8 ms·
It does. That's why GrapheneOS left France; Signal is considering doing so to if ChatControl passes. Von Der Leyen and Breton clearly mentioned the possibility
by lucasRW 7mo ago
It does. That's why GrapheneOS left France; Signal is considering doing so to if ChatControl passes. Von Der Leyen and Breton clearly mentioned the possibility of banning X. And there are many other "signals".
But yeah we get it, there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip, sorry, i meant "protection of children", when it's the EU. :o)
- mapontosevenths 7mo ago> there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip I understand that you're being facetious here, but this is literally true. Words kill people sometimes, and in the same way that my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins your right to say whatever you want stops where my safety begins. Or to rephrase it, nobody can have free speech at all if others are allowed to threaten your health and safety for it, which automatically implies that violent and hateful speech must be curtailed. It is a variation on the paradox of tolerance. Yes, there is room to debate exactly where the line is, but the fact that there is a line is fairly well settled except amongst the rabid.
- frumplestlatz 7mo agoYou’re advocating for a censorship regime that would put me in jail for words that you happen to think are dangerous. Ergo, your words threaten my safety.
- mapontosevenths 7mo agoGoogle the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the only thing that cant be tolerated is intolerance.
- Aerroon 7mo ago>"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." The paradox of tolerance is not about censoring others. If anything, censorship lands on the side of the intolerant of this paradox.
- lucasRW 7mo agoI dont need Thierry Breton or Van Der Leyen to tell me which podcasts I am allowed to listened to, but thanks for the well-intentionned thoughts for my safety anyway.
- mapontosevenths 7mo agoI dont care at all for your safety, I care for mine and that of my family and I think it's fair to insist that you don't get to put my life in jeopardy because you feel like you should be immune to the consequences of your speech.
- lucasRW 7mo agoYou are free to not listen to Joe Rogan and not look at X if reading/seeing people saying that "a woman cannot have a penis" is unbearable to you. But why always the need, on the left, to ban everyone else from doing it because YOU want to do it personally ?
- ImJamal 7mo agoI would be very interested in hearing some of these words capable of killing. I have only heard of such words in fiction so I am quite surprised to learn they are real.
- rgblambda 7mo agoIn the 1950s, the Reverend Ian Paisley would organise rallies in the streets of Belfast and when speaking at those rallies, read out the addresses of Catholic homes and businesses on those streets. The crowd would then attack those homes and businesses.
- ImJamal 7mo agoI don't know the exact context or what was said, but I know one thing the words didn't attack somebody. People attacked people and property.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- rgblambda 7mo ago"No officer. I didn't smash the window. It was the bat I was swinging. You should arrest the bat". People were sentenced to death at Nuremberg for giving orders, written and spoken. It's well established in every legal jurisdiction that individuals are responsible for the words they use.
- ImJamal 7mo agoIf there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible, but like I said I don't know what the context is or what was said in the Belfast situation. The words the Nazis said were irrelevant. They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty. I think someone who goes and attacks somebody is guilty. They cannot use the excuse they were following orders. The words didn't take control of them like a spell. They made the conscious choice to commit violence and as such the guilt is on them, not the bat.