Nazi's etc, aren't protected by the social contract... They are protected by the constitution. That's the ENTIRE point of freedom of speech. It's literally the government protecting the right of people to say things that people find objectionable.

Freedom is speech protects people from retaliation by the government. It is not and was never meant to protect the infringing upon other people’s right to a good life.

Do you have any more alt-right copy pasta bullshit to spread?

I think people who consider Freedom of Speech, the principle, to be exclusively a government thing, are stupider than people who think the right to Free Speech applies to everything. Wonder why this misaligned perspective seems so popular with pseudo-intellectuals these days.

The grandparent comment explicitly draws a distinction between the social contract and the Constitution, and explicitly points to the Constitution as the mechanism that apparently protects Nazis, specifically pointing out that they aren’t talking about the social contract.

The freedom of speech is a guarantee to the people that they may exercise free thought and expression and not be subject to the use of force or fraud against them by any party, whether a state or private actor. The use of force or fraud against someone for speech you dislike does not magically cease to be a civil rights violation by virtue of being applied to someone you personally dislike. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history is well aware of intrusions by actors public and private to suppress speech that threatened their interests.

Put another way: All men have a natural right to the freedom of thought and expression, and no one cares what dead old men thought when they drafted their particular laws. This is about what matters to us here and now. The proletariat has a need for public debate free of interference from the bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie-adjacent. Period. Full stop.

if you claim to support unrestricted free speech then of course this is hypocrisy. how could you possibly argue otherwise? "seeking to suppress" is still a form of speech. you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

if you don't support unrestricted free speech that's fine, but don't pretend you do. i personally don't either.

people who optionally break the social contract by pushing hate and genocide as an agenda cannot be protected by the social contract.

They are the ones who are breaking it. Not me. Therefore, they are the ones who are removing themselves from the protections of freedom of speech.

Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech? Their infamy arises from the holocaust, they aren't mythological demons, whose every action is the definition immoral. If we are now using associations as a lazy excuse to abandon the principle foundations of liberalism, then is banning China from the internet acceptable to everyone? While we are at it, why not just ban all discussion of Communism too? The USSR literally erased people for saying the wrong things, nothing good could come from that right? Actually what about most of, or perhaps all of Europe? They ban guns after all, and you know the Nazis did that too right? Before suppressing people.

To the Nazis perspective, Jews were like demons, capable of any evil, and so subversive and threatening that even literature sourced from them was considered radioactive in a sense. So while I hate to play the reverse card on this, I truthfully consider your perspective just as shallow, and far more dangerous. You see unlike the Nazis of today, your perspective is more popular and politically actionable.

In fact I genuinely consider, from the bottom of my heart, people such as yourself, who lack integrity, to be a far more realistic threat to freedom of speech than the shadows of a dead political ideology.

Also KiwiFarms had nothing to do with Nazis, they were further down the slippery slope than that.

>Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech?

When they uhh... eliminated free speech in Germany?

> Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech?

Maybe when they started burning giant piles of books?

Did you read beyond the first sentence of my comment? I feel like I provided enough context for what I was getting at.

I just meant that Nazi Germany, in comparison to any other authortarian regime, weren't anything special when it came to censorship, other than the racial focus making them easy to hate.

If we are trying to justify censorship as an effort to "protect" Freedom of Speech, then logically we would need to censor the more popular anti free speech political ideologies as well, and with higher priority even! But that wouldn't be free speech anymore would it?

The reality of it is that Nazis only get censored because they are unpopular, a dead political ideology. There is no nation that supports it, and none that can defend it, it's an easy target. People who want to censor Nazis aren't doing it to protect Free Speech, they are doing it because they don't like them, the argument is fundumentally dishonest.

If you just want to censor people you don't like, then you don't support Freedom of Speech. Just like every other autoritarian regime that banned whatever they disliked. The line is very clear here.

That logic can be used to suppress most other political/religious ideologies and speech. If all it takes to justify censorship is a slippery slope argument that "when XYZ ideology gains enough real following the resulting implementation attempts probabilistically/historically lead to a suppressed society with hateful class division and mass death" -- then everything from Marxist writing to religious proselytizing qualifies for banning too.

A number of kiwifarms victims are guilty engaging in speech that the Kiwifarms users disagreed with. So Kiwifarms users launched criminal harassment campaigns and used the forum to coordinate sharing the personal information of these victims. Personal information that has no relevance except to intimidate. And then the owner of the forum comments in these threads actively encouraging the activity.

You characterize this as a difference of opinion. Despicable.