Five years ago, if you had been told you needed to watch what you said on social media and in public in the US, no one would have believed it. It would have seemed a tongue-in-cheek reference to Orwell’s 1984, or an absurd comparison to totalitarian states where freedom of speech is not a thing.
pull down to refresh
related posts
168 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 15 Jul
I remember seeing an article in the WSJ about the ways in which Chinese dissidents were managing to get news through the overwhelming censorship there. This was from maybe about 10 or so years ago.
The article listed some crazy ideas the dissidents were using, such as
- translating the text to Klingon
- using some kind of emoji-based communication.
I thought to myself, back then, "Wow. At least we don't need to do that here".
And then I saw during the covid era, how people got censored for writing the word vaccine, ivermectin, all kinds of things like that. They had to start using other words, which constantly changed as they were added to the "censorship list". Like vaxx, jab, magic juice, etc.
That really struck me. No, we're not the worst, we're not as bad as China. But there is extreme censorship on very important topics.
reply
14 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 15 Jul
Also how law in the U.S. moved fast against antisemitism about Palestine.
reply
117 sats \ 13 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul
I don't agree to the radical viewpoint about 'Freefom of Speech' is a lie in America.
Actually, freedom of speech in the US is as close to ‘absolute’ as it gets. It allows, for instance, hate speech against gay people at their funeral. To a normal person - and country - this would be utterly inappropriate. Not so in America.
reply
168 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 15 Jul
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about what freedom of speech is. It was supposed to protect the people from the federal government preventing speech of any kind. What you are referring to is empowered by government.
In a society that respects property rights the owner of a property can and should censor the behavior of those on their property.
Hate speech is not something that can be defined in law since it is subjective. Even if you and I agree that your example is indeed hateful.
The next thing related to this that is misunderstood is the freedom of association. Every individual should be free to not associate with people they find hateful, offensive, or just don't like. You will always have people that hate other people for things outside of their control or for reasons they do not see eye to eye on. Government cannot fix this.
And let us remember that all government action is violence at the core. So when we say there should be a law, we are saying men with guns should throw someone in a cage for doing x. If they resist they should be violently detailed and possibly killed.
Hate has no place in our culture but it exists. I think it will always exists so we have to figure out ways to deal with it that do not escalate the hatred. Empowering individuals to make choices is to me the most logical way to do this.
reply
77 sats \ 3 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul
I completely agree to your points.
reply
34 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 15 Jul
Then do you also understand that politicians push ideas like hate speech because they seek to gain the power to censor those that threaten their power?
You see, both sides in the US cry to daddy government to fix all their problems or stop the other side. They are both building the monster we call the state. Giving it more power over our everyday lives. They both lie. They care about their privileged lives and gaining wealth and power. They do not care about the people. They do not care about defending whatever. They care about votes. They say what they think they need to say to get power.
Its all in the incentives.
reply
66 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul
Yes, I understand and I can easily see it happening in every nation!
I also understand 'politics is for perks, not for people's welfare.
I was only trying to point out that 'the freedom of speech' as practiced in America is much closer to its aim than it is in other countries.
reply
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Jul
Fake news is another concept similar to hate speech but I haven’t heard that phrase in a while
Maybe COVID retired it
reply
35 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 15 Jul
The fact is that using the FBI to force private companies to censor speech is illegal according to our constitution, and from a human rights standpoint.
The problem with constitutions is they can’t enforce anything, they need people to use force to uphold them.
“ And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
-Thomas Jefferson
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul
Undoubtedly, Jefferson here sounds a bit more practical than others. But, I don't align my views with his. I would rather read Gandhi than such Jeffersons to find out what liberty and life actually is!
reply
88 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Jul
That is considered "inappropriate" in America. Freedom of speech is about legal consequences, not decorum.
reply
43 sats \ 3 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul
Why not illegal? Can you easily move on without getting any penalties for spreading hate speech!
reply
135 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Jul
It's not illegal, because allowing the state to decide which opinions are allowable is incompatible with a free society.
