What do people claim they know of but really don't?

Submitted ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Necrifyre@piefed.blahaj.zone⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

Freedom of Speech.

It only applies to government-related situations. The government, is not allowed to silence you over criticisms and open opinions against it, try as it might.

It does not apply to online communities which is where a lot of people seem to believe so. As much as it sucks for it to happen, moderators can and will delete posts of yours that they find uncivil. You do not have immunity whatsoever, to express any opinions that break rules and interrupt civility. You don’t have the right to openly call someone “you’re a fucking moron” then turn around claiming that’s free speech. That’s not how it works.

The government doesn’t own or fund places like Lemmy, Reddit, Facebook .etc They may have done dealings with those platforms, but they don’t really own them and it still does not count towards the 1st Amendment. That’s why you get banned, that’s why you get warned and that’s why it may seem to you, that you’re “silent”. Your 1st amendment rights aren’t being violated, it’s you violating the rules and civil code of conducts that got you penalized. There’s a difference.

Freedom of Speech also covers the fact that you can have open opinions and expressions towards any political figure as well.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Fallibilist@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
I literally wrote a comment about the exact same thing yesterday. Freedom of Speech in the US only means freedom from prosecution for what you said. It does not entitle you to a platform to say it. Social media giants can silence you for literally any reason. You don’t even have to break the rules. That doesn’t infringe on your freedom of speech as that is not what said freedom even means.

In regards to the original question: I’d say it’s a good heuristic to assume that every time someone anywhere makes an absolute claim that leaves no room for them being mistaken is a situation where it’s safe to assume they’re just expressing personal mood about that subject, not an objective truth. Absolute claims only need one counter example to come crashing down.

source
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
They claim to know that words are being used wrongly, but they don’t know that if someone claims the words they are using mean some particular thing, that person is right, because that is what they meant by those words.

For example, Freedom of Speech is often used as a synonym for Freedom of Expression, which is the idea that an open environment for public discussion is valuable to society and merits some kind of respect or protection, legal or otherwise. Instead of arguing that an open environment for public discussion is not worth having or otherwise necessary or preferable to do without, people sometimes instead try to make the accusation that people who are pro-free-expression are stupid because of not understanding what words mean.

source
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
You’re a fucking moron.

Now, will my comment get removed under Rule 7, or maybe Rule 8, or will your entire post here get removed under Rule 1 or 4 or 5?

It basically depends on the temperment of the mods that might look at this, whether or not somebody is offended enough to report it, etc.

People get banned or censored because they, best case scenario, break a reasonable moderator’s conception of reasonable rules, worst case, because the moderator just doesn’t like them or what they’re saying, and the moderator just makes up some nonsensical way that somehow that counts as a rule violation.

Or, in some cases, you get a pathetic cowardly power monger that writes an entire client for lemmy with a hidden, backdoored-in, ban and block list of users and instances they don’t like… shadow banning!

Different people have different ideas of what kinds of speech are reasonable or allowable, and unless or untill all humanity becomes a hivemind or gestalt consciousness, this will always be the case to some extent.

Anyway, yeah you’re only describing the specific US legal and cultural conception of free speech, its different in important ways basically everywhere else.

Uh lets see, the government has in the past and recently funded Facebook, guess don’t know much about Facebook or government funding.

Lets see… getting in peoples faces at Wal-Mart?.I got no experience with that, but I have gotten in the face of a few bigoted fucks at LGBTQ bars and shouted them out of the place. You just have to not be afraid, be ready to take a blow if they throw it, but they never do, they’re all cowards.

Anyway, a good amount of people are aware that the 1st Ammendment isn’t relevant in many situations, such as on message boards.

I have no problem blocking comms and mods who are fragile little cowards or obvious hypocrites or who are so delusional in some ideological direction that they are not capable of judging certain kinds of speech in reasonable ways…

… but that’s what is great about Lemmy! Its federated, you can just not go to places with shitty rules or mods, block shitty comms and mods, etc. Curate your own experience, actively.

We are all just people here.

source
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
was this a question?

source
- FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  This is a rant using a question as pretext
  
  source
- Necrifyre@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Is this a troll attempt?
  
  source
  - FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Nope. The post reads like the question in the post title is rhetorical just to create a pretext for whining about people “miss understanding” free speech.
    
    source
NotAnOtter@lemmus.org ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Pretty much anything about science.

We all know models and simplifications but even the people at the utter cutting edge of any sub-niche of any sub-field you pick will agree there are parts they don’t really understand.

You can master & fully understand sufficiently simplified models but to actually understand the underlying process is to take a step beyond what humanity is capable of.

source
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I’ll take “countries other than the usa” for 200€.

source
- someguy3@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  200 what?
  
  source
  - Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Euh, “euro-dollars”
    
    source
HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
ooh ooh. I know. people think they know the context whats being discussed online but don’t. For example the contstitution limits governments ability to restrict freedom of speech but that originated from a philosophy of freedom of speech. so like online people will talk about needing freedom of speech or being a freedom of speech absoutist but won’t talk about how the governement should shut down some private place for not having free speech. so they are not talking about it in a legal context but in a philosophical context. super common.

source
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Ive seen that said a lot, but the issue Ive long had with it is, people that bring up “freedom of speech” are not always referring to the legal concept that garuntees it, be that the first amendment or some equivalent thing from outside the US. They might be, but they might also be using the term to express a philosophical or ideological position that they believe people ought to be able to say anything without negative consequences, which the person bringing it up can still hold without necessarily believing the law agrees.

Now, there’s a lot of problems one can point out with that kind of position, I have a few objections myself, paradox of tolerance and all that, but if someone objects that a given action is “against free speech”, and the response is “this isnt illegal that law doesn’t work that way”, that response isn’t actually bringing up one of those problems. The result is that, if the “free speech guy” didn’t happen to literally be under the impression that a crime was just committed and was instead expressing that they believe that it is unethical to prevent them from saying whatever they feel like via any medium they feel like, both people involved are simply talking past one another, possibly in increasing frustration that the other person seemingly just won’t get what they are saying.

source
- kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Some people really love to condescendingly pretend that other people are wrong for talking about the general concept of freedom of speech instead of conflating it with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  
  source
Steve@communick.news ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
The speed of light from point A to B.

Seriously.
For complicated reasons every measurement of the speed of light is bouncing off something back to the source. It might be very different each way, and we can only average them.

source
- bizarroland@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  At the same time, though, every time the speed of light has been measured, it has always been the exact same, unless something was being done to it to cause it to slow down.
  
  So we are highly confident that the speed of light in vacuum is a exactly equal to 299,792,458 meters a second.
  
  source
  - Steve@communick.news ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Right. But it could be faster in one direction than the other, and we don’t have a way of knowing.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Just use mirrors and make it go in a circle a b c d e f
  
  Or get the signal back with electricity.
  
  So yeah we do know.
  
  This doesn’t even answer OPs question and is just a shower thought IMO.
  
  source
- jdr@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  What are these complicated reasons?
  
  source
  - Steve@communick.news ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Veritasium video about it.
    
    source
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Fantastic example!

source