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

  • FaceDeer
    6•1 year ago

    There’s usually no need to invoke “freedom of speech” when the things you’re saying are popular and nobody is offended by it.

    • Tyrannosauralisk
      2•1 year ago

      But there is also no need to invoke “freedom of speech” if the things you’re saying are unpopular and many people are offended by it… unless the government is trying to stop you from expressing those things. If people are asking the bouncer to chuck somebody out of the bar, that person might as well invoke the third amendment against quartering soldiers in their house because that’s exactly as irrelevant to the situation as the first.

      • FaceDeer
        3•1 year ago

        Firstly, you’re assuming an American legal jurisdiction, which is a bad assumption in a global Fediverse.

        Secondly, being “legalistic” at all is unwarranted. “Freedom of speech” has broader meaning than just what some specific constitution or some specific set of laws says. If someone is arguing that there should be free speech on an instance then saying that “free speech only applies to government restrictions” is just as relevant as your argument about quartering soldiers or whatever. That is, it’s not relevant. Instances can have “free speech” if they want to regardless of if they’re governmental, which means we can argue in favor or against them having free speech if we so desire.

      • @Blamemeta
        2•1 year ago

        There comes a point when something becomes a common utility, and should be treated as such. Like electricity for example. Question becomes, where do you draw the line?