• intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.

      If you consider the US constitution, the rule government must adhere to is to refrain from interfering with free speech.

      • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Homie, I’m Canadian, it’s beyond the constitution of the US. We don’t have unlimited free speech because it fucking leads to genocide and violence. I will fight to the grave to ensure that tolerance only extends to the tolerant. This is what generations fought a nearly world ending world war over. It’s worth fighting over, you don’t have to agree with me.

      • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.

        Free speech is just that the government shouldn’t be able to punish you for what you say. Nothing else.

        What you describe is governed by the social contract. Noone should be forced to listen to what other people say, and people can freely decide to distance themselves if someone says something they don’t agree with.

        • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Also there can be social consequences from what you say, free speech does not protect you from that, despite some people thinking that it does or that it should.

      • Honytawk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t get to change a definition just because it doesn’t suit you.