• wagesj45
    link
    fedilink
    333 months ago

    This is something I’ve been shouting from the rooftops every time people online cheer on the idea of “cracking down” on hate speech. It eventually will be used against you because some dipshits will redefine what “hateful” means.

    • @whoreticulture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      193 months ago

      Hate speech isn’t even mentioned in this article, and hate speech is a term with specific legal definitions (depending on your country). You’re spreading misinformation against laws that protect minorities.

    • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      133 months ago

      Bad actors using illegitimate bad faith definitions is not a valid reason to do nothing about a problem.

      Politicians are also redefining climate protests as terrorism. That doesn’t mean that we should ignore terrorism OR climate catastrophe.

    • @EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Sooo nothing should be done about hate speech bc you might be incorrectly defined as a bigot? That’s fucking ridiculous, how the hell can you support hateful fuckers being allowed to spew their bile? Surely it’s not because you’re a bigoted fucker who says a lot of hate speech right? That would be ridiculous

      Checked your comments just to be sure I wasn’t way off base and holy shit I wasn’t xD defending hate speech against black people, defending trump being on the ballot, saying the government should never do anything about hateful ideologies. You’re the scum of the earth, I hope your fascist ass gets put in a camp by the people you think are defending free speech

      • @nailoC5@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 months ago

        Is this a joke? In one of your recent comments you’re using the word Zionist negatively. That would already be considered hate speech somewhere.

        • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          73 months ago

          using the word Zionist negatively. That would already be considered hate speech somewhere.

          Which is also bullshit. Zionism is a political ideology, not an ethnicity. In fact, failing to make that distinction is antisemitism, as is the “Israel = Jewish people in general” bullshit that genocide deniers also use to silence dissent.

        • @EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          “Some people incorrectly call me a bigot, therefore nothing should ever be done about bigotry ever.” Grow the fuck up

          • wagesj45
            link
            fedilink
            33 months ago

            I’m talking about the state, not whatever it is you choose to do in your personal capacity. I don’t care what you call me. I care if the state labels me something that they can jail me for. This article is about the state labeling pro-Palestine solidarity as extremist. I can’t speak for you, but I don’t think that the state should have the right to quell that speech. If you do, then I think we have fundamentally different philosophies.

            • @EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I’m 1000% against governments labeling criticism of Israel or support for Gaza hate speech too, but ffs the problem here isn’t that the government should just allow all hate speech all the time. If you think a republican’s right to say I’m a groomer and call for my execution/lynching is good or more important than my safety you can go fuck yourself (edited phrasing a bit)

              • @LwL@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -33 months ago

                Calling for violence against anyone should be illegal imo. But yes that includes things like telling people to punch nazis.

                Otherwise if they actually do convince people you’re a groomer they’ll think it’s ok to punch you too. “Group x is an exception” or “subject matter y isn’t protected” is the problem, not disallowing certain rhethorics.

                • @EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Hey look, it’s a cishet white guy who thinks his opinion on hate speech is relevant!

                  Punching Nazis will always be necessary and based, no matter what a spineless centrist on the internet has to say about it

    • @Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      203 months ago

      Hasn’t that always been the case on the far right? Isn’t that, like, almost part of the definition at this point?

    • Sneezycat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      163 months ago

      Same thing that happened before a certain German dude with a mustache got elected 100 years ago…

  • @bartolomeo@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    103 months ago

    What an anti-semitic law.

    the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

    This describes Zionism, and anti-Zionism is anti-semitism in some jurisdictions.

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It isn’t a law. They haven’t bothered to go through any of the necessary processes to make it a law, because that would require a consultation phrase, instead they’ve just announced this. It amounts to absolutely nothing and everyone can safely ignore it.

      This is just the insane rumbling of a failed government. No one pays any attention to anything they do anymore because it’s all so irrelevant.

  • @Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23 months ago

    Governments only tolerate the right to protest as long as you aren’t actually protesting something they don’t want to change.

    • eleventy_7
      link
      fedilink
      173 months ago

      maybe to prevent being identified? If the UK is broadening its powers to silence protesters like this, even being photographed as part of a movement of quote unquote “violence, hatred or intolerance” could be enough to face fines, arrest, or other social consequences.