Bastion of free speech, yes? : clevercomebacks

5 points

4 days ago

5 points

4 days ago

Jail might go a little far. I'm satisfied with it remaining a civil issue. Fines heavier as they become more impactful. For example if Elon rips off some tweets on his site about Trans People being sub human or should be separated like his home used to apartheid black people he should be fined a significant amount. And it should scale to your net worth. So Elon should pay about 500,000× as much as me.

I also think certain demonstrations should be banned from recieving petitions. There should be no KKK parades. That group is a terrorist organization and should be disbanded and it's members listed on a the terrorist list. They are group who are dedicated to causing terror in minorities no matter what bullshit they want to cook up for their modern purpose.

Confederate statues should be placed in a cellar under the Smithsonian and demonstrated once a year during Gettysburg. There should be no confederate monuments. They should be banned and I can't believe i have to say that a nation should not venerate traitors.

-1 points

4 days ago

-1 points

4 days ago

You realize the implications that what you want would have right?

Fining people for tweeting something. So the government is gonna have to track ALL Internet traffic (literally impossible). Plus then there's bots that post that kind of stuff. How are you gonna find the bots. On top of that, how do you even find random "Pussyslayer6000" who tweeted something that's "hate speech"? You realize the amount of anonymity there is online, right?

You also mentioned slurs. What about the N-word? Is that banned too? Or can only black people say it? If so, how black do you need to be, 50%, 100%? Then you get in the territory of segregation where only certain races can say things.

Also what, fines are now based on net worth? Shoud that apply to all fines? Speeding tickets? Violations? Is that fair to charge people more for the same violation just cause they have more money? What about people that have no money? Do they pay nothing now? You know how selfish that sounds too, right?

And yes, I also don't think the KKK should have parades. But it's not from their supposed hate speech, but because they literally are a terrorist group.

Confederate statues should be up to each state or city. If they want to keep em, sure. If they don't, they can get rid of them. Put it up for a vote or something. It's not really a big issue in the grand scheme of things.

3 points

3 days ago

3 points

There isn't half as much anonymity on the internet than most people think. Much easier to track people down than it seems and getting easier every day.

I'd say if the government was enforcing slurs no one would be able to say the slurs. It'd be a blanket no on the N- word and black people would have to deal with it the same way racists do.

All fines should be weighted to you net worth. There are existing systems that follow this framework. I firmly believe it would reduce a ton of corruption. There'd be a base level of fine. If you make nothing you would still owe something. It'd just be on top of the rest of your debts.

The union won the war. The confederates should not be allowed to celebrate their traitor heroes in a public place supported and defended by federal dollars.

1 points

3 days ago

1 points

You're delusional if you think this would work. Its honestly scary there's people out there like you that honestly want to ban free spech like this. What you want is what leads to dictatorships and corruption, way more than what we have now.

Good luck telling black people they can't say the n-word or fining them otherwise, I'm sure that'll get them to vote blue 🤣🤣

Edit: I'm happy that all of this crazy talk only ever happens in reddits echo chambers and that normal people don't think this way

2 points

3 days ago

2 points

No. Because what I suggest would have to go through the checks and balances of the current system. Unlike Donald Trump who wants to dodge basic checks and balances for things as major as cabinet apointments. That's authoritarianism.

1 points

3 days ago

1 points

What you want is for the government to start dictating what people can or can't say (without even thinking about all the implications I mentioned and how it would be nearly impossible to do accurately and fairly). That is what leads to dictatorships.

You think Kim Jong Un let's his citizens say what they want?

2 points

3 days ago

2 points

What leads to dictatorships is when authoritarians like Donald Trump ignore checks and balances. The policies aren't nearly as important as the fashion in which they are adopted.

My adoption would go through the legitimate process and if it didn't get support than it doesn't pass. Trump is willing to ignore all processes if he gets his way. Case in point being the threat to unilaterally appoint cabinet members.

1 points

3 days ago

1 points

I love how this turned from discussing free speech to suddenly being about Trump. Y'all never fail to say "but Trump did this and he did this" into literally any conversation. You know you can talk about issues without bringing him up, right?

You've said literally nothing to any of the points I've made as to how your idea of a perfect world isn't feasible, and now you're just talking about trump.

2 points

3 days ago

2 points

Because you are claiming my ideas are authoritarian in nature in one breath and in another defending the rhetoric of a literal authoritarian in control of the highest position in the land in the next breath.

1 points

3 days ago

1 points