It's a lose-lose situation. A couple of months ago, I flagged a couple of hate-speech posts. Doing my little bit to make Steemit a better place. Or so I thought. For about a month, the asshat stalked my posts, spamming the comments section with false claims that I had been flagging everybody who I disagreed with politically. There's no winning against a dork who has nothing to lose.
Steemit is censorship-resistant but it is not censorship-proof.
If you want to make Steemit a better place you should be defending the 1st Amendment
We've seen how the "Hate Speech Policy" have ruined Facebook and Youtube ...why do you want that Ccensorship to arrive here too?
The First Amendment is entirely about not permitting the goverment to control speech.
Nothing in the First implies that I have to tolerate hate speech. I will flag it every time. My Steem Power is to use as I see fit. It's really that simple.
Care to give an example of what you consider hate speech @preparedwombat?
Far too many people throw around the "hate-speech" tag like it means "anything I hate."
Absolutely, it's one of the go-to tags and labels being overused these days.
Off the top of my head, pretty much anything posted by @schlomokikestein
Me too. And I tell you that laws that limit government are in place because the acts that are limited are wrong.
It's just as wrong for you to censor someone.
I fully support speech I disagree with - because that is the MEANING of free speech.
Abuse of free speech, like by spamming on my blog, or scamming, plagiarism, are the only justifiable reasons for flagging - except preventing censorship.
That means countering flags, and flagging to prevent censorship and hateflagging, which, if you're flagging speech you disagree with, is what you're doing.
It's abuse. It's wrong. It's censorship.
I'm agin' it.
We will have to agree to disagree. And note that when you go to flag something, it specifically includes hate speech.
Again, my SP. I will utilize it as I see fit. If you see that as constituting censorship, meh, too bad.
Well, I will leave you with this little reminder, regarding how to define hate speech, and the demonization of enemies.
'First they came for the Jews. I was not a Jew, so I did nothing. Then they came for the homosexuals, and I was not a homosexual, so I did nothing. Then they came for the blacks, the gypsies, and the communists, and I wasn't any of those, so I did nothing.
When they came for me, there was nobody left to do anything about it.'
That's a paraphrase, and it's how censorship works.
Censorship is the most hateful speech. Once you start censoring people, you won't stop until, either you are stopped, or there is no one that can speak against you.
Free speech is about defending what you define as 'hate speech', because it's the only kind of speech that needs to be defended.
How ironic that you invoke Martin Niemöller who was bemoaning the fact that he had not stood up to proponents of hate.
It is exemplary of the difference between speech, and oppression.
Had he spoken out, he'd have been censored.
Ironic?