• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Ok, and what does that mean if not the right to free speech?

    Just because the far right tries to change the definition to forcing private platforms to letting them say what they want doesn’t change anything. That’s not free speech, that’s restricting the platform owner’s speech. Free speech is a restriction on the types of laws governments can pass regarding speech (i.e. forcing a major platform to accept a user’s speech would certainly be a violation).

    The political right can’t change that definition for the same reason the political left can’t force deplatforming of “hate speech.”

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      what does that mean if not the right to free speech?

      It just means being allowed to say what you want. It has nothing to do with rights or laws.

      Just because the far right tries to change the definition

      Uhhhh that’s the opposite of what’s happening. The UN is the one trying to change the definition to pretend it means something other than what it does.

      letting them say what they want doesn’t change anything. That’s not free speech,

      Yes. That is the very definition of free speech.

      that’s restricting the platform owner’s speech.

      The platform is not the one being censored. The users are.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        It seems we’re arguing the same thing.

        The far right in the US argues that “free speech” means forcing large SM orgs to give them a platform, and this UN goon seems to think it means silencing “hate speech” (I guess freedom from speech?).

        Both are wrong.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The far right in the US argues that “free speech” means forcing large SM orgs to give them a platform

          Yes that’s what it means. The platforms are under no obligation to give it to them, but if they don’t allow certain types of speech, that is the definition of censorship (the opposite of free speech). It is their prerogative as a private platform to censor speech.

          and this UN goon seems to think it means silencing “hate speech” (I guess freedom from speech?).

          The UN goons think silencing hate speech is not censorship. It is. Let’s stop playing senseless semantics games and just own it. Say “yes we are censoring hate speech” because arguing that it’s not is dishonest.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Exactly, and I argue censorship is only a problem when it comes from the government. If a private platform censors my speech, I can either accept it or go elsewhere. If the government censors my speech, I’m screwed.