At least for me its very difficult to make the line between preventing hate speech and allowing the freedom.
I’m thinking to launch a lemmy instance, but the targeted audience is very sensitive to religion topics, and i’m sure if i allow it, this could lead hate to speech at some point and may fuel violence.
Also, from my prospective, i just want my audience find new good things far from porn, porn sites are a lot, and i don`t want to mix it with other topics that can very constructive.
So please tell me your opinion, if banning these 2 topics can effect the freedom of speech.
If the government may not conduct an unreasonable search of your home, would you then permit a gang of unruly citizens to toss your house
This is a logical fallacy. Illegal search and seizure applies to the government. Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals. In the US one is prevented by the constitution (like freedom of speech) and the other follows local laws. They aren’t the same.
Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals.
Sure, sure. And just as soon as they catch them, they’ll punish them too! No need to worry about that.
This is a logical fallacy.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic. Instead, I offered you a scenario where “freedom from unreasonable searches” applies only to and strictly to the government, and yet you’d still be in danger of such things, and asked you if you’d like that?
Your response was “but nyuh nyuh, nanna nanna boo boo!”. You’ve accused me of making mistakes in my logic, and said that my hypothetical doesn’t count. Or something.
In the US one is prevented by the constitution
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated. Perhaps it doesn’t go far enough.
Perhaps there are scenarios where non-government entities can engage in suppression of speech to such an extent that it should be prohibited and punished if the prohibition is violated. I do not think the OP’s scenario is one of those, but I can think of several where that might be the case.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo likes suppression of free speech when you perceive that you belong to the group in charge benefiting from it. Should that ever change, you won’t even be able to effectively complain about the negative effects of the role reversal.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic.
We all do it, but you can chose to be a grown up when it is pointed out. Your logical flaw was of analogy. You compare freedom of speech to protections around search and seizure (correctly) and those to internet bans/theft incorrectly. When you do that you confuse two bodies of law that are almost entirely separate. btw trying to side track into the topic of enforcement actions on individuals is another logical fallacy. Look it up, or don’t and just whine when people call you out.
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated.
Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition. Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo
Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it ever could about me that you feel the need tell me what I am thinking in your first response.
There’s no analogy. An analogy likens one thing to another. We’re discussing the principle of freedom of speech, in relation to what you believe to be a government-only prohibition against suppressing that.
I pointed out another example of the same thing. A principle that you probably think is sacrosanct, but if the “it only applies to the government” rule is used upon it, should seem suspicious.
You can’t really argue with it that way though, can you? It’d be a fucked up world if it only-and-strictly applied to the government, so non-government entities went out and violated it constantly.
I guess you really do have to say “nyuh uh!” and think you have one over on me.
Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition.
In the US, freedom of speech and all your other liberties are defined by case law. Constantly evolving, always in flux. Gargantuan in size (Westlaw’s case law database might be as large as 35Tbytes) To say that it has an “undisputed legal definition” is to not understand our legal system even slightly. If it were undisputed, why would there be court cases about it all the time? Why would judges need to rule on those and settle those disputes?
Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.
I’ve read this 4 times. I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say, I think you might have lost the plot.
Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it
This is a logical fallacy. Illegal search and seizure applies to the government. Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals. In the US one is prevented by the constitution (like freedom of speech) and the other follows local laws. They aren’t the same.
Sure, sure. And just as soon as they catch them, they’ll punish them too! No need to worry about that.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic. Instead, I offered you a scenario where “freedom from unreasonable searches” applies only to and strictly to the government, and yet you’d still be in danger of such things, and asked you if you’d like that?
Your response was “but nyuh nyuh, nanna nanna boo boo!”. You’ve accused me of making mistakes in my logic, and said that my hypothetical doesn’t count. Or something.
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated. Perhaps it doesn’t go far enough.
Perhaps there are scenarios where non-government entities can engage in suppression of speech to such an extent that it should be prohibited and punished if the prohibition is violated. I do not think the OP’s scenario is one of those, but I can think of several where that might be the case.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo likes suppression of free speech when you perceive that you belong to the group in charge benefiting from it. Should that ever change, you won’t even be able to effectively complain about the negative effects of the role reversal.
We all do it, but you can chose to be a grown up when it is pointed out. Your logical flaw was of analogy. You compare freedom of speech to protections around search and seizure (correctly) and those to internet bans/theft incorrectly. When you do that you confuse two bodies of law that are almost entirely separate. btw trying to side track into the topic of enforcement actions on individuals is another logical fallacy. Look it up, or don’t and just whine when people call you out.
Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition. Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.
Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it ever could about me that you feel the need tell me what I am thinking in your first response.
There’s no analogy. An analogy likens one thing to another. We’re discussing the principle of freedom of speech, in relation to what you believe to be a government-only prohibition against suppressing that.
I pointed out another example of the same thing. A principle that you probably think is sacrosanct, but if the “it only applies to the government” rule is used upon it, should seem suspicious.
You can’t really argue with it that way though, can you? It’d be a fucked up world if it only-and-strictly applied to the government, so non-government entities went out and violated it constantly.
I guess you really do have to say “nyuh uh!” and think you have one over on me.
In the US, freedom of speech and all your other liberties are defined by case law. Constantly evolving, always in flux. Gargantuan in size (Westlaw’s case law database might be as large as 35Tbytes) To say that it has an “undisputed legal definition” is to not understand our legal system even slightly. If it were undisputed, why would there be court cases about it all the time? Why would judges need to rule on those and settle those disputes?
I’ve read this 4 times. I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say, I think you might have lost the plot.
The “I’m rubber you’re glue” rebuttal?