596
US engaging in ‘extreme rightwing tropes’ reminiscent of 1930s, British MPs warn
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
596 points (98.5% liked)
World News
51315 readers
2031 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not how it works for either of them. How it actually works:
Repressing fundamental rights such as free speech just facilitates backsliding to a repressive state.
The advocates of repressive policies are only mildly inconvenienced or continue undeterred underground. The German AfD isn't struggling. Far-right parties like Reform UK keep going. So, they fail to keep anyone in check while also undermining basic freedoms: good fucking job?
You raise valid points and I'm certainly opposed to the notion of non-violent Pro-Palestinian protesters being labeled a terrorist organization (no differently than Antifa in the US, or the absurdity of stopping campus protesters against Israel). I am curious what people's thoughts here on laws that seek to prohibit minors from using social media, and how that differs from ensuring loopholes are cut to prevent minors from seeing porn.
When I reacted to the other user's comment, most of the rhetoric I was hearing was from disgruntled far-right extremists upset that islamophobes and various racist, sexist bigots were being held accountable on social media for hate speech, and even then the few instances they pointed to also basically dried up with either nothing or a proverbial slap on the wrist.
On the flip-side, if we step back and look at this, none of what has been mentioned is really some indication that UK is on the doorstep of V for Vendetta-like dystopia. Put another way, preventing children's access to porn -- whether agreed with or not -- has kind of been a presumed given, and only recently did it seem like a bunch of politicians became aware that it wasn't actually restricted in the first place or something...
On another note, when you cite, "penalizing vitriol, insults," that article actually is in reference to combating Hate Speech and cyber-bullying in Germany, which is a bit different is it not? That is in reference to Intolerance to Intolerance, yeah? To that I mostly say good!
That's entirely up to the parent.
Free speech answers that, too. Expressing an opinion we disapprove of isn’t an exception to free speech: for that we can express our condemnation.
Your hate speech rhetoric is a conceit built on the falsehood that simply hiding all the publicly visible indications of a problem solves the problem. Evidently, it's not working & is readily exploited to abuse other rights. Censorship doesn't change opinion: people are naturally free to think as they want & no force can compel them to change their mind.
To quote someone else, the open exchange of ideas is valuable & necessary to facilitate minds to willingly change. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.
Restricting private access to information while raising risk of identity fraud & abusing the rights of protesters with loose definitions of terrorism isn't heading to your cartoonish idea of a dystopia?
Maybe think back to history about oppressive institutions & how we overthrew them. What were those critical ideas underpinning the liberal institutions that replaced them? Oh right: fundamental human rights to liberty such as free speech & freedom of conscience.
Nope
and
Finally, hateful words are still words. Has this generation forgotten how to handle words?
Only cowards fear words. You have freedom of speech: use it.
In your view then, should schooling, vaccinations, trans surgeries, social media access also be entirely up to the parent?
Second to that, the law doesn't prohibit anyone from accessing these things outright; but rather ensuring that children don't get access to these things absent of their parent's approval — just as you indicate is your view here. Put another way, an adult parent could indeed log into pornhub on their behalf, no?
Yeah that's all fine and dandy to free-speech hard-righty absolutists, conveniently enough, but no, that's not my view; nor is it a representative of some V For vendetta authoritarianism to recognize objectively-wrong speech.
Tell me, do you or do you not subscribe to the "punch a nazi" notion of not being tolerant to intolerance?
As I had originally stated in my response, this would be a step towards that, yes, as I felt it was the most substantive point of your response to me; but not on the "doorstep"—as I had stated—itself. We will circle back to this following the Three High Court ruling in the coming weeks.
Far-right extremists want nothing more than free speech absolutism because it is convenient to their shallow tropes to dupe the masses; hence why far-right extremism is on the rise throughout the globe in the first place. So goes the adage, a lie travels half-way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
To reiterate, the source that you cited is not in reference to those cases, but specifically about hate speech and cyber-bullying — both clear problems that have aided in the rise of far-right extremism across the globe already. Put another way, we've had free speech absolutist social media and internet for decades, and we've only gone further rightward as a result. I'll quote directly the source you cited in which I'm referring:
This Stochastic terrorism threat is real, and in fact was utilized in Israel just the same when then-candidate Bibi engaged in the same stochastic rhetoric and inspired a radical to assassinate Yitzhak Rabin.
Defamation, Slander, Libel cases are common. Misattribution even under plagiarism is another aspect of commonly regulated speech. I don't have much a problem with false quotes on high-profile figures not classified directly as comedy having some capacity for removal. This is how lies travel faster than truths around the world. Again, hardly a sign that UK is turning fascist.
So, what exactly IS your solution to inhibit the far-right except for moderate or left-wing governments to directly deal with said hate speech? (And no, I don't consider Pro-Palestinian protesters hate speech of course; which is why this Court ruling is so pivotal).
It is extremely ironic one says this, considering the strict Hate Speech laws of Germany originated from their direct experience with propagating fascism at home in the 1930s, 1940s and learning through pain and suffering inflicted on others as well as themselves. Volksverhetzung was suspended conveniently enough during the Nazi era, and only post-war was it codified into law. So the question may be reversed: Have YOU forgotten the potency of these words, gone unchecked?