Ask Lemmy

27525 readers

1215 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

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.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

What problems would absolute free speech have? (fedia.io)

submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Say it were implemented in this world and you could say anything you like (written, spoken, signed whatever) to anyone who can hear/read/see it. What kind of problems could that create and are there any ways to resolve them without limiting that absolute free speech?

Could it even create unsolvable logical errors? E.g an omnipotent god can't create a stone too heavy for itself to lift. Maybe there are similar things with absolute free speech.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What about people who call themselves free speech absolutists?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I doubt that most of them have the same interpretation of absolutists in this context that you do.

I get called a free speech absolutist because I believe that you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist, I would not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

How is free speech in your definition "absolute"?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

Out of curiosity, do you consider the sentence below to be a direct incitement to actionable violence?

"It would be patriotic if someone were to stop Person X from enacting their agenda, even if they used force."

If yes, what exactly qualifies it as a "direct incitement"?

Additionally, would you say it makes a difference whether the sentence above is said by Joe Shmoe vs televised and said by a powerful person with many followers hanging at their every word?