• Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    They never believed in the constitution or in free speech. They just didn’t like it when people disagreed with them.

    The evidence has always been in their actions. Hate speech hampers freedom of speech, and they wanted to protect hate speech. This puts them in direct conflict with a genuinely free society.

    Preserving the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest amount of people usually means giving up some smaller specific freedoms, like, you know, the freedom to threaten the lives of minorities.

    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Personally, I think they should be allowed to threaten - and for those minorities and good folk to openly promise bloody murder if the racists tried their luck.

      The right-wing traditionally has a monopoly on violence, not just physical, but also in speech. When you are free of consequence, your reach will grasp ever further. Like what Trump is doing with his EOs.

      • Glide@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        I love the energy, but the reality is that minorities do not have the power of the oppressors. Allowing that kind of back and fourth will be met with larger consequences for one group than the other. But again, conceptually, I’m with you.

        • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yep, this is the big issue. Majorities rule by force. If the minorities were able to change things by fighting back, they would have already done so. But as it currently stands, one side has a much larger capacity for violence, and it is not the minority.