So, ironically, under the current interpretation of 1A, communists have more freedom of speech and association in US than they do in Germany.
So what? Which country can't declare organisations illegal, if it determines them to be terrorist organisations? I'm pretty sure the USA can. So what does it matter if a terrorist organisation calls itself a "party"? (Didn't the Symbionese Liberation Army try exactly that?)
This is false.
Freer by what standard?
I’m a European living in Europe, but if I could move to the United States, I’d do it overnight.
As for how Germany is freer than the USA... it consistently scores higher on various press freedom indices and on Cato's Human Freedom Index. Social mobility and legal protection of privacy are both higher in Germany.
I think that you are stretching it a bit here. Claiming that individualism is responsible for that seems unsubstantiated.
The anti-maskers? The only reason those guys think they have a case is exactly because they think bodily autonomy has no limits.
...they think THEIR bodily autonomy has no limits -- not even where sane people would see that it has to be limited to not encroach on OTHER PEOPLE'S bodily autonomy.
There, FTFY.
It can be, but it probably shouldn't be.
(Actually, I don't think it's 'conservative' at all. Living in Portland now, I know a lot of old hippie liberals that are anti-covid-vax, and I know few conservatives here, but it's certainly more mixed in that crowd than the hippies).
Plain old lunacy in itself is politically neutral. The distribution, some shades at some times being more popular on one side of the political spectrum only to sometimes migrate to the other or spread all over it... That seems to be influenced by fashion, by world events like COVID-19, etc, etc -- but basically, mainly, more or less random.
___
[§]: Like, say, spiritualism, crystal healing, homeopathy, flat-eartherism, past lives, shoving rocks up your vajazzle...
There is no free speech anywhere in Europe. And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
This is a bold and unsubstantiated claim.
> And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
For this specific action? Sure. For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends on whether there is a law against it and if she pissed off someone "important" or enough people. There are various such cases.
edit: will respond to the replies after the rate-limit expires
I'm fine with that but its non the less the hard truth there is nothing like the 1st amendment in any other place.
>For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends....
To be in the right doesn't mean you win the court case that's true but in the EU you dont have the 1st amendment, you dont have the right to free speech. If the court system does its job correct you go to jail not when the system fails because of "important" people and corruption. You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say. Needless to say that the list of "crime speech" only gets longer and longer over time.
Most EU countries have some rather close analogue of the US First Amendment in their law or constitution. Sure, pretty much all of them have various exceptions, so there's no absolute free speech -- but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus also lacks absolute free speech.
On the whole, IMO your comment is much more wrong than right.
>but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus also lacks absolute free speech.
No, it does not the fist amendment is very clear and short enough to not have any loopholes in there. People just intentionally misinterpret it and then come around and say you can scream "bomb" in an airplane in US airspace therefore you dont have free speech in the US. This just shows the lack of understand what free speech means. Its not about having the right to make audible noises of any kind at any time and place. Similarly if you order a person to kill someone and do so with your voice trough the act of speaking, you are committing a crime.
> No, it does not the fist amendment is very clear and short enough to not have any loopholes in there.
> ...
> Similarly if you order a person to kill someone and do so with your voice trough the act of speaking, you are committing a crime.
You've already done it for me.
> You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say
Sounds like the US. Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
Of course it is. Anyway, I mentioned more cases where there is no voluntarily agreement.
> You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law.
You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech.
Name the case. The burden of proof lies with you if you clame people get jailed for speech.
I posted a case from Germany. So if you have one from the US post it. No one in the thread could post one so far.
This is false, I posted this before:
> Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
You cant call for violence or show violence, like gore content and terrorist videos do get removed. Everything else is fine (for now).
Download the app from the website not form the stores to avoid googles censorship.
I can't even imagine how many secret services monitor what's going on right on Telegram servers.
I doubt that anyone can have any trust in “secure” and “private” communication service that got banned in Iran only to be unbanned 3 days later. They were not so soft on other big names they banned. The outcome? Telegram is the most popular messaging app in Iran, and no one is searching for anything better. Perfect place to oversee the public.
The thread is about a place where your "offensive" community can be hosted without the owner overlords coming an declare it a hate-group, in case you missed that.
