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.

  • nednobbins@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 小时前

    Does anyone?

    The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 小时前

      You don’t need to be an “absolutist” to believe in free speech. Open exchange of ideas is valuable. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      15 小时前

      Does anyone?

      Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.

      It’s bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 小时前

        Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it. Hate groups and vile scum always do that with things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 小时前

          Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it.

          Nothing new historically. You don’t have to accept their false premises by surrendering ideas to them.

          things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous

          Free speech is power, not innocuous: authorities fear it. It belongs to the people unless they surrender it.

          Used to care about? Only if you let them stop you.

    • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 小时前

      yeah it’s a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where “speech” is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).