Damn, now you got me defending fucking Musk on this issue.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to lie. However, that just means the state can’t arrest you for your speech. Nobody owes you a platform for your free speech.
No, freedom of speech doesn’t protect you against false statements. There’s literally a ton of other laws that penalize that, depending on the context. Purgery, slander, libel, breach of contract, just to name a few.
I already said that there were limitations to free speech earlier. But untruth is also protected under the US Constitution. It all relates to a possibility of harm.
If i said that I was the Easter Bunny, it would be a lie, but who is harmed by it?
If I falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre and people get trampled, then harm, or a risk of harm is evident.
These are all standard arguments on free speech. But, yes, there are many carve outs where an untrue statement is protected under law. I just don’t have the time or inclination to list them all. You can check them out yourself.
Yes, but in this case we are not talking about a lie, we are talking about an opinion which you yourself consider a lie.
You are going around in circles. I already told you it is fair enough - if he genuinely believed Muskler was not performing a nazi salute, it just makes him deluded. I however consider it unlikely, and if it indeed is not the case, that means he was lying.
Furthermore, Muskler himself never denied him making a nazi salute, making people denying it even more likely to lie rather than simply being mistaken.
Show me the legalisation where it is illegal to lie. How is it enforced? Who enforces it? Who arbatrates it?
Freedom of speech is a moral right, and nothing more. If you start arresting people on perceived lies, that is a very dangerous slippery slope. I hope that the Donald doesn’t start arresting people who he believes is lying. Where will THAT stop?
And, no, I’m not Asian, tho I don’t understand your asking.
Neither of those links suggested that it was illegal to lie. Why not? Because it is fucking impossible to tie that rule into a working possibility. Go read your own links yourself, because it is obvious that you haven’t.
It talks about limitations on hate speech, etc, but you can lie without hate speech.
Freedom of speech is an ideal, and is tied to state control of speech. There are all kinds of limitations, including public safety and defamation, etc. But if I called you a Martian, obviously that is a lie. What happens? Does the free speech police lock me up?
I’m not interested in personal attacks, by the way.
Friend, the issue isn’t freedom of speech. It’s breach of contract. The establishment has policies which are the contract for using the designated space. If you breach those policies you are in violation of said contract that deems you ineligible to participate within the establishment.
You do not have the right to intrude on other people’s establishments after being asked to leave for violating their written terms of service without being accepted back.
Edit: for example, Lemmy.world has a rule of no advocating for future violence. Do I agree with it? It does not matter. They created the policy and it is their establishment. If I advocate for future violence they can ask me to leave, and if I argue with them they very well may ban be from posting/commenting there. It isn’t my freedom of speech that they are banning, it is my access to their establishment.
None of that relates to the concept of free speech.
Trump has been lying through his teeth since the moment he could talk. I don’t see either him being penalized nor anybody trying to stop him. It’s got nothing to do with contracts.
Also, I never said that free speech had no limits. If you were to follow the thread you would see that I have nominated a bunch.
I know my comment had nothing to do with free speech, I was saying that the user in question got banned for arguing the rules of the establishment. Whether I agree with the ban or not, if it is a written policy of the community, that is the social contract you are committing to when participating in that community.
From the article:
“Reddit continues to be anti-free speech,” Cedric Hohnstadt said on X. “I just got a lifetime ban from the ‘comics’ subreddit. Yesterday, I posted a humor comic that got over 5,400 upvotes. Then I noticed that there was a pinned post from the moderators saying that comics linked from X could no longer be shared because Musk gave a Nazi salute. I commented saying no he didn’t. The moderator accused me of being pro-Nazi, banned me permanently for life, and deleted all my past posts from the ‘comics’ subreddit.”
None of the issue at hand pertains to free speech. The moderator might be an ass, but it’s their choice to ban users from their community for violating set policies.
It would be like me arguing with the asklemmy community about the title not being in the form of a question and them banning me and me screaming “my freedom of speech!”.
Nah, they just have a rules you have to follow to participate.
That’s true and I appreciate that different opinions are often unwelcome, I’d still rather that than end up in an extremely boring echo chamber where the “conversation” is not much more than a circle jerk.
