if you accept that certain speech impedes on the liberty of certain groups then i think it's hard to make the case that the suppression of speech is inherently illiberal

Do you think speech has the same effects as action?

the best case against that i suppose would be that it infringes on the notion between the division of the state and civil sphere

but of course even then laws against incitement already do that

i mean speech is an action, but obviously it doesn't have the same effects as a non-speech action

From spec:. "It is time to ditch the Notting Hill assumption that the best thing one can do for northerners is to let them come to London a little bit faster. Far better if HS2 is folded into a project for improving transport links between (and within) cities in the north of England, and other areas crying out for the investment"

This

Even 60 miles north of London there's little East to West

HS2 can carry freight too, but otherwise, yeah that would probably make sense

It's also getting extended farther north

Bring London up north. Let them learn of real England <:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

pot

Need a new great fire of london

@Death in June thats the thing about liberty, its not supposed to be about the groups, its about the individual

when you put the groups above the individual, thats not liberal.. thats anti-liberal

i don't see how that runs counter to protecting individuals from impediments on their liberty because they are targeted by virtue of the group they are a part of

thats what I am saying... protect the individual

yeah that's generally the states purpose of hate speech laws

if someone says "I really dont like white people" .. they are perfectly free and at liberty to have that opinion.. and even express it... if however they fire someone, or post a job not allowing members of said group.. that is when they are affecting them

in fact... even then, you would have to prove that there is a consistent behaviour

at least in the ango-world... where people are innocent until proven guilty... I suppose over on the european mainland its different, being guilty until proven innocent

which is why english liberalism is different from the idea of "liberty" on the mainland

the idea though is that certain speech can contribute to a cultural environment that violates people's liberty on the basis of characteristics like race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc

Key word being "can"

speech is an extension of someones own thoughts

well, proponents of hate speech policies would generally argue it does

the government should not control/punish human thought

actions are an extension of someone's thoughts

people should be free to express any emotion... even hate

if you murder someone odds are what you thought influenced that decision

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1215625888454279168

do you think people should be able to advocate for genocide

what is this

well.. not always (people dont always think about murder before it happens).. but if I went on twitter and said Id kill for a bbq should I be arrested?

i don't think anyone would think so

and btw... people advocate for genocide all the time on twitter

nothing happens to them

and no-one cares

at least when its "cant we genocide white people"

well of course they will care less when it comes to white people