• lynny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You don’t seem to understand. Free speech is fundamental. If you make it so hate groups can’t express themselves you open up precedent to making it so LGBT people can’t express themselves.

    If you force people to platforming LGBT speech against their beliefs, it opens the legal argument that you need to give a platform to hate groups as well.

    This is about precedent, not morals. That’s how free speech is codified in America. It is not like Europe where you can pick and choose what’s legal.

    • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Free speech absolutist I see.

      I mean, I honestly have never met a “free speech absolutist” that was any different than musk. “Free speech absolutist unless I don’t like you posting it and then I’ll flip sides because my original position was a convenient lie”

      HOWEVER, it’s fairly well supported that a tolerant society MUST NOT tolerate intolerance. So we MUST not tolerate any view that a particular group of people shouldn’t exist (with the obvious exceptions of other intolerance)

      The paradox of tolerance is on Wikipedia if you’d like a read.

    • pips@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Free speech is not absolute, there are exceptions. And the government can’t really stop hate speech until it crosses a certain threshold. Also, the fictional gay couple in the case in question was literally denied a platform and your argument has no internal logic, so I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. Saying you can’t discriminate against gay people is not the same as saying you should be forced to build websites for Nazis. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.