165

I am not targeting any group, race or religion or whatever, just an observation why does it seem that freedom of speech appears to invoke an image of a defence to be an asshole?

I get it, free to speak your mind and all and sometimes hard truths need to be said that but is the concept so out of whack that people have less empathy for others that they don't agree with that they antagonise another to the point of disrespecting the right to dignity?

It seems like humanity is hard wired for conflict and if it isn't actively trying to kill itself it seems to find an outlet for violence some way somehow. Maybe it is social conditioning or just some primal urge that makes humans human.

I don't even know where else I could ask it, and it seems kind of stupid to think about so... have at thee

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago

None of the free speech crowd actually understand what the first amendment means. So they claim that boycotting an artist for saying some racist shit is denying them their freedom of speech. These turds need to take a civics class.

[-] JayEchoRay@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

I am not an American, but reading your Constitution.. with respect, I feel like your Founding Fathers would have many issues with how your Country is currently run, from what I have seen and read in the media

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I mean... I have many issues. But I'm just one lowly pleb

[-] Dogzilla@geddit.social 5 points 1 year ago

But we’re all lowly plebe. That’s sorta the point of the constitution. The people pushing the idea that money or your job makes you more important are full of crap. The only thing it implies is that all of us should be well-informed, but equality is the whole reason for the constitution

[-] JayEchoRay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I agree, kinda of sad that pieces of fake paper and ego is a more valuable commodity for those are lost to it than seeing others as a human being

[-] JayEchoRay@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The foundation of the world's economy

[-] Bojimbo@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

People only invoke the feelings of the founders when they either don't have a stronger argument or are trying to appeal to conservatives. It's basically religious interpretation at this point - mostly used to manipulate people who don't know better.

[-] JayEchoRay@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Okay an example if I must provide one

I feel according to brief look at American constitution in spirit if the Founding Fathers that governement should be neutral in religious matters and people have the freedom of religious choice without being discriminated against while still in the spirit of freedom and comradie not resort some sort of cannibal death cult.

The people have the freedom of choice, however the government must not be swayed and run by one motivating group or factor in the spirit of the writing how the British wished to exert their power and influence to control the then original 13 states

I also feel that again in spirit of what they wrote something like abortions shouldn't be banned unless there was some catastrophic failure rate where government must intervene to prevent people from commiting suicide by doing so.

I am going to get flak by writing it but I believe that abortion can be made a case when it is ill advised at a certain point or if the if the parents decide that a birth is too dangerous, to be able to abort at a late stage.

By my limited understanding is that if doctors want to choose not to abort then are then in their right to do so if it is not life threatening. The government should not interfere but instead make it clear that individual practioners are under no obligation to help you if they strongly believe they don't believe in it and within reasonable circumstance and that those that do wish to go with it should be given the option to instead of shutting them down.

But ultimately it should be the individuals choice to choose even if it is a bad choice and the unfortunate burden of guilt should be shouldered on an individual. I feel that is the freedom that was intended

[-] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 1 points 1 year ago

It's actually an off shoot of a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad antiquitatem" which is just an appeal to tradition or the past as being correct because it's old basically. Same thing trying to map the founding fathers thoughts and feelings on modern norms and mores

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If you think one of those is free speech then you’re wrong. Our government does not jail anyone for what they say.

[-] Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, “Freedom of Speech” is likely the last (or only) defense they have. When they say indefensible shit, it’s often the only shield they have. Because if you can’t justify your speech or back it up with anything substantive, it’s essentially the only thing you can rely on.

It’s basically the “God told me” argument that religious people use. It can’t be argued against, because nobody can refute it. But it also means that when you hear someone using it as their first and last line of defense, that they actually have zero defense for it aside from that.

And yeah, it’s often misunderstood. People scream about free speech when getting cancelled for being racist, but that’s not an actual defense because they’re not being arrested for saying it. It isn’t the government imposing restrictions on your speech.

Best joke I heard is: if everyone's pissed at what you said, and your only defense is "technically, it wasn't illegal for me to have said that!", it was probably a pretty bad argument.

[-] Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly. If your only defense is “the government can’t stop me from doing it” then you’re probably an asshole for doing it.

[-] Xallec@discuss.online 7 points 1 year ago

This. I love it when I engage in discussion with a person and when I don't blindly agree with everything they say, they scream that I'm violating their first amendment.

[-] Blamemeta@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Technically it is, but thats more about difference between free speech and 1a.

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
165 points (91.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35681 readers
1274 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS