Why was there a pro-Hitler, Holocaust-denying ad on X?
A paid ad featuring a smiling photo of Hitler with happy children and questioning facts about the Holocaust was allowed to post on X.
您正在查看单个对话串。
Sounds like free speech here in the United States. I understand Musk might not be consistent but I welcome free speech on social media. If you don't like it then block it & move on. It's almost like Democrats search for things to get upset about. Really annoying cause free speech used to be something Democrats cared about & now they are pro-censorship & fascist just like Republicans. They're thirsty for violence against people that say something that offends them.
Here's some free speech for you:
Fuck you, Nazi-enabler.
Clearly your emotions dictate any logic you might be capable of someday.
There are limits to free speech just like there are limits to other freedoms. For example: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins." IOW where harm is done. So the question becomes do messages like this cause harm? IANAL, but I believe that it would qualify as hate speech, which is widely considered to cause harm.
It's also important to distinguish freedom of speech (protected by the first amendment) from free speech (a made up concept meant to bastardize on the former and to allow social media post whatever they want anonymously, like this ad).
Hate speech isn't a thing in the US & countries that have enacted those pro-fascist "hate speech" laws have since seen alt-right ideologies start growing at unprecedented rates.
There are over 50 years of case law on the subject. We can discuss prominent cases on it if you want, or heck why don't you sue & claim it is hate speech, send me the docket number and I'll eat my popcorn.
I suggest you call the nearest mall and tell them you placed a bomb in there. It's just free speech, it's not like you actually put a bomb there, you're just saying it, so it's fine. If they don't like it they just can hang up and move on. I think it will be a totally fun and safe experience for you to try and that there will be absolutely no consequences for anyone involved, because that's how free speech works.
Or maybe, I don't know, you could pick someone you don't like and start telling people that they're a pedophile! It doesn't even have to be true, it's just free speech. You are free to say whatever you want! And if someone wanted to do the same thing to you, it should absolutely be their right to do so! Free speech for everyone! It's literally free!
Your example is bad faith, but I assume you know that already. If it isn't, then I really don't know if I can explain to someone that lacks mental acuity about over 50 years of case law on the subject. There is even more case law on libel & slander, but it sounds like reading isn't your forte. However, if you're capable of reading then I suggest you do so. But go on & pretend to be ignorant, or maybe you really are & if so then come back after you've actually read & studied the decisions by the courts and we can discuss what you think they got wrong.
No, I definitely cannot read. Can write, but can't really read, sorry. My lack of mental acuity doesn't help. Libel and slander? Oh my, I wonder what those words mean. Are they, perhaps, social constructs that exist to prevent the consequences of harmful communication? Like... Regulation of speech?? Like... laws? Wait, but isn't speech supposed to be free??? Why are they taking away our rights like this???
There are multiple differences with libel & slander, but again since you admit you have a lack of mental acuity, I'm not sure it would help explain them to you. By all means, since those are civil matters though sue the people that offend you in court & send me the docker numbers.
Sorry dude. I know you really really want to be taken seriously, but it's just not gonna happen. Defamation laws have been around for millennia (50 years of case law? Lol) and they're just one tiny example of regulation of speech. If you don't believe political propaganda on social media should be regulated exactly the same way, you probably lack the mental acuity to understand the concepts of cause and effect. Or you're just arguing in bad faith as well. We could go on for hours about the excesses of extra-woke cancel culture and how they are detrimental to discourse, but since you decided to open with "Nazi propaganda is free speech" I'm pretty sure it would be a huge waste of time.
Defamation laws are a civil matter. You have to sue someone & prove in court that you were defamed. There are also specific laws for public figures & case law for things said on Twitter/X. Furthermore, what is propaganda to you might be what some of them legitimately believe. You can't sue people for believing in a different ideology. For example, you can't sue someone for liking chocolate ice cream because you like vanilla, nor can you sue people because they believe that God doesn't exist. I'd love to see you take it to court though & send me the docker number once you do, so I can be amused.
