World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
So, the only free speech you care about is one that gives you freedom to be a biggot, a racist, or some other petty hater?
That is an integral part of free speech, yes. Germany is arresting anti-genocide activists on trumped up hate speech charges right as we speak, so yeah.
Free speech must include all speech including the hateful one simply because “hateful” can be manipulated to mean anything.
Pro-Palestine is an example that was given already. But others might also say that being pro abortion is hateful speech. You might disagree but whoever is in the power is the one that gets to define what hateful means. And that’s why free speech must shelter hateful speech as well.
I'm a bit torn on this, because it looks like doxxing someone or driving them to suicide on-line should also be considered free speech and protected.
Although maybe it's more about the fact that you may be held accountable for what you say but can't be banned from saying it? But then again all the protesters would be prosecuted the same way.
In the end, I think the problem with hate-speech law enforcement is in the ones who do the enforcement and not in the fact that these laws exist. As far as I know, pretty much every law can be stretched enough to oppress someone if you're hellbent on doing that and have a broken law enforcement (which seems rather common nowadays)
If the information is publicly available, then it's not a violation. If it's an invasion of privacy or harassment (according to legal standards), then that's a violation that isn't protected.
In general, even in the strongest realizations of free speech, expression that directly harms (rather than merely offends) isn't protected.
This link kinda contradicts the thing you said about principles in my opinion. But then again, I should educate myself more on the matter
Rights/liberties necessarily limit each other where they conflict. A right to be unharmed, for example, may limit freedom of expression.
Beyond necessary limits, principles don't need compromises. The linked harm principle explains a well-recognized, necessary limit.
In practice, it's treated as narrow limits on incitement to imminent, lawless action; deprivation to peace & privacy; defamation; violation of intellectual property. Basically, anything that directly harms no matter if ignored.
In contrast, merely offensive expression can simply be ignored (or reciprocated with expression of any kind) without conflicting with rights, so it doesn't need to be limited.
Thus, terroristic threats or targeted, persistent threats (that put a reasonable person in fear of their safety, thus depriving their rights) aren't protected. Neither are false claims that deprive them their livelihood nor false warnings that cause panic & reckless endangerment.
Blanket statements that vilify a group of people, ill wishes, falsehoods that don't incite immediate action, etc, don't directly raise conflicts that necessitate limits.
If someone commits suicide because of online words from a stranger then they were not mentally well in the first place, and maybe shouldn’t be online at all but rather getting help. Doxxing is not quite free speech? It’s an action taken against an individual. Free speech for example doesn’t grant people the ability to accuse you of crimes Willy nilly, if they do so they are liable for defamation.
But that’s neither here nor there, platforms as private spaces have a right to limit free speech as much as they want. I don’t think it’s good for society when they use that power too strictly, and the fact that they did for about a decade I think it’s one of the main causes of the rise of the alt right, but it’s a right the platforms have. Just like you can kick someone out of your house for saying something you don’t like. When one says free speech what is meant is that someone in a public space can say whatever they want, be it hateful or not.
Or, get this, free speech means real free speech, no bitchass compromises.
A lefty with conviction & integrity would defend free, unadulterated speech no matter how distasteful, & especially if it is distasteful. A principle demands no less.
Same goes with justice & the rule of law. We would uphold & defend principles of a legal system to protect the least among us, so we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we can't reasonably expect those principles to protect us when we need them.
That's how principles work.
I re-read your comment and now I think I got the meaning better. Distasteful surely must be protected but that wasn't my point, my point was that hate-speech is often not distasteful is is harmful. It seems that it is not harmful enough, and if a hateful tweet doesn't make people go on a witch-hunt it's ok? That seems to be literal reading of the rules, but I find it lacking often.
Still, as others pointed out, whatever the rule is, it is used for oppressing the opposition
Is the harm directly from the speech? Ideas aren't actions & uncritically harming people is a choice.
We're all capable of reading stupid shit then taking it upon ourselves to harm people. Yet how many of us do? If I harmed someone, I wouldn't consider shit I read & uncritically acted on a valid excuse. I'd consider failure to think in the least bit critically before acting a total & culpable lapse in judgement.
Should we not hold every thinking person to that standard? Do you hold yourself to a different standard & think that would be a valid excuse?