This whole ordeal with Telegram started precisely because of this. Free speech shouldn't be a cover to hate speech and criminal conduct, take it from Germany, who is dealing with it still to this day and will for the foreseeable future [1], what you mention is a clear example of Paradox of tolerance[2].
> They can ask for whatever they want. They should not be censored just because you find it outrageous.
People are entitled to their own thoughts, but they weren't asking for every family to be fed properly or for everyone to get puppies, their actions ended up with riot, damage to public property, people injured and road blocks that prevented people to get medical attention in life threatening conditions.
> Shows Lula's people interacting with and assisting the vandals and just basically doing a whole lot of nothing about them.
You mean the staff with heavily ties with the previous government, and that was suggested by them? Were the people that invaded and vandalized the congress and the supreme court Lula supporters too?
I don't consider "hate speech" to be a legitimate concept either. Hate is a perfectly normal human emotion. Government has absolutely no right to regulate how people feel about anything. People should be able to express their feelings, whatever they may be. Offensive speech impacts reputation and free association, it should not lead to literal prison.
> take it from Germany
No. In this context, Germany is not an example to be followed. I don't want to live in a country that feels the need to "sanitize" everything to the point of censoring swastikas from media.
If you're gonna delete harmful ideas from existence, I demand that you start with communism which has led to misery and tyranny in every country it was ever tried. Communists are in power screwing up my country this very moment. Until they're no longer allowed to walk our soil with complete impunity, I won't accept the banishment of any other idea.
> their actions ended up with riot, damage to public property, people injured and road blocks that prevented people to get medical attention in life threatening conditions
And that's the point where intervention is warranted. Doesn't justify censoring them either, just restoring order. Even Bolsonaro called for that.
> Paradox of tolerance
This "paradox" is actually a different formulation of my original argument.
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force
> for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument
> they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols
In other words, suppression by force is only ever warranted once the situation has escalated to actual violence. Exactly what I said in my post above.
> You mean the staff with heavily ties with the previous government, and that was suggested by them?
No.
> Were the people that invaded and vandalized the congress and the supreme court Lula supporters too?
This whole ordeal with Telegram started precisely because of this. Free speech shouldn't be a cover to hate speech and criminal conduct, take it from Germany, who is dealing with it still to this day and will for the foreseeable future [1], what you mention is a clear example of Paradox of tolerance[2].
> They can ask for whatever they want. They should not be censored just because you find it outrageous.
People are entitled to their own thoughts, but they weren't asking for every family to be fed properly or for everyone to get puppies, their actions ended up with riot, damage to public property, people injured and road blocks that prevented people to get medical attention in life threatening conditions.
> Shows Lula's people interacting with and assisting the vandals and just basically doing a whole lot of nothing about them.
You mean the staff with heavily ties with the previous government, and that was suggested by them? Were the people that invaded and vandalized the congress and the supreme court Lula supporters too?
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance