I experience Lemmy as a reflection of many of the problems in the world; there seems to be little effort to understand and respect different viewpoints. Instead of being curious about opinions one disagrees with, the community often feels almost aggressive. People end up in their own trenches. What about trying to be more open and curious about our differences instead?

Apparently we believe in freedom of speech—so long as the speech is something we agree with…

  • tea@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Well said. It is so frustrating when people don’t understand that people disagreeing with them does not mean their freedom of speech is being violated.

    Even the banning example, which is commonly pointed to as violating freedom of speech, is typically (not saying it is always) used when the user is breaking civility rules or rules established by the community which the user assented to by participating in the community discourse.

    • Libb@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Well said. It is so frustrating when people don’t understand that people disagreeing with them does not mean their freedom of speech is being violated.

      Thx.

      Quite a few of them will remain incapable to understand that, no matter what we can try too encourage them, but I want to think the vast majority can’t because they were not educated to understand it.

      Schools (as well as many parents, I’m afraid) have failed many of the younger people/generation. Being old myself, as a teen in the early 80s I started witnessing that failure spreading like fire in the few public schools I had friends in (I was lucky enough to be in a private school, a religious one where they insisted on using a… stricter approach to teaching, a more demanding one too).

      Public schools have failed so badly it’s hard to realize parents have not been on the streets demanding an urgent reform. But they obviously don’t manifest much for that, like if not educating their kids was no big deal. Those kids, if they were given the opportunity to access some proper education (and to the more… radicals out there: ‘proper’ should not be understood as ‘perfect’ or ‘faultless’) they would quickly learn to accept difference of opinions, and even extremely conflicting ideas. Even more, I have little doubt many would start to value it, realizing it’s an opportunity for everyone.

      Alas, we’re far from that. And, as an older person (I’m nearing my 60s), when you try to point out the issue, that catastrophic and dramatic failure of school and adults towards kids… Most will either refuse to listen, disqualifying the remark as mere nostalgia from someone too old to understand the modern world and its many new problems (which is another interesting demonstration of prejudice, btw). Entirely missing the point. Alas.

      Even the banning example,

      Being banned from a private space (online or IRL) is not a violation of the freedom of speech (which BTW is mostly an US-based thing, while a lot of the fediverse is not from there), it’s the right of the owner to decide who can and cannot enter in and stay to their place, and what they can do there.

      The issue is when that legit right is used to silence dissent ideas and thoughts. Like it can easily be done on X or Reddit, or any other centralized platform. Hence me pointing out that the Fediverse is more resilient to that kind of abuse… even if it is not immune to it and to admins abusing their powers and behaving like miniature wannabe dictators. At least, like I said, one can always switch community or create a new one. Even a whole instance.

    • AskewLord@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      When people try to bully you into silence and complicity, it is very much being violated.

      The vast majority of my replies on lemmy here are rarely more than name-calling and threats.

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Your free speech is not violated when someone disagrees with you. Your free speech is violated when the government stops you from speaking your mind. “Bullying” may be not nice, but it’s not a free speech issue. That’s just two people having a disagreement in an uncivilized manner.

        • AskewLord@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Right, so when I pull a gun on you, it’s just free speech?

          No dude, it’s assault. Lots of people control speech in online spaces by taking out virtual guns. Threats of banning, harassment, doxxing etc.

          I don’t know about you, I was involved in a subreddit years ago where members would stalk and harass people over online comments. Like drive to their house and take photos then post them online. That’s not disagreement, that’s bullying and being a psychopath who think they have every right to abuse and silence someone else for what they said.

          • tea@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Here’s a little guide:

            • Threats of banning, having unpopular views, being mean, uncivil discussion <-- Not against the law. “Free speech” discussion doesn’t apply. Just two parties having a disagreement.
            • Assault, legit harassment, libel, doxxing, etc <-- Against the law and you can be arrested/fined/sued. “Free speech” discussion applies, but in the case of these, the government has indicated that the speech is not protected under free speech. It’s about the government enforcing which speech is allowed and what is not.

            In the cases presented:

            • What OP talked about in the initial post was not a free speech issue. The government isn’t involved unless a law was broken, which I don’t think it has.
            • What you’re talking about here regarding harassment/doxxing IS a free speech issue because the law will stop the harasser and technically infringe on their right to “speak.” However, in this case, at least in the US judicial system has said that harassment falls outside of the allowable speech covered under the law and so it’s okay for the government to infringe on that right for this case.

            Does that make sense?