On what ideals were Lemmy created? I am asking it because I am considering supporting Lemmy any way I can but I won’t if the ideals of it’s creators are anything but upholding free speech. I want to know more about this website, can someone refer me to a book or a video which might encapsulate it?
What I mean by free speech: There is no justification to censor any views unless those views are directly demanding for physical violence against a person or community. Direct physical violence of course doesn’t include offensive speech against any religion (be it Islam, Hinduism or Christianity) or against any ideology or any “protected groups”.
I made my definition of free speech clear in the edit. It might sound idiotic to you but I would be against any social media which ranks being “inclusive” higher than being a bastion of free speech. The only inclusivity I want to see is the inclusivity of different views.
I appreciate you explaining, it doesn’t sound idiotic, I think we have different ideas about what makes a positive community, and I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying.
Would you be OK with seeing these things, which I don’t think would be “calling for direct physical harm” to anyone, on a Lemmy instance?
If you’re OK with these kinds of posts, then I can see what you mean about only having one rule; I feel like a site like that would be under constant legal threats, and I think it would be pretty toxic, but I’d be interested to hear how it goes.
If you wouldn’t be OK with them, is that because of legal stuff, or you morally disagreeing with it?
If a site follows the law, then you’ve got to ban holocaust denial (Germany), “hate speech” (UK and France), blasphemy against god or the monarch (Saudi Arabia, Thailand), leaking government secrets (US, UK), piracy (basically everywhere), harassment (a bunch of places), revenge porn (US, UK), child porn (basically everywhere)… the list goes on.
And if you have a moral problem with any of the above… what would you add to your free speech policy to make those exceptions?
Hello, No I would not be comfortable with “Posting someone’s legal name, home address, government ID number Calling for a person to be hacked, harassed online or in person, or for someone to steal their bike/car/pet, or kill their pet Child porn, revenge porn (non-consensually posting private nude pictures), edited / deepfake porn Copyrighted movies, music and TV Classified government documents”
And I am not ok with it because yes, I think they are morally reprehensible (although leaking classified govt documents of a genocide might be the opposite) and no I wasn’t talking about it at all when I talked about free speech ( The issue as you have pointed out cleverly is much more complicated than what I thought it was) What I was talking about was political speech.
And yes, I think I would be ok with holocaust denial although I think if it done for wrong reasons(knowing it happened and denying it) it would be morally reprehensible as well but in my view it doesn’t warrant censoring that speech. I love you that you put hate speech in inverted commas(It depends upon who is defining it and then too varies a lot with other definitions). And yes, Blasphemy, I am pretty sure there isn’t a day in my life where I haven’t been guilty of that (and I proudly accept that lol). And it’s not only Saudi Arabia which bans blasphemy, it’s a ton of countries and it’s a constantly expanding list with even “free countries” joining in on the “fun” now. revenge porn should be illegal. Child porn warrants stringent punishments.
Again I poorly described my question as you pointed it out and I appreciate you exposing me to the faults in my thinking. **But again, I can tolerate “hate speech”, Holocaust denial and blasphemy. And when I was thinking of free speech I was thinking of that. I think they should not be censored as long as they do not involve direct physical threats against an individual or a group. ** I would expect a decentralized forum to be able to circumvent laws such as these which needlessly restrict political speech.