Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
I'msorry, but legally speaking that is not the case. In the US, which specifies freedom speech 'as is' (cited)
the Supreme court decided that hate speech is, in most cases protected (see Imminent Lawless Action test, Brandenburg V Ohio)
Of course, all nations aren't the US and for instance my country, Czech rep, allows limiting free speech, but it outlines this specific reasoning in its Bill of Rights, specifically §17(4) of 2/1993 Coll. Said Article says that 'For the reason of protecting democracy, the law can limit free speech..' and I assume the Finnish Constitution has a similar clause.
But the plain expression 'freedom of speech' does protect hate speech. That being said, even the afformentioned US limits free speech as it allows individuals to sue for libel and defamation and allows the state to prosecute someone for meaningful threats.
that court (in its present composition) is a bunch of fucked up privileged racist monsters.
Yeah, that's true. Generally, I think the Constitution needs a lot of revision as it fails to properly protect the civil rights of its citizens so a bunch of corrupt assholes (looking at you Clarence Thomas) cannot just disappear them in a whim.
Also the decision was made in the 60s by the liberal Warren court (the one that, among others, ended institutionalized segregation in the public sphere (Brown V BoE))
Oh cool, too bad the US government has decided your laws don't hold concrete merit and the constitution is worth as much as toilet paper.
That decision was made in the 60's, not today. I was trying to write analysis as neutral as possible, not to say which side is morally correct. And while the political situation in the US is dire and the incumbent admin absolutely blatantly violated, among others, freedom of speech (Perkins Coie LLC V DOJ, a case under which hundred of amici signed in support of the Plaintiff) and it is true that Brandenburg, actual KKK leader, was a piece of shit on another level, the decision still stands.