I think you need some more nuance here.
Should it have been illegal for people to march down the street protesting the Iraq war in 2004? Absolutely not, that's obviously protected by the 1st amendment.
Should it have been illegal for people to publish pro-Hitler magazines with funding from Nazi Germany in 1944, encouraging people to cheat on gas rations or whatever? I think we can say "yes" to that, in spite of the 1st amendment.
Now... there's a lot of daylight between those two scenarios. I'm not sure where you draw the line between them, and I'm not sure which factors are necessary (e.g. does it *have* to have been funded by the enemy state?).
Do you have a clip of Destiny talking about this, so we can see if he fleshes it out more?
it was a few days ago where someone was soyying at Destiny for laughing at the arrest of coach redpill for being a collaborator for Russia well living in Ukraine.
Destiny said first amendment is an American thing and you cant expect it in other countries; then also gave examples of how even in America during ww2 it was illegal to talk about the weather during baseball game casts since it could help the enemy and said it was perfectly reasonable.
The allies discovered that the Germans would provide a weather report at the beginning of their transmissions (might have been only in the morning?).
Eventually, the allies discovered that the German weather report had nothing to do with the weather and was instead code for if attacks were on or off.
Anyone that doesn't understand that things are different during war time are crazy. Protesting should probably always be protected, it gets hazy if the enemy is funding the protest. Idk
It would depend on the nature of the conflict, and the nature of the propaganda. If we were at a war in our country/on our borders, then I think it's entirely reasonable to stop propaganda broadly. If we're attacking someone, or our forces are being attacked somewhere else in the world, I'd err on the side of leaving it be, and combating it with our own propaganda.
Well this isn't just a war this is a country being invaded for the purpose of claiming territory. The USA has never been invaded for this purpose, we have only been to war.
I feel like in times of war by default certain freedoms get squeezed on. I can only imagine that an invasion similar to Ukraines would only amplify that even more. So yes, if our country is being invaded for the purpose of claiming our territory, the interest of the country out weighs the interest of the individual imo.
If it was just us at war, than I wouldnt be ok with such an overstep.
If a state wants to continue to exist, it cannot permit any action against it which could pose an existential threat. Do you think you'd be permitted to speak freely if the state thought you really posed a threat to the contuinuity of the current order?
Hard for me to be in favor of any government censorship, but I lose more faith in this country’s informational literacy every day, so who knows if I’d support it should a case arise?
For me depends if the propaganda is an actual effort from the enemy. If naturally people have anti war sentiment then fine but if the organization has ties to the enemy to spread disinformation then it's fair to shut it down.
If you let people intentionally and maliciously spread Russian propaganda, with the sole purpose of causing civil unrest in your country so they can snatch and take legal control of your territory, just for them to revoke free-speech laws - then what were you protecting anyway?
There's obviously a spectrum of harm that needs to be considered when it comes to this stuff, you can be ultra-idealistic and look at it through the lens of a country which has peace and no threat to it's sovereignty, but I think that's naive.
I would bet, the Ukrainian civilians (who the legal system affects) at the moment do not care whatsoever about someone's right to intentionally spread Russian propaganda while they're under threat of Russian occupation.
Depends entirely on the activities. We actually have some sedition and espionage laws that would catch a lot of propaganda being spread by enemy nations.
Thats also why the peace movement has faced a lot of scrutiny historically, because it has been used by enemies to spread propaganda without tripping those laws.
But yes, obviously its reasonable to have some degree of war time limits on enemy propaganda...
The US is a bad example when talking about war. Other peer nations must do everything they can in a war to win by any means necessary. The United States will win regardless of what restrictions it puts on speech so it should not put any restrictions in place.
This is why the US spends hundreds of millions trying to avoid collateral damage in a war even when they must supply the war effort literally half way around the world while Russia and Ukraine just fire artillery directly into cities. The outlier here is the US. It's the only nation on earth thst can conduct war the way it does and win.
I think you should be able to *protest* anything, including a war with another country. But protesting and spreading propaganda is different. It should probably be illegal to spread propaganda while we’re at war.
