You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Does anyone?
The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.
Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.
It's bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.
Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it. Hate groups and vile scum always do that with things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous.
Nothing new historically. You don't have to accept their false premises by surrendering ideas to them.
Free speech is power, not innocuous: authorities fear it. It belongs to the people unless they surrender it.
Used to care about? Only if you let them stop you.
The ACLU are nationalist ideologues who don't believe in anything. There's no objective definition of "civil rights" or even "free speech". They promote the wacky idea that money is speech and corporations are people. They're only "free speech absolutists" for the rich or whatever the system tells them. They're fash enablers.
That's the most delulu & citation-free comment I've read in recent time: good job!
The premise of free expression is that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear, and it's not the role of an authority to decide that for them. Seems you oppose that liberty & want an authority to decide. Isn't there a name for people who oppose freedom & want everyone to obey authority? Aren't there some rather unsavory characters who agree with you? That's some awfully bad company: despite your superficial differences, you're a bit too alike.
yeah it's a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where "speech" is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).
The ACLU believes money is speech and corporations are people. They're just capitalist/nationalist wackos.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united/
You don't need to be an "absolutist" to believe in free speech. Open exchange of ideas is valuable. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.
There are no absolutists, my friend. Everyone has limits.
Exactly. The real debate is on which parts should be off limits.
Most people can think of some speech that they consider so horrible that nobody should be allowed to say it.
People often try to hedge that position by arguing that they're not even really infringing on anyone's speech because their form of restriction doesn't meet a sufficient threshold of censorship.