Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You are 100% incorrect and are confusing the first amendment of the united states with the concept of freedom of speech.
Why is the government special? Are you implying powerful corporations can't deprive people of rights or oppress people? That is very incorrect and there is a mountain of evidence for this. Are you implying that communities can't or haven't shunned people and ruined their lives for saying reasonable or true things? That is very incorrect and there is a mountain of evidence for this.
Your original claim that "Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from consequence for speech" is simply impossible to implement without limiting someone else's freedom of speech, as well as their right to ownership over private property.
There's no such thing as "freedom from consequences" for anything you do, including speech.
If you're going to make wild claims please substantiate them.
How does person A saying things result in person B being unable to say things or own private property?
Consequence of insulting the business that employs you is that you’ll get fired. To limit the consequences here is to restrict the property rights of the business to hire and fire the individuals they hire.
More realistic scenario, if you’re an insufferable person spewing nonsense all day, people in your social circle (and those near you physically) will distance themselves from you. That’s the natural consequence of anti-social behavior.
There is no speech without consequence. To have speech without consequence is to expect cause without effect.
Yes, and I believe businesses have too much power over people. I'm 100% okay with restricting the rights of businesses to protect workers. And we already do this for a lot of things, like you can't fire a woman because she got pregnant, etc. This is not a new concept.
True, but the concept of freedom of speech is that we should try to protect people's rights to say things. It's impossible to make everything 100% fine to say without consequences, but saying "who cares if businesses trample your rights" is going in the complete wrong direction.
The fediverse it's not the US
I never said it was? My entire point is that the concept of freedom of speech is not just one united states law.