Isn't it suspicious you're the one who said "Fuck them" about Gaza children?
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
74 points (84.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
48180 readers
1061 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hate speech laws are fascist. As in, they are laws that differentiate between people. Some are protected but not beholden, while others are beholden but not protected. These laws are already used to protect cultist child abusers from criticism.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I really wonder how many people in this thread have ever had hate speech directed at themselves.
load more comments
(1 replies)
just a reminder- the 1st amendment is an amendment. When the people running things on behalf of their monied backers want to change things, they can change them and will.
your right to speech is not something an amendment can create or remove.
we already have laws against inciting violence, so there’s that.
but when uncle sam says you are no longer allowed to say “fuck israel and zionism” - remember, you are in the right to to say it.
Specific well-defined instances of hate speech like "all members of group XYZ deserve to die" should be banned IMO. More ambiguous things should not, otherwise the government can start banning political sentiments that it does not like.
Putin and his friends absolutely deserve to die. I'm not really killing anyone, but I can say that (well, outside of Russia, because freedom of speech doesn't work there). Freedom of speech allows me to say how exactly I don't like him and his gang.
Also, from reading about cases where people were jailed for something they have said - if it's allowed to prosecute people for anything, somebody might try to mess with your words to make you look guilty. For example, the law regarding "rehabilitating nazism" was used to prosecute people who were saying something about USSR working with nazi Germany in the beginning of WW2, or similar. Examples (sorry, too long to type so It's llm summaries:
- A person in Perm was fined 200,000 rubles for sharing an article that mentioned the “joint attack on Poland by the USSR and Germany” in 1939, which the authorities portrayed as “rehabilitating Nazism.”
- A woman in Smolensk was fined for posting a historical photo of her home under Nazi occupation, where a Wehrmacht flag and soldiers appeared in the background.
So if you make a word or a concept "bad", someone will try to use it maliciously, at some point. It doesn't help when court is not independent, that opens up a road to charging many people you don't like on daily basis.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes it should. "your freedom ends when you start to hurt my feelings" is just plain censorship, as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech
This is exceptionally bad in my homeland (Ukraine) So much so that if I explain the situation here, I'll just get banned here because it can be labeled as hate speech
load more comments
(1 replies)
The US extremist version of freedom of speech that also means freedom from consequences to what you say has nothing to do in a functional society. Which is why only the far right parties try to adopt it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I know it already is but should it be?
In countries that care about their people, it isn't. You do not have the freedom to intentionally hurt others, physically or verbally.
Nope , and that's why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean, the free speech folks have been seriously vindicated by Zionist crackdowns on Palestinian solidarity in post-Oct 2023 Europe, Germany and Britain being the most famous culprits. And it's not like the far right in either of those countries has been meaningfully impeded by hate speech laws, so why even bother?
I don't believe hate speech should be protected speech, we've been following hate speech laws in Canada since the 1960s and as far as I've lived, the spirit of these laws strikes me as "my freedoms end where yours begins."
Yes, but limiting any speech that does not specifically suggest violence or other illegal acts should also be included in freedom of speech.
What good is freedom of speech if 90% of the time someone can force you to censor yourself or just outright censor you themselves.
Examples include people being forced to beep out "murder", "kill", or "firearm" or say a different word instead. The mechanism for enforcing these changes or even encouraging them should be fined.
If for no other reason than to make bigots go full mask off so we know who they are, yes.
No, hate speech should not be protected, and there's an obvious reason for that. We already recognize that speech that purposely harms people is not protected, for example going into a theater room and screaming FIRE causing people to panic and stampede and killing someone the person will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That is not so different from someone going online and saying "gay people should be killed" and causing people to go out and do that, in fact I would even drop the involuntary from the charges against that person, because his intention was clearly to incite someone to do it. I'm not taking away the responsibility from the person who committed the act, but this situation is similar to a how in a group planning a crime even the boss who was in every meeting telling people to commit the crime but did not actually participate in gets charged with. And the same excuses apply "No, I didn't think that because I told them to go and kill someone they would do it" is not a valid defense for a mafia boss, and it shouldn't be for any person with public influence.
Yes. The reason why is because there's no clear definition on what hate speech even is. Regulating something that has no clear definition and often is context dependent infringes on regular speech.
Yes
/full stop
Huh? At least if hate speech is clearly and strictly defined in the law, this is the same as asking "Should owning a weapon without any controls be a civil right? I know it already is but should it be?"
In most countries hate speech is illegal. Anything else would be outright moronic.
I think hate speech should be censored online and from the press, but allowed irl
Wanna say controvertial shit, own up to it in person lol.
Dont just hide behind a keyboard
(Should require a court to approve of such censorship
Something like a Grand Jury thats sitting for a long term, but require a 3/4 supermajority to censor it)
You cant sockpuppet IRL lol