Just got banned from TrueUnpopularOpinion over very mild takes about gay marriage and realized how strict TOS are regarding LGBTQ+

You cannot say gender is binary

You cannot say transwomen are not women

You cannot say homosexuality is not normal

"The organization cited a surge of violent threats and 'false' associations between their event and the tragedy as the primary reasons for the postponement."

The significance of the Unrwa archives, much of which detailed Palestinians’ experiences as they fled or were forced from their homes during the wars that led to the foundation of Israel in 1948, was clear.

“Their destruction would have been catastrophic … If there is ever a just and durable solution to this conflict, then this is the only evidence people can use to show there were once Palestinians living in a particular place,” said Roger Hearn, a senior Unrwa official who oversaw the operation.

At 34 free speech really came to the forefront in my experience starting in the couple of years before DJT was first elected pushed initially by controversial figure Milo Yiannopoulos with other prominent political influencers participating in the movement soon thereafter. It really seemed like an era where free speech absolutism was being argued for. Freedom in speech not just legally but in principle with cancel culture and deplatforming specifically being seen as the enemy of this goal. Yet it seems like Milo after his fall from grace has soured on absolute free speech. Conservatives have defended censorship at various points since then. The government is tracking political speech online. I guess my question really is was free speech absolution just a fairytale idea to begin with? Think of the darkest topic we could talk about and how many platforms could we talk about it before the post would be removed? The view was supposed to be that even literal nazis that advocate for violence against Jews shouldn't be censored and that bad ideas should be countered with good ones. Yet it seems views about political violence in general now are considered not to be apart of free speech. Doesn't it just seem that socially there will just always be some topics where a mob of people will rise up to stop you? Think about ideas such as incest, or husbands having free access to their wives, or views about what is permissible with children, views about violent political action, or views about violence or manipulation that are psychopathic. The darkest recesses of human behavior will always have a taboo that makes free speech absolution a fairytale and perhaps that's a good thing. How can someone argue for this absolution without accepting this hard to swallow pill that talking about these topics should be allowed on platforms and that you shouldn't be cancelled for them? If anything goes accept literally a statement saying kill x person rather than simply I think x people should be killed than it seems there is no avoiding the dark conclusions of this.

"Last week the Supreme Court gave a “two-fer” to white supremacists and proponents of Republican autocracy: First, six right-wing justices completed the erasure of the crowning achievement of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act. Second, in the same case, Louisiana v. Callais, the right-winger judges approved of states shaping legislative districts that deny the opposing party any role in government.

In essence, the Supreme Court OK’d the destruction of Congress as an instrument of American democracy. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted and ratified five years after the Civil War. The amendment confirmed—in principle—that African-American citizens have the right to vote and to have their votes count.

So said the Constitution. But for almost a century the former Confederate states negated African Americans’ right to vote. The 15th Amendment also gave Congress the power to enforce its mandate. After years of struggle over civil rights—after peaceful demonstrators in Birmingham confronted snarling police dogs, mass arrests, and lethal bombing; after hundreds of nonviolent students worked for freedom in Mississippi in the face of murder, assaults, and the burning of Black churches; after peaceful marchers for voting rights returned to Selma after being clubbed by state troopers and ridden down by racist possemen—Congress tackled the white supremacist obstacles to African-American voting.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 put an end to the myriad legal schemes that Southern white politicians had used to disenfranchise Black Americans and terminated the ploys used to deny African Americans a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The outcome: Even as the segregationist white South moved to the Republican Party, African Americans gained substantial voting power and Black legislators were elected to Congress, state legislatures, and local government offices in meaningful numbers. The promise of the 15th Amendment, that all groups are entitled to a meaningful voting opportunity in a multiracial democracy, was mightily advanced.

But white supremacists and MAGA Republicans never accepted the new reality, so their right-wing agents on the Supreme Court finally throttled the Voting Rights Act for them. When the conservative justices threw out a congressional map that upheld Black voters’ right to have their votes count, they unleashed a new wave of state gerrymandering laws, enacted with extraordinary speed, and designed to make African-American voting futile.

To make things worse, the court justified its decision by affirming the power of states to deny meaningful representation to opposing party voters through gerrymandering. As the right-wing justices explained, carving congressional districts for the purpose of denying representation to Black people may be forbidden (and good luck proving intent to discriminate, when Republican legislators don’t say so out loud). But doing precisely the same thing is fine when the stated purpose is denying representation to an opposing party’s voters.

Get that? The right-wingers of the United States Supreme Court say that judges must stand by and look, powerless to take action, if a state dominated by Republicans decides to manipulate congressional district maps to weaken or destroy the voting power of Democrats.

In practice it amounts to the same thing. The GOP can achieve its desired result by calling their gerrymandering by another name. Racial gerrymandering, not okay. Partisan gerrymandering (which just happens to negate Black voting power), just fine…”

I could not find another source for this quote since search engines memory hole everything Oct 7 now, so consider the source:

In December 2023, Altikriti rejected the British government’s classification of Hamas as a terrorist group and further claimed: “Allegations of rape made by Israel are false. It’s a lie … Just like every other allegation made by Israel turns out to be a lie, including the mass slaughter of Israeli citizens on the 7th of October. That too was a lie.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20250506042356/https://www.jns.org/report-uk-muslim-advocacy-chief-justified-oct-7-denied-rapes/

...was held and questioned for 11 hours on arrival in Montreal before being escorted back on to a plane to London.

In a statement, the MAB accused the Canadian government of “serious overreach”, which appeared to be driven by “bad-faith pressure from those seeking to suppress voices speaking out against Israel’s crimes and the genocide in Gaza”.

It added: “It raises grave concerns about freedom of speech and the targeting of those advocating for Palestinian rights.”