Comment on Why was there a pro-Hitler, Holocaust-denying ad on X?
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 week agoParadox of tolerance comes to mind. If you just put up with people who want to do bad things, they’ll probably do bad things!
And it was considered before. There was a Holocaust. It was decided, via violence and other means, that naziism is not okay.
Also, Twitter is a private platform and is largely free to decide what goes on its platform.
You’re approaching fractally wrong, here.
timewarp@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Over 50 years of case law on the subject shows I’m right, but go on and tell me how you’re degree in emotions proves me wrong.
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 week ago
There are numerous cases showing that free speech is not absolute.
Law is also not necessarily correct.
And that doesn’t address that we’re talking about a private platform.
You’re still wrong, and you’re still wrong in a way that supports the absolute worst of humanity.
timewarp@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Both things fascist have said as well.
Also, what prominent cases in the US would you like to discuss regarding free speech where you think the courts have ruled incorrectly?
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 week ago
I’m not going to do legal research or write a whole thesis for you.
Maybe start here for cases where freedom of speech is not absolute: …wikipedia.org/…/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theat…
You can also consider that the NYT is not legally or morally obligated to publish every letter they receive. Are your first amendment rights being violated when they opt not to print your letter? No.
I don’t want to discuss with you. I don’t think you’re acting in good faith.
I mean really “sometimes laws are incorrect” -> “fascists say that” is like satire.