It isn’t - unless your comment applies just to the USA, otherwise read the UN definition of freedom of speech.
Are you a another USian by any chance? I noticed people from USA have completly skewed definition of freedom of speech which may partially explain why Trump is able to get away with his constant lies.
Freedom of speech does not cover lies. It doesn’t mean lies are illegal - it only means they are NOT protected under the freedom of speech - which means they can be banned or made illegal if individual states decides to do so.
Furthermore there is plethora of situations in which lies are illegal in multiple countries. As a matter of example, in the UK lying when you are selling something is called “fraudulent misrepresentation” and it is a criminal offence.
Tell me where scientists are prosecuted for having got a theory wrong
Tell me where meteorologists routinely are prosecuted
I already mentioned the obvious exceptions (lying to cause certain types of harm) but few western countries allow penalties for anything outside those exceptions
So you’re admitting you didn’t read any of my comments, and that you don’t understand that only very narrow types of lies are criminalized while the vast majority are not
Hint: read my first comment again
And then again
And then again, and notice the parentheses this time. Then ask somebody to explain it to you.
It’s weird that this issue only comes up when it comes to defend nazi shit and not with other things.
I’ll give you a specific example: I posted this on r/ShowerThoughts: “Incest is like pissing in your gene pool”.
I think it’s pretty good, but mods deleted my post because it goes against community guidelines.
If I got into an argument with the mods and got banned from r/ShowerThoughts, I wouldn’t be going around crying about “freedom of speech”, because it’s dumb, and communities have rules.
These arguments are always about normalizing nazi shit. Fuck that.
Possibly defending Nazis was against community guidelines…? Pretty doublespeak of you to call one example “against guidelines” and the other “wrong think” and I’m sure I know why you do it.
At the end of the day, until Musk comes out and says, “it was a Nazi salute and I’m a Nazi”, it will be up to opinion and everyone has a right to share their opinion.
and I’m sure I know why you do it.
I really don’t appreciate the insinuation but the least you could do is grow a pair, come out and say it.
yup. A good intellectual test would be asking whether people would draw the same conclusion on intent about the gesture if:
A) it were sexual coming from a person with a history of sexually harassing comments who provides a sexual joke for explanation
B) it were a direct insult (like middle finger) from a person with a history of verbally abusive comments, who provides a fuckyou joke for explanation.
People usually have very little difficulty judging the intent in those situations.
The difference here is that you made a post against community guidelines. Where as in this case the guy seems to have been banned for wrong think.
Man, it’s such a shitty hill to die on.
When I posted, there was no specific guidance on “incest jokes” at r/Showerthoughts that I am aware of.
Normalizing nazi shit goes against most communities guidelines, somewhere around the general, “don’t post hateful stuff” requirements
If communities can have their own rules, they are free to ban people for hateful shit.
And yeah, Musk made a nazi salute, which at this point is a pretty objective fact (Tesla’s track record of racial harassment, EM’s track record of boosting nazi shit on X, EM renaming self as Kekius Maximus, talking about the “future of our civilization” while doing the gesture, repetition, and turning as per nazi protocol, etc etc.). The only things that are up for debate are A) why did he do it? B) Was he chemically impaired while doing it.
Hear me out. Let’s remove the politics from this equation for a second
Let’s say I stood on a podium, did pelvic thrusts and formed a V with my fingers stuck my tongue through them making circular motions with it, and when people got upset, I responded to with pussy jokes. Would you interpret my actions as an “awkward gesture”? You could, but people would consider you either a perv, or a troll. Same applies here.
I don’t care. Read my full comment history if you want, you’ll find I’m quite clearly a left winger.
I really don’t know what my comment history has to do with my ability to defend freedom of speech.
I couldn’t care less if people want to take issue with my opinions, I only ask that it’s kept civil and the debate is kept relevant to the subject, I’m not interested in personal attacks.
I only ask that it’s kept civil and the debate is kept relevant to the subject
The general societal norm is that nazi shit isn’t considered civil and EM’s doubling down with nazi jokes eliminates the “awkward gesture” defense. So you are expecting civility from others while defending something you claim to consider hateful too.