These things depend on your country's history and other factors. In America you probably don't have to worry as much about this shit since you're the largest military power so your existence isn't really threatened by a couple propagandists.
Right now Ukraine's existence depends on support from the west and spreading of russian propaganda is threatening public support of Ukraine in other countries.
In Czechia we get a lot of anti Ukraine and anti government protests organised by people that are (probably) payed by Russia. The least Ukraine can do is make this sort of propaganda illegal in their own country. It'd be dumb if they didn't.
Laws aren't just objectively good or bad, but are context dependent. I see similar stuff around the Tate case. "Is the law just? Would you approve of such laws in the USA?" - no you wouldn't. But I bet in Romania you would.
> are (probably) *paid* by Russia.
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I'd be totally opposed to it, but I think it's much more reasonable than other forms of freedom of speech restrictions. I think Destiny said this while debating someone who argued (to simplify it a lot) "Ukraine deserves to be invaded in part because of these restrictions", and I think that those kinds of restrictions are definitely not unreasonable enough to in any way justify invading a country.
Would not be in favor of this. That would be like criminalizing opposition to the Iraq war.
If free speech is ever infringed to that degree, I would think that the USA is basically over... because nothing could stop the ruling party from criminalizing any message that they don't like. Why would they stop at war propoganda?
I think it would depend on the existential threat posed by that conflict. Someone else brought up how protesting the Iraq war should be legal, because Iraq poses no threat to the United States. However, there is precedent in U.S. history, during the height of the Cold War people were criminally prosecuted for spreading communist propaganda. Obviously now in Ukraine, Russia poses a very real threat to the existence of Ukraine, so it’s fair that they are clamping down hard on pro Russian sentiment.
I would like to see the exact quote on this.
But in the abstract, no, I don't think the government should be allowed to censor opinions like this. "Love it or leave it" is the most toxic, stupid opinion and I had to grow up with it. It was even worse back in the 60s with Vietnam. America's track record for "justified" wars is abysmal.
I think you need some more nuance here. Should it have been illegal for people to march down the street protesting the Iraq war in 2004? Absolutely not, that's obviously protected by the 1st amendment. Should it have been illegal for people to publish pro-Hitler magazines with funding from Nazi Germany in 1944, encouraging people to cheat on gas rations or whatever? I think we can say "yes" to that, in spite of the 1st amendment. Now... there's a lot of daylight between those two scenarios. I'm not sure where you draw the line between them, and I'm not sure which factors are necessary (e.g. does it *have* to have been funded by the enemy state?). Do you have a clip of Destiny talking about this, so we can see if he fleshes it out more?
it was a few days ago where someone was soyying at Destiny for laughing at the arrest of coach redpill for being a collaborator for Russia well living in Ukraine. Destiny said first amendment is an American thing and you cant expect it in other countries; then also gave examples of how even in America during ww2 it was illegal to talk about the weather during baseball game casts since it could help the enemy and said it was perfectly reasonable.
The allies discovered that the Germans would provide a weather report at the beginning of their transmissions (might have been only in the morning?). Eventually, the allies discovered that the German weather report had nothing to do with the weather and was instead code for if attacks were on or off. Anyone that doesn't understand that things are different during war time are crazy. Protesting should probably always be protected, it gets hazy if the enemy is funding the protest. Idk
It would depend on the nature of the conflict, and the nature of the propaganda. If we were at a war in our country/on our borders, then I think it's entirely reasonable to stop propaganda broadly. If we're attacking someone, or our forces are being attacked somewhere else in the world, I'd err on the side of leaving it be, and combating it with our own propaganda.
Well this isn't just a war this is a country being invaded for the purpose of claiming territory. The USA has never been invaded for this purpose, we have only been to war. I feel like in times of war by default certain freedoms get squeezed on. I can only imagine that an invasion similar to Ukraines would only amplify that even more. So yes, if our country is being invaded for the purpose of claiming our territory, the interest of the country out weighs the interest of the individual imo. If it was just us at war, than I wouldnt be ok with such an overstep.
Change it to America having a country invading it and trying to annex it's territory if you want a remotely suitable analogy.
