β² 527 βΌ Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de) submitted 2 years ago by cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml 1195 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [β] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (27 children) Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis' history and current rhetoric. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (26 replies) [β] Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Doesn't mean you don't support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don't agree that I'm against free speech, I'm against harassment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours. Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they're a blight on society, etc. Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them. That's what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected. When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that's a crime that should be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Stitch0815@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That... is so not true in many states of the world. permalink fedilink source parent [β] 520@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Yeah but the point is that it's your choice to block out the harassment - nobody is doing that on your behalf without asking you. permalink fedilink source parent [β] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 7 points 2 years ago (15 children) How to tell me youβre a cis white male without telling me youβre a cis white male. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments load more comments (15 replies) [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (5 children) All censorship is bad? Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn? Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom. It's the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don't fuck with the freedoms of others. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [β] Flumsy@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Freedom of expression of opinion" would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions... Censorship of any opinion is bad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy? Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences. I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn? You're confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action. Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech. As much as I think it's a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime. There's a very distinct difference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think you're confused about thought - it's got nothing to do with anything I said. Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. What's the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what's more serious than genocide? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. You're making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies)
[β] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (27 children) Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis' history and current rhetoric. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (26 replies)
[β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis' history and current rhetoric. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Doesn't mean you don't support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don't agree that I'm against free speech, I'm against harassment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours. Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they're a blight on society, etc. Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them. That's what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected. When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that's a crime that should be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Stitch0815@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That... is so not true in many states of the world. permalink fedilink source parent [β] 520@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Yeah but the point is that it's your choice to block out the harassment - nobody is doing that on your behalf without asking you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours. Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they're a blight on society, etc. Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them. That's what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected. When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that's a crime that should be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Stitch0815@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That... is so not true in many states of the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours. Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they're a blight on society, etc. Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them. That's what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected. When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that's a crime that should be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Stitch0815@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That... is so not true in many states of the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Stitch0815@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That... is so not true in many states of the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] 520@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Yeah but the point is that it's your choice to block out the harassment - nobody is doing that on your behalf without asking you. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 7 points 2 years ago (15 children) How to tell me youβre a cis white male without telling me youβre a cis white male. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments load more comments (15 replies)
[β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (5 children) All censorship is bad? Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn? Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom. It's the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don't fuck with the freedoms of others. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [β] Flumsy@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Freedom of expression of opinion" would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions... Censorship of any opinion is bad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy? Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences. I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn? You're confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action. Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech. As much as I think it's a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime. There's a very distinct difference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think you're confused about thought - it's got nothing to do with anything I said. Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. What's the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what's more serious than genocide? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. You're making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies)
[β] Flumsy@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Freedom of expression of opinion" would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions... Censorship of any opinion is bad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy? Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences. I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy? Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences. I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn? You're confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action. Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech. As much as I think it's a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime. There's a very distinct difference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think you're confused about thought - it's got nothing to do with anything I said. Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. What's the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what's more serious than genocide? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. You're making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think you're confused about thought - it's got nothing to do with anything I said. Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. What's the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what's more serious than genocide? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. You're making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences. You're making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[β] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) You're oversimplifying. What we're talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts. Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide. Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech. You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship. distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so. Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable. Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move. Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
