I like this comment a lot. I can understand the argument to amend the Constitution for things like the Second Amendment (I disagree but I can at least see how you would believe we should do that).
Maybe I'm just too cloistered in my Americanism but I can't even comprehend the thought process that leads someone to believe in good faith that restricting someone's speech which doesn't incite violence and doesn't constitute fighting words to be a Good Thing.
The example I come back to is that saying "the holocaust never happened" will get you jailed in some European countries (and maybe Israel too? IDK). To me and my suburban American sensibilities going to jail for saying that is worse than saying it in the first place. Saying that is objectively wrong and it points to some related beliefs that I find abhorrent. Saying it does not incite any violence. Saying it does not harm anyone - in the real, physical way not the pseudo-"speech can be violence" nonsense way.
I think companies should be able to fire you for abhorrent speech. Platforms should be able to de-platform you. Business should refuse to serve you. I have no problem with any of that. But a government should be restricted in what it can do to people based on their speech.
The parliamentary note is particularly interesting. It was posted elsewhere that Labour got something like 1/3 of the vote this time around but due to the parliamentary system is basically running the government? The US is obviously very different where even having a majority doesn't allow you do whatever you want (by design, and IMO a good thing).
Maybe I'm just too cloistered in my Americanism but I can't even comprehend the thought process that leads someone to believe in good faith that restricting someone's speech which doesn't incite violence and doesn't constitute fighting words to be a Good Thing.
The example I come back to is that saying "the holocaust never happened" will get you jailed in some European countries (and maybe Israel too? IDK). To me and my suburban American sensibilities going to jail for saying that is worse than saying it in the first place. Saying that is objectively wrong and it points to some related beliefs that I find abhorrent. Saying it does not incite any violence. Saying it does not harm anyone - in the real, physical way not the pseudo-"speech can be violence" nonsense way.
I think companies should be able to fire you for abhorrent speech. Platforms should be able to de-platform you. Business should refuse to serve you. I have no problem with any of that. But a government should be restricted in what it can do to people based on their speech.
The parliamentary note is particularly interesting. It was posted elsewhere that Labour got something like 1/3 of the vote this time around but due to the parliamentary system is basically running the government? The US is obviously very different where even having a majority doesn't allow you do whatever you want (by design, and IMO a good thing).