• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I question your reading comprehension. It’s much easier to claim something causes harm than to demonstrate it would.

      History doesn’t support your assumptions: recalling the civil rights & free speech movements in the US, civil rights advanced despite similar free speech constraints I’ve advocated (eg, clear & present danger or imminent lawless action standard) and despite a harsher environment with Jim Crow laws and white supremacists speaking freely. Civil rights can advance with such narrow restrictions on free speech and have before when circumstances were worse.