken “free speech absolutist” has proven out to be an authoritarian extremist. There must be limits in order to prevent anti-social forces for undermining a free and just society. We have laws against fraud, libel, and slander. Why is genocide and anti-democratic speech, which is clearly of much greater potential harm special?
This doesn’t appear to be the case, in my experience. We still got Sinema and a guy in Eastern Washington who published a manifesto calling for genocide of non-christians (Matt Shay).
They should but they do not. Instead they have done things like conspire to off civil rights leaders, give nazis more rights and protections than communists (take a look at any Federal equal protection laws - they have carve-outs to make the laws not apply to anyone who is associated with the Communist Party but no such restrictions for any far-right extremists), and did absolutely nothing about the early-20th century fascist coup attempt which included the likes of JP Morgan.
Being anti-authoritarian and pretty far left of center makes engaging in a far-right, authoritarian ideology unlikely. Putting limits on things intended to cause societal harm is reasonable. Doing nothing is not.
Were you watching?.. The Federal Bureau of Prisons and others were abducting people in unmarked vans during the BLM protests in Portland, at the very least. They were also shooting people in the head with rubber batton rounds, attempting to kill or maim them (and succeeding in the latter at the least).
You are not the law. You are not the King of America. You are not better than the United States Constitution. You are a rank fascist in a different uniform trying to justify their despotic wishes.
!detroit@midwest.social ☆ !michigan@midwest.social
Nah. I’m no right-winger or M-L. I want no power over anyone. Just an anarchist tired of people pretending that letting fascists run amok will magically result in anything but them continuing to consolidate power in the state institutions that they have compromised and use them to inflict violence on the populace.
A free, just, and tolerant society requires that we do not tolerate the those that seek to undermine it. Basic paradox of tolerance.
But, you do you. Bickering on the Internet only serves to cause is mutual harm and I don’t wish to participate in that.