The admin of sh.itjust.works has been approached but as of yet has failed to reply to concerned Lemmy users. I’m glad Beehaw admins look out for us by cutting off instances that host communities like this.
The admin of sh.itjust.works has been approached but as of yet has failed to reply to concerned Lemmy users. I’m glad Beehaw admins look out for us by cutting off instances that host communities like this.
@iAmTheTot *Things that the mainstream perceives as shitty. Imagine if slaves were still illegal, and anyone campaigning for their abolishment was not allowed to speak on social media. See why you need free speech now?
And you might say ‘That’s different, slavery is bad and advocating for its abolishment is good, but advocating for Donald Trump is bad’, but that is the point.
‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
@Jeze3D @Digital_Eclipse @50gp
wow, you’re telling me that if you just make up a world where things are different, things might need to be different? enlightening stuff, thank you. a great argument for unfettered freedom of speech here.
This is where you misunderstood. The problem here isn’t slavery is bad and advocating against it is good and how that compares with the_donald. It’s that in the US, many countries in the EU, Australia, and New Zealand*, getting arrested or harmed by the government simply for speaking isn’t something to worry about. So, the people who use “free speech” to hide behind are, almost by default, bad actors. Even if you count mainstream (the citizens), no one is trying to harm the person speaking. In this case here it is also the opposite. What these racist fkers say (and do) can certainly hurt and harm other people, and they are doing everything they can so they don’t have to be responsible for their own speech. Hence, the “free speech”. It’s a similar tactic to opposers blending into a group of protestors and trying to sabotage by staging violence.
Now, if it’s another country where free speech is not where it should be. I’ll use my own country and it’s outdated and stupid lese majeste law as an example. Free speech here isn’t completely polluted by those bad actors yet because it still holds a very real value to combat tyranny. So, what I’m saying is this “free speech” problem in the US is a first world country problem, which should not be confuse with what free speech is about in more oppressive regimes.
People already heard what they had to say long ago, and it’s not welcome. So at this stage it’s about not letting them run all over everyone else. It’s not as if they have anything different to say from before. The answer is still the same, their racism is bad, their anti-science believes are bad, their disinformation are bad, their actions toward the LGBTQ+ communities are unacceptable etc. What else is there to listen to?
*Purposely left out Canada here.
Most of the time people bring up “free speech”, its when free speech isn’t even being threatened: they’re just being told their opinions are bad or people don’t want them to get paid for expressing those bad opinions. If your defense of your statements is focused on the free speech aspect, its because you don’t have a reasonable justification. Those who campaigned against slavery defended their positions with arguments about why slavery is bad instead of saying slavery should be abolished otherwise you’re violating my free speech.
Edit: there’s a difference in being a support of freedom of speech and responding to any criticism by claiming other people expressing their opinion somehow violates your free speech.