this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
758 points (96.7% liked)

You Should Know

35447 readers
1018 users here now

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!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their "free speech absolutist" postures the moment they think they are in power.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 43 points 13 hours ago (6 children)

Honestly, the latter is absolutely free speech. They are 100% free to say that shit if they want. They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth, fired from their job, etc.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 2 points 44 minutes ago

It depends on the source of the consequences.

Social consequences? Completely fine, even desirable.

Legal consequences? This is where trouble starts and freedom of speech is no longer given.

[–] VisionScout@lemmy.wtf 1 points 47 minutes ago

They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth,

I would say that this is wrong. If you get hit in the mouth for something you say, than it's not freedom of speech. It's the law of the strongest.

Example: You wouldn't hit a UFC fighter for something he said to you on a 1 to 1, however you would beat him if you are 10 against him. This is the law of the strongest.

I don't believe in absolut free speech. I think that it needs to have limits in it (very well defined limits), and there should be consequences for certain things. And the consequences need to be enforced in a way to counter them, like for example if you say hate crap then you should be forced to contribute to anti-hate orgs.

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 19 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This is the real takeaway. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything. That's it. You can just say it. It does not protect you from the consequences. It's an important distinction to make, and I'm glad to see other people making that point.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint:

You can say anything in an authoritarian state, the consequences are that you'll get disappeared in the night.

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Your argument is... valid. Everyone, we've just established worldwide freedom of speech! Put this in the history books!

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The argument means that if there are severe systematic consequences to some things you say, then it cannot be considered free speech.

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I know, it was a joke. I guess I forgot the /s

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh, sorry, I'm too depressed from the world situation to see humour in anything..

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

I'm right there with you, friend. Scary times we're living in, I wish there weren't so many events taking place that'll be in future history books.

[–] kjetil@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago

100% this. The freedom to say anything also does not entail the right to be listened to. Nobody is required to platform "undesirable" speech. Getting banned from a platform is a perfectly acceptable consequence.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I guess the primary difference is between legally free speech versus socially free speech. The argument being that the government shouldn't stop you from slinging slurs, while you have absolutely no right to not be ostracized/shunned/shamed by your fellow man.

[–] segabased@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

I also think while yelling racial slurs should not be illegal, organizing and mobilizing under a racist ideology that promises to eliminate free speech should be criminalized. The tricky part is doing it in a way that won't be abused ie calling things that aren't racist and supremacist ideology those things to criminalize them.

If only there was an art vs porn emergency button encoded into the law. You just know it when you see it and can call things what they are

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world -4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree. Free speech should have limits, like every other freedom, because freedoms oppose each others. Insults, defamation, threats, calls for hatred, lies, … shouldn't be covered by free speech.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Like it or not, that's been the interpretation since the founding of the US. It is not the case in some other countries, but I'm assuming we are talking about the US here. What most people miss is it only restricts the government from punishing your speech, not private entities. Insults, defamation, and lies, are absolutely allowed, but you can be found liable civilly for any damage done by this speech either through punitive damages (lawsuit settlement) or other means, deplatforming, loss of employment, etc.

threats, calls for hatred, are a bit of a gray area. It depends on the severity of the threat, but true threats can be prosecuted.

Hate speech is generally allowed, but if it is inciteful enough to be a true threat, it too can be prosecuted.

If you'd like to read up on true threats, see below:

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Oh I know more or less how the American law works. But I think it's a bad one, that's all.

I'm French, and in France hate speech is illegal. Negation of crimes against humanity is illegal. Defamation is illegal. And you know what? France is still a free country. Freer even maybe, as our other freedoms and rights (like our rights to live peacefully) are more protected.