• Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      61
      ·
      1 year ago

      People do hate freedom of speech though.

      A lot of people are very much against humans being free to speak their mind. They would like People to be incapable of that or they would like to be protected from it.

      What you are saying no way contradicts that.

      • ZephrC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences. If you say awful things people will use their free speech to tell you you’re an awful person. That isn’t hating free speech. It’s hating you. Hating you isn’t illegal.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          1 year ago

          Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.

          Of course it is. What on earth could “free speech” possibly mean if not “you won’t be punished for what you say”?

          What do you think free speech is, other than a commitment to refrain from punishing people for speaking?

          • ZephrC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What in the world ever made you think that was a reasonable thing to say? Do you really believe that its your right to not only say what you want, but also never have anyone have a negative opinion of it? That is completely insane. Like actually I’m worried about your mental health. Seek help.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.

              If you consider the US constitution, the rule government must adhere to is to refrain from interfering with free speech.

              • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                Homie, I’m Canadian, it’s beyond the constitution of the US. We don’t have unlimited free speech because it fucking leads to genocide and violence. I will fight to the grave to ensure that tolerance only extends to the tolerant. This is what generations fought a nearly world ending world war over. It’s worth fighting over, you don’t have to agree with me.

              • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.

                Free speech is just that the government shouldn’t be able to punish you for what you say. Nothing else.

                What you describe is governed by the social contract. Noone should be forced to listen to what other people say, and people can freely decide to distance themselves if someone says something they don’t agree with.

                • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Also there can be social consequences from what you say, free speech does not protect you from that, despite some people thinking that it does or that it should.

          • nfh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’ve conflated punishment and consequences. You have the freedom to hold some morally repugnant view like white nationalism, and your freedom of speech protects your right to express those views. But your family can hear those expressions, and cut you out of their lives, publicly condemn those views, or you for holding them, without affecting your freedom of speech. A company can refuse to allow you to use their platform to spread those views without affecting your freedom of speech.

            What can’t happen is a politician or government official use their powers to suppress your speech, arrest you, unless your speech act harms people, like shouting fire in a crowded theater. People disagree about exactly what those exceptions should be, but except for a few small but loud conservative groups trying to censor things like LGBTQ content, this basic premise is pretty uncontroversial, at least in the US.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Negative consequences deliberately chosen to discourage others from speaking up is called punishment.

              • nfh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t agree that’s true in general, and it’s also not relevant to free speech

          • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            The government punishing people. I am not the government. I can point out that you are a fool to think you are otherwise immune from the consequences of what you say.

      • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude… They’re not disliking freedom of speech, they’re disliking the contents of your speech. You’re free to say whatever the hell you want. We’re also free to call you an idiot if we’re so inclined.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do you believe that Ben Shapiro is merely speaking his mind when tries to argue that allowing children to transition will increase the suicide rate when literally all available data about trans children shows the exact opposite? Do you believe that Steven Crowder is merely speaking his mind when he “proves” global warming is fake by showing that Antarctic ice levels are higher in October than they were the preceding August while ignoring the steady downward year-over-year trend modulated by the seasons? Do you believe that Donald Trump was merely speaking his mind when he called for his followers to march on the white house, or, more recently, called immigrants vermin?

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know who those first two people are.

          But speaking your mind isn’t proof of anything. The ability to speak freely is freedom of speech. I’ll support anyone that is for freedom of speech and i think everyone should have the right of freedom of speech as long as it doesnt impact someone elses freedoms.

          Trump. I’m not even sure what point you are making about freedom of speech, you seem to be talking about intent not about freedom of speech. I’m not actually familiar with the point you mean.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            i think everyone should have the right of freedom of speech as long as it doesnt impact someone elses freedoms.

            If you are against people using their freedom of speech in an attempt to take away the rights and freedoms of other people, then I’d think you’d find that most people do support freedom of speech the way that you do.