I am not targeting any group, race or religion or whatever, just an observation why does it seem that freedom of speech appears to invoke an image of a defence to be an asshole?

I get it, free to speak your mind and all and sometimes hard truths need to be said that but is the concept so out of whack that people have less empathy for others that they don’t agree with that they antagonise another to the point of disrespecting the right to dignity?

It seems like humanity is hard wired for conflict and if it isn’t actively trying to kill itself it seems to find an outlet for violence some way somehow. Maybe it is social conditioning or just some primal urge that makes humans human.

I don’t even know where else I could ask it, and it seems kind of stupid to think about so… have at thee

  • Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because insuring free speech includes everyone and the most strident assholes believe themselves to have the right to speak first and as loudly as possible.
    It doesn’t mean we don’t discount their bullshit and laugh at them, it just means they are the loudest and quickest.

    Just to be clear, if they do somehow bring up a valid point, it is not dismissed out of hand like the obvious bullshit is.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t seem enough anymore. I used to be a free speech absolutist: following the soap box analogy, I don’t have to listen to whatever filth you’re spewing, I can point and laugh, I might no longer be interested in being friendly. That’s all logically complete: say what you want but no one has to listen, and you’re not free of the consequences.

      However online communities have taken this to a whole new level, and free speech can become actively harmful to others and to society. Now we get to the other common analogy “but you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater”. Just like that example, you have no right to a platform that endangers others. Unfortunately the danger is more indirect, so it’s not an exact analogy, and it’s not clear where to draw the line

      • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem you’re talking about is real, but I don’t think restricting free speech is the answer.