11
What is good and bad about free speech?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
11 points (78.9% liked)
Asklemmy
47690 readers
898 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Bad: most people who use the term "free speech" don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean. Have a look at this handy xkcd.
Agreed. I am in the process of creating a lemmy instance (mostly for testing), with the core tenets being free speech and freedom of information. I just need to find a way of rewording it so that people don't think it means endorsement of assholery.
I think invite-only and "Don't make me ban you!" as the only rule could work.
Some inspiration for what to include/how to phrase the rules:
These are good! On my instance, my sidebar says "You can stay as long as you’re not being a jerk."
"Don't make me ban you!" Isn't a rule.
A rule would be "don't say anything I dislike"
Your comments in this thread sound a lot like you not wanting us to say anything you dislike. I respect your opinions and I would fight for you being allowed to share them. I just think they're wrong and disingenuous.
I'm just rephrasing it to frame it as a command. That's basically what a rule is. A command. A rule has imperativeness.
And at the same time, you rephrase it to imply something that was nowhere in the original sentence.
"Don't make me ban you" doesn't necessarily mean "Don't say anything I don't like" but maybe just "Don't post anything illegal" or "Don't make the experience worse for everyone else". I fully agree that the original phrasing is too vague which is why I've provided a whole list of more specific suggestions.
Well it's strongly implied.
If you intend to wax pedantic then at least give us your definition. This secondhand linked pedantry crosses the line.
Free speech means that you can not be punished by law for your opinions. It explicitly does not mean that others are required to listen to you or even like your opinions. Just as you are allowed to hold a controversial opinion, they are allowed to disagree with you, argue with you, walk away or show you the door if you're in their house/community/instance.
That's one legal implementation of the idea.
The actual idea goes something like : speech that flows freely without inhibition.
If you're allowed to say everything, then as a logical consequence I'm also allowed to say everything. Including "You are wrong, you are rude, I don't like you and I never want to talk to you again. Please leave."
Note, this is just an example. I don't really want you to leave. Yet.
Is this good or bad?
As an abstract concept and a logical conclusion, I would say it's neither good or bad.
What is bad is when people interpret free speech as being allowed to hurt others without consequences. And in my personal opinion, most people who criticize a lack of free speech fall directly into that category.
We're shooting for good qualities and bad qualities here. Like 2 lists.