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.
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.
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.
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?
Sorry, you crossed the line when you made a ad hominem attack.
I don’t get personal in debates, I let the point of view do the heavy lifting.
See ya.
i think theyre trying to spell asian
I thought so too at first, but he kept on repeating the typo, so I’m not sure?
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.