Conservatives and Section 230. Is Trump stabbing the right-wing in the back?

As usual your nonsense in unsourced, when you do cite actual examples they’re entirely insignificant.

What about the people attacked, killed and verbally abused as a resul5 of incitement by hate groups?

What the people dying because of the nonsense quoted by anti vaxers and no maskers?

They can be measured in thousands and it’s a lot more important than some idiot who’s had to answer a few questions at the police station.

Thailand is not a liberal democracy.

As usual you’ve got nothing, paper tigers and windmills.

You are making an argument against free speech.

1. You are saying the government should have the power to restrict hate speech because it will (allegedly) stop hate groups from attacking, abusing or killing people.

2. You are saying the government should have the power to censor anti-vaxers because people are dying of diseases.

This is your opinion. I disagree with it. But if you are arguing that the government should have the ability to restrict speech and prevent opinions from being expressed... don't call that free speech (no matter how good you think the reasons are).

Every government from the UK, to Thailand, to North Korea allows citizens to freely express ideas and opinions that are deemed acceptable by the government. Calling this free speech is ridiculous. Once the government has the power to label certain ideas as unacceptable and punish people who express them... there is no longer freedom of speech.

You are affording lies the same respect as truth.

You’re not interested in free speech, just spreading lies, disinformation, and hate.

Free speech is a convenient banner to hide behind.

You want to shut people up who are telling the truth, that’s not free speech.

You are suggesting you have an absolute "truth". Practically speaking, this truth will be decided by a government with the power to censor ideas it doesn't consider to be "true". I don't want any government to have that power.

Yes, I am supporting the right of people to spread "lies disinformation and hate" (although I believe these terms are subjective).

No, I do not want to "shut up people" who "who are telling the truth". Free speech means everyone gets to express their opinion, whether the government decides it is "true" or not.

You want to create a climate of fear where people are scared to speak out against powerful interests and far right groups for fear of being targeted.

You want to stifle free speech by giving those who threaten violence and spread fear free rein.

You are doing the Oralloy mind reading trick....

You say decided by the government as if it’s rule by diktat, the whim of some autocrat while in truth it’s something put out to consultation because it’s something the vast majority of the population have to agree with.

Many liberal democracies have a legal definition of hate speech arrived at by years of consultation and legal arguments.

At the end of the day it’s very simple, any language encouraging people to harm or abuse a specific group based on belief, race, sexuality, appearance or disability is hate speech.

You are deliberately trying to muddy the waters and over complicate things because it’s what you always do.

I am not muddying anything, it is very simple. You are making an argument against free speech.

When the government makes a distinction between acceptable speech and "hate speech" and then restricts "hate speech"... it is no longer free speech.

You have come up with a definition of hate speech. It is an an arbitrary definition. And it has many subjective terms; what constitutes "harm" and what is a "belief".

The simple fact is this. You are arguing that certain speech should be restricted by the government. I disagree with you (with very narrow exceptions).

Izzy's relies on an idea of absolute truth and a faith that his government (he uses the term "liberal democracy") will correctly find it. A belief in absolute truth rests on the faith that every good person will come up with the same beliefs on important moral issues. I find this to be dangerous. Of course the problem is that everyone believes they are "good" people, and yet people have drastically different ideas about what is true... particularly on moral issues where there is no absolute standard or any objective way to determine right and wrong.

Let me choose a hypothetical example. I am clearly choosing this to be provocative, and yet it is a timely example. For the record, I don't take the position in my hypothetical.

The phrase "Trans women are women" is offensive to several groups of people. In particular, there are traditional feminists (generally considered to be liberal) who believe that this is an erasure of what it means to be a woman.

So what would happen if a government came to power that believed this was offensive? The government could declare that treating trans women as women was a lie (this is an argument over definition that can't be proven factually). Further, a liberal democracy could declare that expressing this belief is hate speech against biological women.

I am pretty sure that in this hypothetical circumstance... that Izzy would be against this censorship.

My point of this thought experiment is that once you allow the government to make these arbitrary decisions, you run the risk that your beliefs might be censored.

Free speech means the right to express your ideas... even if the government and society at large find them offensive.

I’m not arguing against free speech, you’re arguing for the right for armed thugs to silence free speech through violence and intimidation.

You’re not fooling anyone.

This made me chuckle. This is almost to the word what Oralloy says.

For the record, neither Oralloy nor Izzy have ever come up with a example where I have argued for armed thugs to do anything.

You really are clutching at straws.

Nah... I am just amusing myself.

Just you then.