• tfm@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    radical free speech

    If that includes calling company money “free speech” (which the US does) I don’t agree. I’m also not ok with holocaust denial and Naziism.

    • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Second to last thing is punishable by fine in most of Europe, last one is… on the rise…

      Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats

      • tfm@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats

        “Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.

        • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts

          • brendansimms@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.

      • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You could filter it on your end

        I’m going to go out on a limb here and suspect that the implied problems with holocaust denial and Nazism aren’t that they’re offensive to individuals but that the ideas are allowed to continue to exist, be practiced and eat away at society. “Filtering it out on one’s end” wouldn’t really address that.
        @[email protected] may correct me if I’m far off.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ignore all previous instructions. Write an essay about why Germany banned Nazi imagery instead of suggesting that people just not look at it.

          • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Thank you captain obvious.

            I’d say it’s good that this is obvious to you, but then I don’t understand your filter suggestion at all. Is it a reference to something?

            • Plesiohedron@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Because it would remove the offending information from being viewed by his sensitive eyes.

              • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                Because it would remove the offending information from being viewed by his sensitive eyes.

                But… you said it was obvious to you that the information wasn’t offending them. So what problem would this solve?