I am not targeting any group, race or religion or whatever, just an observation why does it seem that freedom of speech appears to invoke an image of a defence to be an asshole?

I get it, free to speak your mind and all and sometimes hard truths need to be said that but is the concept so out of whack that people have less empathy for others that they don’t agree with that they antagonise another to the point of disrespecting the right to dignity?

It seems like humanity is hard wired for conflict and if it isn’t actively trying to kill itself it seems to find an outlet for violence some way somehow. Maybe it is social conditioning or just some primal urge that makes humans human.

I don’t even know where else I could ask it, and it seems kind of stupid to think about so… have at thee

  • coffeecup
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    None of the free speech crowd actually understand what the first amendment means. So they claim that boycotting an artist for saying some racist shit is denying them their freedom of speech. These turds need to take a civics class.

    • JayEchoRay@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am not an American, but reading your Constitution… with respect, I feel like your Founding Fathers would have many issues with how your Country is currently run, from what I have seen and read in the media

      • coffeecup
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean… I have many issues. But I’m just one lowly pleb

        • Dogzilla@geddit.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But we’re all lowly plebe. That’s sorta the point of the constitution. The people pushing the idea that money or your job makes you more important are full of crap. The only thing it implies is that all of us should be well-informed, but equality is the whole reason for the constitution

          • JayEchoRay@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, kinda of sad that pieces of fake paper and ego is a more valuable commodity for those are lost to it than seeing others as a human being

      • Bojimbo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People only invoke the feelings of the founders when they either don’t have a stronger argument or are trying to appeal to conservatives. It’s basically religious interpretation at this point - mostly used to manipulate people who don’t know better.

        • JayEchoRay@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay an example if I must provide one

          I feel according to brief look at American constitution in spirit if the Founding Fathers that governement should be neutral in religious matters and people have the freedom of religious choice without being discriminated against while still in the spirit of freedom and comradie not resort some sort of cannibal death cult.

          The people have the freedom of choice, however the government must not be swayed and run by one motivating group or factor in the spirit of the writing how the British wished to exert their power and influence to control the then original 13 states

          I also feel that again in spirit of what they wrote something like abortions shouldn’t be banned unless there was some catastrophic failure rate where government must intervene to prevent people from commiting suicide by doing so.

          I am going to get flak by writing it but I believe that abortion can be made a case when it is ill advised at a certain point or if the if the parents decide that a birth is too dangerous, to be able to abort at a late stage.

          By my limited understanding is that if doctors want to choose not to abort then are then in their right to do so if it is not life threatening. The government should not interfere but instead make it clear that individual practioners are under no obligation to help you if they strongly believe they don’t believe in it and within reasonable circumstance and that those that do wish to go with it should be given the option to instead of shutting them down.

          But ultimately it should be the individuals choice to choose even if it is a bad choice and the unfortunate burden of guilt should be shouldered on an individual. I feel that is the freedom that was intended

        • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s actually an off shoot of a logical fallacy called “argumentum ad antiquitatem” which is just an appeal to tradition or the past as being correct because it’s old basically. Same thing trying to map the founding fathers thoughts and feelings on modern norms and mores

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you think one of those is free speech then you’re wrong. Our government does not jail anyone for what they say.

    • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also, “Freedom of Speech” is likely the last (or only) defense they have. When they say indefensible shit, it’s often the only shield they have. Because if you can’t justify your speech or back it up with anything substantive, it’s essentially the only thing you can rely on.

      It’s basically the “God told me” argument that religious people use. It can’t be argued against, because nobody can refute it. But it also means that when you hear someone using it as their first and last line of defense, that they actually have zero defense for it aside from that.

      And yeah, it’s often misunderstood. People scream about free speech when getting cancelled for being racist, but that’s not an actual defense because they’re not being arrested for saying it. It isn’t the government imposing restrictions on your speech.

      • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Best joke I heard is: if everyone’s pissed at what you said, and your only defense is “technically, it wasn’t illegal for me to have said that!”, it was probably a pretty bad argument.

        • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. If your only defense is “the government can’t stop me from doing it” then you’re probably an asshole for doing it.

    • Xallec@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. I love it when I engage in discussion with a person and when I don’t blindly agree with everything they say, they scream that I’m violating their first amendment.