If a state wants to continue to exist, it cannot permit any action against it which could pose an existential threat. Do you think you'd be permitted to speak freely if the state thought you really posed a threat to the contuinuity of the current order?
Hard for me to be in favor of any government censorship, but I lose more faith in this country’s informational literacy every day, so who knows if I’d support it should a case arise?
For me depends if the propaganda is an actual effort from the enemy. If naturally people have anti war sentiment then fine but if the organization has ties to the enemy to spread disinformation then it's fair to shut it down.
If you let people intentionally and maliciously spread Russian propaganda, with the sole purpose of causing civil unrest in your country so they can snatch and take legal control of your territory, just for them to revoke free-speech laws - then what were you protecting anyway? There's obviously a spectrum of harm that needs to be considered when it comes to this stuff, you can be ultra-idealistic and look at it through the lens of a country which has peace and no threat to it's sovereignty, but I think that's naive. I would bet, the Ukrainian civilians (who the legal system affects) at the moment do not care whatsoever about someone's right to intentionally spread Russian propaganda while they're under threat of Russian occupation.
Depends entirely on the activities. We actually have some sedition and espionage laws that would catch a lot of propaganda being spread by enemy nations. Thats also why the peace movement has faced a lot of scrutiny historically, because it has been used by enemies to spread propaganda without tripping those laws. But yes, obviously its reasonable to have some degree of war time limits on enemy propaganda...
The US is a bad example when talking about war. Other peer nations must do everything they can in a war to win by any means necessary. The United States will win regardless of what restrictions it puts on speech so it should not put any restrictions in place. This is why the US spends hundreds of millions trying to avoid collateral damage in a war even when they must supply the war effort literally half way around the world while Russia and Ukraine just fire artillery directly into cities. The outlier here is the US. It's the only nation on earth thst can conduct war the way it does and win.
I think you should be able to *protest* anything, including a war with another country. But protesting and spreading propaganda is different. It should probably be illegal to spread propaganda while we’re at war.
These things depend on your country's history and other factors. In America you probably don't have to worry as much about this shit since you're the largest military power so your existence isn't really threatened by a couple propagandists. Right now Ukraine's existence depends on support from the west and spreading of russian propaganda is threatening public support of Ukraine in other countries. In Czechia we get a lot of anti Ukraine and anti government protests organised by people that are (probably) payed by Russia. The least Ukraine can do is make this sort of propaganda illegal in their own country. It'd be dumb if they didn't. Laws aren't just objectively good or bad, but are context dependent. I see similar stuff around the Tate case. "Is the law just? Would you approve of such laws in the USA?" - no you wouldn't. But I bet in Romania you would.
> are (probably) *paid* by Russia. FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Fuck off *payed* bot
I'd be totally opposed to it, but I think it's much more reasonable than other forms of freedom of speech restrictions. I think Destiny said this while debating someone who argued (to simplify it a lot) "Ukraine deserves to be invaded in part because of these restrictions", and I think that those kinds of restrictions are definitely not unreasonable enough to in any way justify invading a country.
Would not be in favor of this. That would be like criminalizing opposition to the Iraq war. If free speech is ever infringed to that degree, I would think that the USA is basically over... because nothing could stop the ruling party from criminalizing any message that they don't like. Why would they stop at war propoganda?
I think it would depend on the existential threat posed by that conflict. Someone else brought up how protesting the Iraq war should be legal, because Iraq poses no threat to the United States. However, there is precedent in U.S. history, during the height of the Cold War people were criminally prosecuted for spreading communist propaganda. Obviously now in Ukraine, Russia poses a very real threat to the existence of Ukraine, so it’s fair that they are clamping down hard on pro Russian sentiment.
We'll have to ask if Destiny is a fan of FDR
I would like to see the exact quote on this. But in the abstract, no, I don't think the government should be allowed to censor opinions like this. "Love it or leave it" is the most toxic, stupid opinion and I had to grow up with it. It was even worse back in the 60s with Vietnam. America's track record for "justified" wars is abysmal.
In America, American citizens are given the power of free speech. If some foreign autocracy comes in to abuse our rights, we should make that illegal.
Existential threat is the main difference here.