On these other platforms, the users seem to think that, in the name of "free speech" everything is allowed everywhere. So on other platforms that tried to host it, it's full of off-topic posts. The don't respect the rights of a group of people to carve out an area for themselves.
Someone just needs to launch it on their own website, and hope the ISP doesn't pull it, or the DNS provider doesn't refuse to resolve it, etc.
The existence of other groups/channels on telegram with other rules is completely irrelevant. If people are unable to switch between communities and respect the different rules in each then that's their problem and you just remove them.
Maybe you need to sit down and think about if that is entirely consistent.
But the point stands--it's difficult to find a place to host a forum that contains legal discussions that happen to offend the sensibilities of the type of people who run tech companies.
Another day, another person confusing 'free speech' with a private publisher not wanting to publish hate speech.
You're entitled to print what you want, you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything.
Unless you're the surgeon general. Then you can force private companies to publish compelled speech on their alcohol and tobacco products.
IOW: This ancient figure of speech is used precisely to show that the issue is exactly the same old one that has been thoroughly hashed out for centuries.
Do not participate in them. Do not support them. Do everything you can to oppose them.
I was sad that people could be so misinformed/misled, but the subreddit seemed genuinely happy that these people died. That sounds very much like a hate group to me, and I'd like to see it as banned as fatpeoplehate (which has hate in the damn name) was.
It's not about the subject of the criticism, it's how you go about it. These subreddit are toxic hate-pools, they aren't a force for good. They're reveling in the misfortune of others instead of trying to somehow help, and that's what makes them hate groups, not whether or not being fat or an antivaxxer is bad.
And yet Reddit management is ok with it.
The most popular winners of the hermancainaward that you're lamenting the loss of are the kinds of people who would aggressively decline such help, and probably shout at you for offering it.
You may call me a bad person, but I was quietly hoping that Trump died from the pandemic he exacerbated and Bezos' rocket exploded in a blaze of justice. Those people wouldn't shed a tear for you or your family, why would you for them?
There's way too many people on this planet as it is, a couple less loud selfish drains on society wouldn't be too unfortunate.
Karma's probably pretty close to what I mean - for all the workers peeing in bottles toiling in his salt mines, and everybody's cumulative suffering because of the taxes he never paid.
Just because he's been involved in corrupting the system so much that those taxes aren't even demanded doesn't mean he gets out of a karmic obligation to all the people who's work he's built his incredibly narcissistic and tone-deaf space joyride empire on.
Imagine you're in a small tribe on a desert island with limited resources.
Do you think Mr hog-absolutely-everything-so-I-can-joyride-a-giant-dick-that-others-designed-for-me-into-what-can-only-just-be-technically-called-space-so-I-can-now-cringeworthily-call-myself-an-astronaut-without-having-any-actual-skills would be popular in the tribe, or not?
Well, we're all part of a larger tribe on a slightly bigger island with limited resources, and I have some ideas on who I wouldn't mind being seen thrown into the volcano.
And all the more satisfying if there's the added poetic justice of them falling into the volcano themselves because of their own incredibly loud stupidity. So call me a hater if you like.
I'd probably call it tribalism? 20th century had quite a lot of poorer people killing richer people in the name of same.
The billionaires are clearly a hostile, rival tribe stealing our resources.
There are just people, who can be convinced to do unspeakable things by media over a long period gradually activating their vestigial tribalism.
One man's hate group is another man's valuable discussion forum. Mocking people who won't take precautions against COVID is perfectly OK! Mocking people who won't take precautions against eating too much food is "hate."
They made themselves rather unpopular. If they had stuck to their own sub, made an effort to hide the identities of their targets, and mostly just said: "boy, I really hate fat people. So disgusting", then they'd probably still be around today.
Those are some key differences between FPH and HCA. Not to mention HCA is a response to the ongoing pandemic. While fatness isn't contagious. The obese are only hurting themselves.
It was just a hate group, stop digging man.
I like your ironic username.
I’m thinking about leaving the US and getting a EU work visa to avoid the shitshow. There are a lot of people who think censorship is good - in the name of fighting misinformation - and generally hold a negative opinion of opposing viewpoints.