this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
483 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
78543 readers
4364 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a European, I've really come around to a more American view of Free Speech.
Over the last few years, we get more and more laws requiring more and more surveillance and censorship to protect copyright, stop hate speech, enforce GDPR, ... We're building up this infrastructure and the population thinks it's fine. The courts go along and ask for more.
What is going to happen when a European Trump comes to power? You think it's terrible that Big Tech goes along with Trump? That Must bought Twitter? We ain't seen nothing yet.
Wait what do you have against GDPR?
Yeah I don’t get that. How did free speech help when the Nazis humiliated jews publicly in the 1930s? How does it help now that the US president says that Somalis are trash people? Nick Fuentes saying the “organized Jewry in America” being a problem?
It seems obvious that I want the state to prevent hate speech, especially against minorities.
How did it help taking "jew-baiters" like Julius Streicher to court during the Weimar Republic? Obviously it didn't.
You want the state to act against hate speech coming from the elected head of state. What about that seems like a good plan?
You can't convince people that Trump is a bad guy, and so you want the state to go after the bad guys. Maybe you can convince people that the state should smash bad guys. It's not hard. But Trump is in charge of the state and not you. He'll decide who's a bad guy.
just to be clear, it seems like you are referring to the claimed american view of free speech, not the reality
Are there examples of censorship or prior restraint you'd like to highlight?
the white house encouraging witch hunts is a good one
It is real. There is a lot of hypocrisy, particularly among the right. But the difference between Europe and the US is stark.
Compare the criticism of the DMCA or Google's Content ID to this affair. It's on completely different levels.
The US has no limits which is fucking stupid, meanwhile Canada has limits on hate speech while still being far more free than the US speech wise.
I'm all in on no limits for free speech. The government's job is to provide services, not determine and police morality. And hate speech does not have a concrete definition, so it's a moving target (the government could define talking shit about Republicans as hate speech and make it illegal, for example). I don't like Nazis or racism or homophobia, but i like the idea that you are legally allowed to say nazi, racist or homophobic shit and I can hear it and choose to shun you.
I'm glad Canada is there for you with their rules if that makes sense to you. Not everybody has to agree with no limits on free speech -- plenty of places to live with mostly free-ish speech laws.