basically unless you are willing to defend 4chan/gab/pixiv's existence when they get banned, don't call yourselve a free speech advocate
@ghost that's utter nonsense. There is more to freedom of speech than "everyone can say everything they want". As with everything in societies, its about finding a balance between interests and making sure that the result is a solution that allows people to get along with each other.
Freedom of speech has a whole spectrum which can describe it. And allows limitations where it's appropriated and other people's rights are at risk.
@Moon @ghost Let me provide you an explicit example that doesn't have to do anything with politics:
Let's say someone puts out ton of false information about certain companies to drop their stocks. In the US that considered market manipulation. Another example is selling you something I don't have or by pretending that something does something, that it doesn't do. That's called fraud, we have laws against that.
One could argue that this has to be covered by absolute freedom of speech.
@sheogorath @Moon I say the offense comes from damage, rather than the speech itself. otherwise any speech can be deemed dangerous if you try hard enough. I'm from a socialist state, so I shall point you to the USSR joke that the USSR constitution protects freedom of speech perfectly well, except it doesn't cover freedom after speech.
politics
@PeterCxy @ghost @Moon To me it seems more that you are concern about how to get (back?) a democracy that is considered "working" by a reasonable divers majority of people.
Means courts work, the democratic process works and the institutions to keep those in power in check are independent and do their job.
politics
@PeterCxy @ghost @Moon You actually need those. Laws are not programs or rules for a table top game. This fuzziness allows courts and judges to use their brain to prevent abuse of laws. (on the other hand, the statement's shouldn't be too open, because then they just provide other angles of abuse).
A simple example would be writing "motorized vehicle" instead of car because the law then also covers trucks, motor bikes and alike, even when they were not invented when the law was written
