this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
699 points (98.2% liked)

World News

48859 readers
2597 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it looks like doxxing someone or driving them to suicide on-line should also be considered free speech and protected

If the information is publicly available, then it's not a violation. If it's an invasion of privacy or harassment (according to legal standards), then that's a violation that isn't protected.

In general, even in the strongest realizations of free speech, expression that directly harms (rather than merely offends) isn't protected.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This link kinda contradicts the thing you said about principles in my opinion. But then again, I should educate myself more on the matter

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 19 hours ago

Rights/liberties necessarily limit each other where they conflict. A right to be unharmed, for example, may limit freedom of expression.

Beyond necessary limits, principles don't need compromises. The linked harm principle explains a well-recognized, necessary limit.

In practice, it's treated as narrow limits on incitement to imminent, lawless action; deprivation to peace & privacy; defamation; violation of intellectual property. Basically, anything that directly harms no matter if ignored.

In contrast, merely offensive expression can simply be ignored (or reciprocated with expression of any kind) without conflicting with rights, so it doesn't need to be limited.

Thus, terroristic threats or targeted, persistent threats (that put a reasonable person in fear of their safety, thus depriving their rights) aren't protected. Neither are false claims that deprive them their livelihood nor false warnings that cause panic & reckless endangerment.

Blanket statements that vilify a group of people, ill wishes, falsehoods that don't incite immediate action, etc, don't directly raise conflicts that necessitate limits.