Recent searches
Search options
Part of my joy comes from blocking angry dudes that feel entitled to engagement. Highly recommend it! 
I don't have to talk with everybody. There are so many people that are genuinely curious and open minded, that I just don't have to deal with these dudes.
There's an effectively infinite supply of "dudes on the internet." There is absolutely no shortage. The marginal cost of blocking one, is close to zero.
"Well, what about the marketplace of ideas huh? Not very inclusive of you!"
OK! 
Paradox of tolerance and all that.
I don't see it as a paradox at all. You cannot include all ideas, because one of the loudest ideas, is "We should silence the ideas of Black people!" 
You cannot include this idea without excluding other ideas. So absolute inclusion shouldn't even be anyone's goal. It's certainly not mine.
And dealing with annoying people online can be exhausting. Even if they're not malicious! Me doing "racism 101" individually for millions of people, just doesn't work.
@mekkaokereke That's my perspective as well. You get more free speech if you exclude hate speech. If you include hate speech, then you lose *all* the speech from the victims. It's a loss for society because minorities have the unique perspectives you don't have in the dominant culture. Edit: I mean, from a market of ideas perspective. It is just wrong from a societal perspective.
@dan613 @mekkaokereke
Maybe it is because USA was born with that principle of free speech that they have a hard time what it meant not having it. Free speech is about not being persecuted by officials for stating an opinion, about the state, about the church, about science. It has never been about gaining access to a platform or a right to a public.
Free speech applied to hate speech gives them the right to not be jailed for stating their opinion in a KKK rag.
Free speech also means that everyone is free to set up rule in their media, social or otherwise, to select opinions it wants published.
@mekkaokereke@hachyderm.ioThe US has never really had free speech. Ever.
There's never been a point in US history when Black folk could speak freely without severe consequences from their government. By severe consequences, I mean government programs designed to falsely imprison or execute them.
Slavery was obvious.
To Jim Crow: cops & politicians targeting "uppity" negroes.
To COINTELPRO.
To "Black Identity extremists."
US free speech usually just means "Let the nazis talk"
1/N
And the most obvious: voting is arguably the most important form of free speech. But it's 2024, and there has never been a single presidential election in US history where it was as easy for Black people to vote as it is for white people to vote.
I don't think most folk in the US realize how shameful that is. We just... kinda accept it. We don't realize that we're the only major country that restricts the free speech of *an entire race* this way.
2/N
The US government had a specific program for "neutralizing" people who they perceived as a threat. Neutralizing is... what it sounds like.
MLK was targeted by the US government for neutralization. For his speech!
All civil rights leaders were targeted, because saying "There should be less racism, maybe?" was seen as dangerous. And MLK was perceived to be "The most dangerous negroe" because of his "I have a dream" speech.
https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/111759677741315727
3/N
So no, the 1st amendment isn't real, if it's "Yes, you can say what you want! But if you say stuff and you're Black, your government might murder you for it, under an official tax-payer funded program."
Similarly, the 2nd amendment isn't real either. Because it's "Yes, you can be armed if you want! But if you're armed and you're Black, there's a pretty good chance that your government will murder you in the street without hesitation, and without consequence."
4/4
@mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io @ktp_programming@piaille.fr @dan613@ottawa.place IIRC a lot of the gun control laws (and even the term "assault weapon") on the west coast had nothing to do with recognizing the danger of guns. It was because white people were afraid of the Black Panthers.
@mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613 by the people, for the people, has the caveat that people are old rich white men
@mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613
If you're white in America and have a gun and point it and shoot it at a former president and actively campaigning presidential candidate, they'll capture you alive.
If you're Black in America and have a toy gun, they'll shoot you dead within minutes, if not seconds.
@mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613
This is a "yes and" post.
Look what they're trying right now with LGBTQ+ people. Its to the point where some are claiming that existing in public is 'grooming.' Never mind even trying to speak.
Freedom of speech has (nearly always) meant "freedom for normative cis het white men to say the most sayable".
I quit believing the liberal freedom of speech fetish when I realised it only ever applies to Klan marches and almost never to queers.
@celesteh @mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613
This comes up every single year with the 'kink at pride' discourse, too. 'But what if we take our children to this parade! This [historical protest march celebration about sex and identity] needs to [conform to what I think is appropriate as not a member of the community or intended audience].'
This happens -every year-, and it's legal and free speech, but they just don't like LGBTQ+ people existing in any meaningful way.
@celesteh Wait, what? How? As a queer person who is a big believer in freedom of speech, I'd be very interested to hear how we're being censored where they aren't.
@louis theres an example in the post. Various states are trying to make it illegal for trans people to use bathrooms, but cannot and will not prevent fascist rallies. Legislation against drag queen events for children is a free speech issue.
Meanwhile, the UK is extremely far from perfect, but does not have a first amendment, so holocaust denial is actively illegal at universities.
@celesteh They're *trying* to make it illegal, but our 1st amendment is exactly what is preventing them. In my home state of Florida, they tried to enact a drag ban and the courts not only overturned it, they mocked the state for its audacity.
Freedom of speech is exactly what protected us, so that's not an example of it failing us.
It has not protected us historically. It's nice that it protects us now sometimes, and I certainly hope it lasts, but this is relatively new. And, again, if it's freedom of expression, this ought to include gender expression and toilet access, but it doesn't always.
@celesteh Gender expression, absolutely, totally agreed. But I think the toilet bit is more of a 14A thing.
And while it may not have protected us throughout history... it did protect someone's right to advocate for the changes that got us to where we are today, just as it protects our right to demand a better tomorrow.
I mean, it specifically did not protect our right to organise. The original gay magazines were illegal to mail. Groups met in secret. More public gatherings, like bars, had to bribe the police. Stonewall was literally a riot.
@celesteh In 1960, California made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. It was struck down due to the 1st Amendment.
In 1969, vague laws against nebulous "obscenity" were struck down for the same reason.
Like every right, we always have to fight to extend it to every individual. But the 1st Amendment is the basis for that fight happening in the first place, and is the justification we can rely on to fight for our freedom.
And yet the US lags behind some countries that don't have the same kind of text. The Netherlands has better protections for us and less restrictions on obscenity.
In the US, we're protected only because activism has put us in the realm of the sayable, not because of the amendment. That we now discuss this in terms of the amendment is only because our legal system references it.
These protections are not guaranteed by this amendment. They're a result of social norms that can easily slip away.
@mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613 I think it's not just the US but most of the Americas countries where the dominant classes were of European descent. Here in Argentina, for example, the african descending populations were not only used as cannon fodder but also erased from official history for a century and a half. And aboriginal peoples were also denied, suffered genocide and their mere existence disregarded in a blattantly way.
@auka_kapak @mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613 tangent: black freedmen were a large portion of the army that fought for the independence of Chile and Peru
this is not taught
@aadriasola @mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613 of course, as many slave owners sent their slaves to fight, often offering to send up to even eight instead of one of their own family. Sgt. Bautista Cabral, who saved Gen. San Martín 's life in San Lorenzo, was an afro descendant, which led to his image be neglected and denied for decades in the official history, and there is literally no portrait, pictorical reference nor word depiction of his person.
@mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613
The wealthy, on the other hand, are citizens united who buy non-wealthy's belief system
@mekkaokereke @ktp_programming @dan613 The US has always been great at pretending. They pretend free speech is for everyone and absolute. They pretend anybody should can carry around a gun. They pretend pro-life and Christian beliefs are just.
It is all a charade. And that charade has been made more visible and overt…