It´s surprising to hear that
That’s got a nice ring to it. You should put that on your tombstone when you say something that pisses off the wrong person.
Speech may be protected, but what you say still has consequences, as it can bring others to action, either for or against you.
It doesn’t mean fredom from consequences you racist bastard.
It doesn’t mean fredom from consequences you racist bastard.
What makes OP a racist bastard?
Only people I see trying to make this point are ones trying to hand wave shitty behaviour.
Also I’m free to say it.
You’d be more accurate if you just called them a conspiracy theory wacko
I get what you are saying, and I agree that it is accurate.
Doesn’t quite have the same pop though.
free speech
you fish diddler
Nice, so you decided to use hate speech against him
No, it is an accusation. Hate speech would be calling him names based of ethnicity or some other quality they cannot change.
Way to show your lack of understanding.
Technically you have no influence on being a bastard
And the meaning has also shifted away from your parents not being wed when you are born.
I know, I know
That doesn’t make sense. If someone at a Nazi rally shouted “actually Jews are alright” and got arrested for it, would you say that’s compatible with free speech? Because while they might have experienced consequences, “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”, so since they were able to say what they intended to they had free speech?
Why does he get arrested for shouting “actually, jews are alright”?
I should have been more clear that I’m not talking about a nazi rally in any arbitrary context, but specifically one in nazi germany.
Where they specifically didn’t have free speech.
Indeed, since freely speaking had consequences.
Nowhere in any writings about free speech does it mention that you are free from consequences.
Edit: american free spech has limits, it really only protects you when criticizing the government. As with most governments that enshrined free speech.
Also thats a hell of a whataboutism.
american free spech has limits, it really only protects you when criticizing the government
“Free speech only when talking about the government” is very different from “free speech”.
Yeah, and people point to that when they talk about free speech and miss the point where they never said you are completely free of consequences.
Try again. Seriously, you sound like a high school student who clued in half way through the class.
they never said you are completely free of consequences
Who are “they”?
It does mean freedom from a lot of consequences though, like getting harassed, beaten or incarcerated, or anything else beeing covered by law. In that sense, it does cover hate speech, in all its forms, that doesn’t make op racist in any way…
You should really ask yourself what OP is saying to trigger this response.
But that is my exact point, the only thing op is saying is that hate speech (along other edge cases) is protected by free speech. Which is true and doesn’t mean op agrees with it.
It could be interpreted as “you can’t touch me, I am protected by free speech”, or “remember that some seemingly innocent laws also protect some very douchy behaviors”. Which one YOU decide to interpret it is on you.
Either way, there is an interesting conversation to be had around the law, who is it there to protect, why, and what the limits should be. But instead that comment decided to say that “it doesn’t force the rest to agree with you” and claim that it makes op a racist. Just an irrelevant “feel good” argument and an ad hominem attack to shut down a conversation on a more than ever important subject.
No it really doesn’t.
Edit: The amount of people whi think a legal concept to protect you from the government is a licence to go balls out woth speech without consequences is amazing.
What the fuck do you think it means then? Because otherwise everyone, everywhere has the freedom to do everything, but for some of them you don’t have freedom from consequences…
You are never free from consequences.
If you paid attention when they were going over free speech (assuming you paid attention in a civics class), it always talks about how the GOVERNMENT can’t tell you not to say something critical of them.
If you were allowed to say things without any consequences; why are there laws against libel, slander, hate speech, false claims, and inciting violence? To name a few.
Your concept of free speech does not jive with reality.
You are free to walk down the streets of Harlem with an “I hate niggers” sign. The law still protects you from assault or other actions that others may take against you. You may get fired from your job for such an action, but even then you would still have the right to pursue a wrongful dismissal case.
As for libel/slander. First of all, it’s a civil issue, and you won’t be jailed for it. Secondly, in the US it requires a significant burden of proof. A plaintiff must show it was more likely than not that:
- there were actual damages.
- the statements were false.
- the person knew the statements were false.
- the person intended the statements to be harmful.
There’s also anti-SLAPP laws which provide additional protection from entities attempting to use a lawsuit to stop speech.
So you’re saying there are consequences for using hate speech.
That you may have to get the justice system involved to support your rights. I suppose you can call that a consequence.
Except you are free from some consequences, that’s exactly why there are laws in place, to delimit what you can do without retaliation, and what you cannot.
The freedom of speech includes retaliayion from the government, but is not limited to it.
These other laws you mention are there to limit the scope of freedom of speech, because it would otherwise explicitly allow it…
So there are consequences with free speech?
Yes, there are, some fairly harmless, some much more impactfull. Getting a dislike from a comment is a consequence, although very benign. Getting boycotted or banned from a platform is another consequence, which could be quite devastating.
No, it doesn’t you fucking muppet:
“Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.”
It does not include hate speech nor it includes freedom to lie.
A better truism by someone actually wise is that there is no such thing as free speech and never will be.
There is only protected speech, unprotected speech, and speech nobody gives a fuck about. And what speech is protected or not depends on context.
Germans have freedom of opinion. Much better, IMHO.
Yes, we have freedom of opinion but you have to keep your mouth shut 🤐
Use your own recomendation and keep your facist shit out of here
Nope, people just ain’t forced to accept your bullshit. Your rights only end where the rights of others begin, that’s how a peaceful society works.
If you don’t understand this simple concept that’s a you problem.
no, it really doesn’t, besides Americas interpretation of free speech (which should not be trodden upon by the government) is not universal either.
Even America doesn’t have proper free speech. You can’t just go and make bomb threats without ending up behind bars. And didn’t some woman get charged with terror offences a few weeks ago for saying or graffitiing something pro-luigi?
Almost like society depends on every right being limited, so they do not come in conflict with the rights of others. Literally the most basic concept to understand, OP is just ragebaiting or an actual idiot.
Lovely username btw. You should get a doctor. 💀
A free human may live to their heart’s content without infringing upon the freedom of a fellow human. As such, free speech includes expressing any opinion without infringing upon the freedom (or any other fundamental right) of a fellow human. If those boundaries are, for whatever reason, crossed, the law will have to step in and decide who is in the right and who will have to suffer an infringement of their rights. This step is what differentiates a just state and law from an unjust state.
If you spread lies about a person (“The Czechs are poisoning our wells!”), the state may step in and stop this infringement of the victims rights by curtailing your freedom of speech. A less just state may let it slide, therefore permitting the infringement of the victims rights and (usually) protecting yours against counteraction.
Now tell me, is this so hard to understand?
Tell me you’re a idiot without telling me.
Lemmy users: I’m going to pretend I didn’t hear that
I find the more people get banned for their rants the more it reinforces those beliefs and drives them to places that further solidifies their nich believe. In a true speach world people will correct them and give feedback.
Pretty sure getting banned from a community is feedback. I have found that the people who scream “free speach” don’t want feed back, they want to hate and they want to hurt others.
Oh gosh no one wants that feedback.
i believe you overestimate people. IMO, more often than not hatespeech is caused by stupidity not malicious intent.
and banning people is not a proper feedback. If you want to give proper feedback, you should at least try to explain why they’re wrong.
It’s feedback that says: What you have said is unacceptable here and you have been shown the door because of your actions as we will not tolerate those actions.
it’s not an adequate feedback, until proven that the person you’re banning is a troll is what i’m saying. By banning people with no malintent, you’re segregating the community, up to the point of creating an echo chamber with “us or them” mentality on both sides
This is why don’t feed the trolls was a popular refrain. Those people want a response, and banning is a response. It’s a tough line for moderation though, and why shadow banning exists.
