Asklemmy

44672 readers

1025 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

[email protected]

Policy opinion: am i going to suppress the freedom of speech if i ban religion topics and porn on my instance? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

At least for me its very difficult to make the line between preventing hate speech and allowing the freedom. I'm thinking to launch a lemmy instance, but the targeted audience is very sensitive to religion topics, and i'm sure if i allow it, this could lead to hate speech at some point and may fuel violence. Also, from my prospective, i just want my audience find new good things far from porn, porn sites are a lot, and i don`t want to mix it with other topics that can very constructive.

So please tell me your opinion, if banning these 2 topics can effect the freedom of speech.

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

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

No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic.

We all do it, but you can chose to be a grown up when it is pointed out. Your logical flaw was of analogy. You compare freedom of speech to protections around search and seizure (correctly) and those to internet bans/theft incorrectly. When you do that you confuse two bodies of law that are almost entirely separate. btw trying to side track into the topic of enforcement actions on individuals is another logical fallacy. Look it up, or don't and just whine when people call you out.

And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated.

Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition. Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.

What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo

Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it ever could about me that you feel the need tell me what I am thinking in your first response.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 years ago

Your logical flaw was of analogy.

There's no analogy. An analogy likens one thing to another. We're discussing the principle of freedom of speech, in relation to what you believe to be a government-only prohibition against suppressing that.

I pointed out another example of the same thing. A principle that you probably think is sacrosanct, but if the "it only applies to the government" rule is used upon it, should seem suspicious.

You can't really argue with it that way though, can you? It'd be a fucked up world if it only-and-strictly applied to the government, so non-government entities went out and violated it constantly.

I guess you really do have to say "nyuh uh!" and think you have one over on me.

Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition.

In the US, freedom of speech and all your other liberties are defined by case law. Constantly evolving, always in flux. Gargantuan in size (Westlaw's case law database might be as large as 35Tbytes) To say that it has an "undisputed legal definition" is to not understand our legal system even slightly. If it were undisputed, why would there be court cases about it all the time? Why would judges need to rule on those and settle those disputes?

Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.

I've read this 4 times. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say, I think you might have lost the plot.

Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it

The "I'm rubber you're glue" rebuttal?