this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
4 points (75.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43856 readers
1652 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Edit 8 days later: Wow, a lot of people really like using their free speech rights to advocate against free speech...Weird.
If you don't support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don't support free speech at all.
All censorship is bad. One day it's naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying "god" in the wrong context.
Doesn't mean you don't support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don't agree that I'm against free speech, I'm against harassment.
False equivalence. Online you can choose not to see things you don't like. Online, no one can force you to look at things that offend you....at least not yet.
Which is why all the censorship on social media is so ridiculous. And if someone is DM'ing you to harass you...That's not free speech anymore that's harassment and there's already laws about that.
Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours.
Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they're a blight on society, etc.
Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them.
That's what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected.
When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that's a crime that should be prosecuted.
That... is so not true in many states of the world.
All censorship is bad?
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.
It's the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don't fuck with the freedoms of others.
"Freedom of expression of opinion" would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions...
Censorship of any opinion is bad.
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between "should be allowed" and "should be cencored". It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven't bitten that bullet.
Ummm... my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything... I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)