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…

  • AskewLord@piefed.socialEnglish
    22·
    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
      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?