Your priorities are extremely misplaced when this happens concurrently with the US federal government undergoing “ideological review” (their words).
I’m getting really tired of self-claimed “left wingers” advancing the alt-right agenda. You’re either a useful idiot, or dishonest.
Regardless of Nazi anything: community guidelines state no posts from X.
They have a right to ban posts from whatever website they wish for whatever reason they wish to do so - it’s their community. They weren’t saying the person couldn’t have hosted the same comic on Imgur and posted it. He got banned for arguing back, not for the contents of his comic. It’s rational that any community would ban any idiot who is breaking their guidelines and being rude about it.
Thus my point that freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie or a freedom to spread hate or encourage violence (this is a general point, I am not referring to your views in particular).
Honestly, that’s very insulting and I don’t appreciate the insinuation. I know very well what the freedom of speech entails and I donate monthly to amnesty international.
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie.
Damn, now you got me defending fucking Musk on this issue.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to lie. However, that just means the state can’t arrest you for your speech. Nobody owes you a platform for your free speech.
That said, Elon Musk is a turd sandwich.
No, freedom of speech doesn’t protect you against false statements. There’s literally a ton of other laws that penalize that, depending on the context. Purgery, slander, libel, breach of contract, just to name a few.
I already said that there were limitations to free speech earlier. But untruth is also protected under the US Constitution. It all relates to a possibility of harm.
If i said that I was the Easter Bunny, it would be a lie, but who is harmed by it?
If I falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre and people get trampled, then harm, or a risk of harm is evident.
These are all standard arguments on free speech. But, yes, there are many carve outs where an untrue statement is protected under law. I just don’t have the time or inclination to list them all. You can check them out yourself.
Again, it is not. Freedom of speech is a freedom to receive information and exchange ideas. Not a freedom to lie.
Are you a USian by any chance? They quite often misunderstand what freedom of speech is.
Yes, but in this case we are not talking about a lie, we are talking about an opinion which you yourself consider a lie.
It comes back to objective truth Vs opinion which I have already replied to you about.
Regardless of this, there are cases where lying is protected by the first amendment.
https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendment/
The example of where lying is not protected in the case to which we are referring would be:
You are going around in circles. I already told you it is fair enough - if he genuinely believed Muskler was not performing a nazi salute, it just makes him deluded. I however consider it unlikely, and if it indeed is not the case, that means he was lying.
Furthermore, Muskler himself never denied him making a nazi salute, making people denying it even more likely to lie rather than simply being mistaken.
Again, it is.
Show me the legalisation where it is illegal to lie. How is it enforced? Who enforces it? Who arbatrates it?
Freedom of speech is a moral right, and nothing more. If you start arresting people on perceived lies, that is a very dangerous slippery slope. I hope that the Donald doesn’t start arresting people who he believes is lying. Where will THAT stop?
And, no, I’m not Asian, tho I don’t understand your asking.
Again, it isn’t. Read the fucking definition and educate yourself.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Who was talking about Asians? I asked if you are a USian. Someone from USA. People from USA often misunderstand what freedom of speech is.
sigh
Again it is.
Neither of those links suggested that it was illegal to lie. Why not? Because it is fucking impossible to tie that rule into a working possibility. Go read your own links yourself, because it is obvious that you haven’t.
It talks about limitations on hate speech, etc, but you can lie without hate speech.
Freedom of speech is an ideal, and is tied to state control of speech. There are all kinds of limitations, including public safety and defamation, etc. But if I called you a Martian, obviously that is a lie. What happens? Does the free speech police lock me up?
I’m not interested in personal attacks, by the way.
Which part of “the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas” caused you trouble?
So, are you a USian?
I’m not sure if you are trolling or not, because any plain English reading is obvious
Your own quote, as set out below…
“the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas”
That also applies to incorrect information ideas… or… lies. Or the truth… Or fantasy… Or anything in between…
It doesn’t specify truth or otherwise. You are free to assume anything you care to - but it’s not in the actual text.
