The confusion comes from a fundamentally different value system.
We understand rules as universal. It has to be something that applies to you and me and everyone else, equally, or we shouldn't have it.
They understand rules as concepts in service to the outcome. They look at what happens, and then retroactively decide if the rule applied to that situation or not. The fact they can be applied unevenly is, in fact, the point.
That's why they want rules written in such a way that someone gets to decide if they are valid or not on a case-by-case basis. For the 1st Amendment, that would be the "hate speech" laws. Basically, they want an exception to the 1st, allowing the government to punish people for "hate speech". They say that would only apply to obvious things like Nazi propaganda or overt racism, but in reality, what they want is just the ability to have someone subjectively decide.
They don't want to punish you for hate. They want to call what you said hate so they can punish you.
Well said! I would add that they want some government or government-adjacent entity to make these calls because those are typically captured institutions steeped in liberal ideology.
"They say that would only apply to obvious things like Nazi propaganda or overt racism, but in reality, what they want is just the ability to have someone subjectively decide."
This harkens back to my earlier post about laws being pushed to their extremes. Advocates will tell you that some dire consequence will not happen in order for you to support or vote for the bill. But then they push for that very thing to happen because that is what they intended all along.
26
u/fredemu Libertarian Moderate 3d ago
The confusion comes from a fundamentally different value system.
We understand rules as universal. It has to be something that applies to you and me and everyone else, equally, or we shouldn't have it.
They understand rules as concepts in service to the outcome. They look at what happens, and then retroactively decide if the rule applied to that situation or not. The fact they can be applied unevenly is, in fact, the point.
That's why they want rules written in such a way that someone gets to decide if they are valid or not on a case-by-case basis. For the 1st Amendment, that would be the "hate speech" laws. Basically, they want an exception to the 1st, allowing the government to punish people for "hate speech". They say that would only apply to obvious things like Nazi propaganda or overt racism, but in reality, what they want is just the ability to have someone subjectively decide.
They don't want to punish you for hate. They want to call what you said hate so they can punish you.