Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their “free speech absolutist” postures the moment they think they are in power.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 days ago

    First thing Free Speech Absolutionist Elon did when taking over Twitter was making it so that cisgender is a slur, but the n-word is not

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Well, only their free speech.

        Your blasphemous thoughts should be banned, obviously.

        • gabbath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          No no, we still value free speech, just that yours isn’t really speech, it’s the woke mind virus. And that needs to be eradicated. So, you see, we’re still free speech absolutists!

          This is how they trick people.

  • d4rko@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    “First they fascinate the fools, then they muzzle the intelligent” Bertrand Russell.

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yes.

    Fascist ideologies, like Nazism, are explicitly anti-liberalist. They don’t believe in the very concept of liberties. They explicitly write down on paper why they believe democracy and freedom is a failure. So, when you see one pulling the free speech card, they’re simply trying to appeal to your beliefs, or society’s beliefs, to give themselves a platform. It’s inherently insincere, they’re mocking you.

    Nazis have to act like this. History has shown us, without doubt, how repulsive their plans are both in theory and in practice, so until they have power, they cannot show their true colors. They can’t just be honest and play “might is right” yet because communities would just do the right thing and violently extinguish their movement (including, but not limited to, punching them on sight). So they must hide behind society’s privileges, the rights and freedoms of liberalism. They can enjoy police protection at protests to save them from the people they work to have killed, they can sue people for collecting intelligence on them and getting them fired, they can just point out liberalist hypocracy if their freedoms are violated, but listen to leaks and how they organize behind closed doors to know that’s simply opportunistic cowardice.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Their version of free speech is to prevent you from contradicting the lies they continuously spew and then paint your rebuttal as an attack on their rights to spew them. They’re the victim of leftist propaganda.

  • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Fascism is incompatible with any kind of freedom. Free speech is co-opted by conservatives and fascists so that they can promote bigotry without consequence. There is no reason that members of the KKK should be legally allowed to recruit people. That should be against the law. It should be against the law to promote xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and queerphobia. The only people who benefit from a system where you can espouse those beliefs without legal consequence are bigots and fascists.

  • ghostfish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    They believe in free speech only enough to get into power and then remove it.

  • Wilco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yes, this is absolutely true. The evidence is clear when you consider how Twitter is going and with the censorship mentality spreading to other media, like the Reddit bans.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s important for everybody to not just assume the people on your own team, or the people that look like you, are being truthful and arguing in good faith.

    That goes for everybody, but it seems pretty consistent that you need to me more wary of it as you move towards the conservative end of the scale. And conveniently for those politicians, the citizens on that end of the scale are the worst at cutting through the BS. Arguably that’s what landed them there in the first place!

    • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 days ago

      Interesting read.

      They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The antisemites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

      This is what we see these days. Trump and his followers lying is normalized, i.e., they are not “obliged to use words responsibly”, whereas anybody argues against trumpists is.

      They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

      This is what changed since then. They no longer fear being seen as ridiculous or stupid. They embrace it.

  • nednobbins@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Does anyone?

    The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 days ago

      Does anyone?

      Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.

      It’s bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it. Hate groups and vile scum always do that with things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it.

          Nothing new historically. You don’t have to accept their false premises by surrendering ideas to them.

          things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous

          Free speech is power, not innocuous: authorities fear it. It belongs to the people unless they surrender it.

          Used to care about? Only if you let them stop you.

    • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      yeah it’s a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where “speech” is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Exactly. The real debate is on which parts should be off limits.

        Most people can think of some speech that they consider so horrible that nobody should be allowed to say it.

        People often try to hedge that position by arguing that they’re not even really infringing on anyone’s speech because their form of restriction doesn’t meet a sufficient threshold of censorship.

  • Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Barely anyone truly believes in it. They only care when they need it.

    I’ve been a free speech advocate and activist for years and I helped people that literally wanted me banned 2 months prior for the most nonsense reasons. They didnt care sbout free speech until they stepped over a line - then, free speech was the most important thing in the world.

    That’s universal for all political alignments btw. It’s both fascist clowns or wannabe antifa super soldiers. Both only care about it when it’s needed.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      What speech were “wannabe antifa supersoldiers” trying to suppress?

      There’s legitimate benefits to societies disallowing fraud and abusive speech- lies and threats can drown out useful benefits of actual free speech by squelching it.