385
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
385 points (99.5% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just wish people would recognize "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" is one of the most fascist things ever said.
Like, there are so many better ways to phrase the underlying thought that don't sound like you're about to sentence someone to the mines for insulting the state.
"Freedom of speech isn't a guaranteed platform"
"Freedom of speech only applies to governmental censorship"
"Freedom of speech applies to more people than just you, chucklefuck"
Etc etc
I'm curious as to what you think about the actual meaning of those sentences, then. Do you think that there ought to be protection against consequences, regardless of what one says? Should there be any exceptions at all? What is the domain of applicability? Certain types of expression, certain types of topics, intended audience, etc?
Edit: oh and what about freedom from? Is there any situation in which a person has a right to shut someone down from "expressing themselves" to them without their consent?