As to your question, I have no clue about your insistence on me being whatever the thing is you keep repeating.
Are you a little bit slow?
Which part of “information” or “ideas” cover lies?
So, are you a USian as misunderstanding of free speach is common there?
i think theyre trying to spell asian
Friend, the issue isn’t freedom of speech. It’s breach of contract. The establishment has policies which are the contract for using the designated space. If you breach those policies you are in violation of said contract that deems you ineligible to participate within the establishment.
You do not have the right to intrude on other people’s establishments after being asked to leave for violating their written terms of service without being accepted back.
Edit: for example, Lemmy.world has a rule of no advocating for future violence. Do I agree with it? It does not matter. They created the policy and it is their establishment. If I advocate for future violence they can ask me to leave, and if I argue with them they very well may ban be from posting/commenting there. It isn’t my freedom of speech that they are banning, it is my access to their establishment.
None of that relates to the concept of free speech.
Trump has been lying through his teeth since the moment he could talk. I don’t see either him being penalized nor anybody trying to stop him. It’s got nothing to do with contracts.
Also, I never said that free speech had no limits. If you were to follow the thread you would see that I have nominated a bunch.
I know my comment had nothing to do with free speech, I was saying that the user in question got banned for arguing the rules of the establishment. Whether I agree with the ban or not, if it is a written policy of the community, that is the social contract you are committing to when participating in that community.
From the article: “Reddit continues to be anti-free speech,” Cedric Hohnstadt said on X. “I just got a lifetime ban from the ‘comics’ subreddit. Yesterday, I posted a humor comic that got over 5,400 upvotes. Then I noticed that there was a pinned post from the moderators saying that comics linked from X could no longer be shared because Musk gave a Nazi salute. I commented saying no he didn’t. The moderator accused me of being pro-Nazi, banned me permanently for life, and deleted all my past posts from the ‘comics’ subreddit.”
None of the issue at hand pertains to free speech. The moderator might be an ass, but it’s their choice to ban users from their community for violating set policies.
It would be like me arguing with the asklemmy community about the title not being in the form of a question and them banning me and me screaming “my freedom of speech!”. Nah, they just have a rules you have to follow to participate.
That’s true and I appreciate that different opinions are often unwelcome, I’d still rather that than end up in an extremely boring echo chamber where the “conversation” is not much more than a circle jerk.
In legal terms it is (with the obvious exceptions for impersonation, defamation, etc)
But in private forums? Mods can be however strict they want
It isn’t - unless your comment applies just to the USA, otherwise read the UN definition of freedom of speech.
Are you a another USian by any chance? I noticed people from USA have completly skewed definition of freedom of speech which may partially explain why Trump is able to get away with his constant lies.
Tell me where fiction is illegal to publish
Are you a little bit slow?
Freedom of speech does not cover lies. It doesn’t mean lies are illegal - it only means they are NOT protected under the freedom of speech - which means they can be banned or made illegal if individual states decides to do so.
Furthermore there is plethora of situations in which lies are illegal in multiple countries. As a matter of example, in the UK lying when you are selling something is called “fraudulent misrepresentation” and it is a criminal offence.
Tell me where scientists are prosecuted for having got a theory wrong
Tell me where meteorologists routinely are prosecuted
I already mentioned the obvious exceptions (lying to cause certain types of harm) but few western countries allow penalties for anything outside those exceptions
Are you more than a little bit slow?
Do you see the difference between “lies NOT protected” and “lies criminalised”? And BTW I just gave you an example of a criminalised lie.
So you’re admitting you didn’t read any of my comments, and that you don’t understand that only very narrow types of lies are criminalized while the vast majority are not
Hint: read my first comment again
And then again
And then again, and notice the parentheses this time. Then ask somebody to explain it to you.
For fuck sake. Let me tell you one thing: you are an idiot - not a name calling, just a realistic assessment of your intellectual capabilities.
Well if this person truly believes it wasn’t a Nazi salute, then he’s not lying.
I believe ghosts aren’t real, but that doesn’t mean I think anyone that has seen a ghost is lying, I truly believe that they think they saw a ghost.
