Speaking filth doesn’t itself harm others, the harm to others comes from what others do in response to that speech.

Yet harm is done. People die because of speech. How do you weigh the right to live, versus the right to speak? Are they equally important? Speech, moreso? Or are we simply pretending that the predictable outcomes of blood libel are disconnected from that blameless act of merely saying words?

(i.e. “I support free speech” -> “So you support Nazi newspapers?”)

When the answer is YES, this complaint doesn’t work. I expected a no! I was looking for common ground!

I didn’t say anything to that extent.

if Lemmy is going to be an actual competitor to Reddit, it needs to attract people from all ends of the political spectrum, with the caveat that bad behavior is not tolerated. I don’t care if someone is from the left wing, the right wing, or some other wing, they should have a seat at the table as long as they’re respectful and bring evidence to support their assertions when in communities that expect that.

Response: “Nobody needs ‘all ends of the political spectrum,’ when that includes Nazis.”

But we do. Nazism was a popular movement, and we need people to understand it or we’re doomed to repeat that era of history. If we hide it, people will forget why it was so bad and it’ll fester until it gains enough power to cause problems.

Not only did you absolutely say that, you seem to think we need nazis around in order to know that nazis are bad. (How can we teach about the evils of slavery, unless there’s still slaveholders?) Fascist propaganda is harmless until you censor it, because that’s what spreads the ideology. Obviously we should let people sincerely push scientific racism, with whatever evidence bolsters their intolerable bigotry… unless they’re interpersonally impolite. Telling someone to fuck a rake, well now, that’s not free speech.

And that was over mere federation. How could that be any closer to having their newspapers display at our store?