Message from @Death in June
Discord ID: 665184875430805519
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
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
and so they shouldnt
people should be able to say or joke about anything they want
do you think laws against incitement to violence are anti-liberal?
depends how far people attribute incitement to violence... do you think dankulas video was incitement to violence?
didnt someone post a video literally saying she wants someone to kill sargon.. in a very specific way
like if a politician were to, before a large crowd, advocate that a certain group be exterminated
dont recall anything happening to her
I think a politician would not get very far, saying something like that
at the end of the day, if they are saying its their opinion it should happen.. its still just an opinion
yeah but do you think that being illegal would be anti-liberal