There’s a huge difference between an objective truth and a widely agreed upon opinion.
It’s weird that this issue only comes up when it comes to defend nazi shit and not with other things. I’ll give you a specific example: I posted this on r/ShowerThoughts: “Incest is like pissing in your gene pool”. I think it’s pretty good, but mods deleted my post because it goes against community guidelines. If I got into an argument with the mods and got banned from r/ShowerThoughts, I wouldn’t be going around crying about “freedom of speech”, because it’s dumb, and communities have rules.
These arguments are always about normalizing nazi shit. Fuck that.
The difference here is that you made a post against community guidelines. Where as in this case the guy seems to have been banned for wrong think.
I’m not arguing that communities can’t have their own rules.
Possibly defending Nazis was against community guidelines…? Pretty doublespeak of you to call one example “against guidelines” and the other “wrong think” and I’m sure I know why you do it.
We’re back to opinion Vs fact, again!
At the end of the day, until Musk comes out and says, “it was a Nazi salute and I’m a Nazi”, it will be up to opinion and everyone has a right to share their opinion.
I really don’t appreciate the insinuation but the least you could do is grow a pair, come out and say it.
You’re a very good little reminder that no one should take the ability to regurgitate alt-righticisms for intellect.
yup. A good intellectual test would be asking whether people would draw the same conclusion on intent about the gesture if:
A) it were sexual coming from a person with a history of sexually harassing comments who provides a sexual joke for explanation B) it were a direct insult (like middle finger) from a person with a history of verbally abusive comments, who provides a fuckyou joke for explanation.
People usually have very little difficulty judging the intent in those situations.
If endorsing the freedom of speech makes you alt-right, then I guess I’m alt-right.
Finally you noticed.
Fuck you.
Man, it’s such a shitty hill to die on.
Hear me out. Let’s remove the politics from this equation for a second
Let’s say I stood on a podium, did pelvic thrusts and formed a V with my fingers stuck my tongue through them making circular motions with it, and when people got upset, I responded to with pussy jokes. Would you interpret my actions as an “awkward gesture”? You could, but people would consider you either a perv, or a troll. Same applies here.
So yeah, stop normalizing nazi shit.
People here seem to be confused between me endorsing “Nazi shit”, which I am not, and me backing the freedom of speech.
I don’t know why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
FYI, your comment history is public, so people have more context for your posts here than you assume.
I don’t care. Read my full comment history if you want, you’ll find I’m quite clearly a left winger.
I really don’t know what my comment history has to do with my ability to defend freedom of speech.
I couldn’t care less if people want to take issue with my opinions, I only ask that it’s kept civil and the debate is kept relevant to the subject, I’m not interested in personal attacks.
I’m getting really tired of self-claimed “left wingers” advancing the alt-right agenda. You’re either a useful idiot, or dishonest.
If you accept that communities can have their own rules, then the rule here is “no defending Nazis”.
Regardless of Nazi anything: community guidelines state no posts from X.
They have a right to ban posts from whatever website they wish for whatever reason they wish to do so - it’s their community. They weren’t saying the person couldn’t have hosted the same comic on Imgur and posted it. He got banned for arguing back, not for the contents of his comic. It’s rational that any community would ban any idiot who is breaking their guidelines and being rude about it.
Agreed, that makes him deluded instead. Not many people however are stupid enough to be able to analyse Musk salute and belive it wasn’t a nazi one.
I’m not getting in to the Musk debate, I’m quite frankly bored of it, just let me know if he does it again.
I’m only here to defend freedom of speech.
Ensure you understand it first:
‘Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.’
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right
Thus my point that freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie or a freedom to spread hate or encourage violence (this is a general point, I am not referring to your views in particular).
Honestly, that’s very insulting and I don’t appreciate the insinuation. I know very well what the freedom of speech entails and I donate monthly to amnesty international.
All I would say is that you picked up a very odd example to defend the “freedom of speech”.
That’s just the thing, freedom of speech is for everyone, not only the people you like and agree with, this conversation has come full circle now.
Where is this one coming from now?