We do have laws against harassment, which these sorts of people can be guilty of, depending on how they're expressing themselves.
There are social penalties for behaving this way. In all likelihood, you'd be fired from your job and shunned by most people. Like I said, it is considered inappropriate.
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinsreporter 15 Jul
Ohh! Thank you so much! I was talking in comparison to India. India, so far doesn't have any code for free speech. From 'Social Media' people are regularly picked for abusing this 'freedom'. They are taken to custody and then sent to jail.
There's so much political debate here but publicly people are reluctant. Religious intolerance is also seen as an attempt to kill Indian culture!
Such things are just 'inappropriate' in US!
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 16 Jul
India is often described as the largest democracy in the world.
Is political expression generally allowed, but other subjects punished?
reply
14 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 15 Jul
Hate speech is speech the government hates
reply
76 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinAbhi 15 Jul
A very good article! Thanks for posting it!
We've always believed that America is a country that's best for upholding free speech notion. It's sad to see such experiences there. Anything that does not involve a gate speech should not be censored at all.
reply
65 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 15 Jul
Free speech is a piper's dream in current scenarios! Government thinks that all internet platforms where people gather should only and always praise them. Without free speech US would sound like NK.
reply
56 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Jul
COVID was an inflection point. Hunter Biden laptop story or non-story.
Trump winning in 2016 was also an inflection point for free speech and censorship.
Germany has arrested members of the right wing AfD, Alternative for Deutschland, for 'hate speech' against recent immigrants.
reply
64 sats \ 0 replies \ @Malachi17 15 Jul
If the internet is a public forum, and there is a lot of evidence to say that it is, then it should be held to the Freedom of Speech that public forums are. If not, then simply remove the public from the products and see if they are still worth anything.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @DesertDave 21 Jul
I never could have guessed how strange things would become
reply
142 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Jul
This article isn't bad. This person points out some real problems but the solution is in tech/tools and exercising your freedoms. No government can grant rights like freedom of speech. No government will protect your rights because at a certain point it is against their interests. The people must exercise their rights and develop tools that make it impossible for them to not be free.
Here are some examples:
- Gun powder
- The Internet
- Tor
- Bittorrent
- Bitcoin
- Nostr
Some examples of people exercising their rights and peacefully resisting the state.
- Slaves leaving their masters
- People helping slaves escape their masters
- People refusing to fight in wars
- People refusing to obey Jim Crow laws (both blacks and whites)
- People practicing home schooling with it was not sanctioned by the state.
- People exercising their right to defend themselves
- People refusing the shots during Covid
I could go on but you get the idea.
I am glad there are people fighting in the court system for the rights of people to be free but it has been clear to me for years that this cannot be the main focus. Conservatives talk about the Constitution like it is their holy book. Those they fight view it completely differently. Both sides seem to not really be thinking as much as feeling. In my experience you cannot reason with most of them.
This is why Bitcoin is so important. Like many other tools if it works it cuts through these mental blocks.
reply
67 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Jul
Nah, the Constitution is a document designed to be something to limit federal government abuse of power over the states. Its powerless to do anything. At best it is a guide if the people would actually understand it and elect people that respect it. Instead the lawyers that have always ran the county for the bankers bend it and break it. They have since the days of Lysander Spooner when he wrote "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".
Most people have believed a lie their whole lives. I did for many years as well.
reply
67 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Jul
Ha. I have believed it as long as I can remember.
reply
67 sats \ 0 replies \ @fm 15 Jul
https://m.stacker.news/39806
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 15 Jul
Censoring our ideas or the content we wish to share is a violation of our freedom of expression. We must fight so that we can all be heard.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 15 Jul
With the increased visibility and reach of social networks, control and restrictions have also increased. No one is safe behind a screen anymore.
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Aug
#641377
England surveilling mean tweets, wants to extradite Elon Musk
reply