• T00l_shed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 天前

    In a similar vein to what is considered “reasonable” in courts, is how it needs to be done yes it can be abused, it already is. If someone said we need to kill all russians, they are all bad and I want everyone to know how they are the cause of all bad things, should we allow that person to continue? We can call them out, and we do, but then they have followers who will inevitably start attacking russians, or perceived russians. That’s why it can’t be accepted.

    • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 天前

      I don’t disagree that it can’t be accepted if they are inciting violence, that’s already a different classification of speech. If he or anyone else ever openly advocated for violence against anyone they should be shut down and brought up on charges.

      • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 天前

        And the fun part is, people like kirk lead people to these views points, like stand by and stand down. You need to be able to read between the lines. Kirk talking about abortion being like the Holocaust will incite some of his listeners to action, which starts small with protests and grows into bombing abortion clinics

        • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 天前

          That’s a leap. If you start banning speech based on what might happen if it’s interpreted a certain way by extremists, the game is lost.

          • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 天前

            It’s not a leap, it’s exactly what happens, it’s why kirk was shot, it’s stochastic terrorism.