this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
530 points (87.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43924 readers
1312 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Freedom of expression of opinion" would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions...
Censorship of any opinion is bad.
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between "should be allowed" and "should be cencored". It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven't bitten that bullet.
It's not a strawman - it's a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don't belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don't understand, and putting forward arguments you don't believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you've stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
Ummm... my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything... I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)