There is not a single country on this planet that has no legal consequences for free speech

Yes.

it would be ridiculous to claim that should be the standard.

I mean, that’s what freedom of speech is. Otherwise its entirely meaningless.

For one, and I feel kind of pedantic for pointing this out, but that kind of policy would preclude any obviously consequential statements made in court proceedings, for example pleading “guilty”, lying under oath,

The consequence there would be essentially signing a contract for honesty, and breaking it. Similar to how you can choose to give up an organ, but you can’t force someone to give up an organ. You chose to sign away your freedom of speech in that instance. Now subpoenas I think there is a compelling argument they are a violation of freedom of speech.

Less pedantically, even in a version of the US where their so-far mythical conception of free speech was actually achieved, legal consequences are assigned to direct, material threats and attempts to cause panic.

The US does not and has never had freedom of speech. This was blatant from at least 1798. I do think the US is marginally closer than most other countries.

You’d be pretty hard pressed to claim these exceptions are unreasonable,

Its not about whether it is reasonable. It is whether it is factually true to call a regime in which speech is controlled as having freedom of speech.

the United States has pursued this exact policy and it has lead to little more than them being one of the leading contemporary examples of how an advanced democracy and economy falls into fascism and mass disenfranchisement.

That is not at all a clear cause and effect.

No one claims that you have an absolute freedom to wave your hands

Ok?

Probably

But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.

If you have legal consequences for speech, you don’t have free speech

Sometimes

Doesn’t vindicate cruelty towards him

As others have pointed out the stroke could definitely impair his ability to understand its impact on his mental state.

But also yea no, someone can be very wrong and you can think and state that without being needlessly cruel to them.

What did he do that makes you think he’s in bed with Trump?

xd

yeah, why dont we all have more tolerance for people doing active harm?

Yes. Tolerating someone’s existence and humanity doesn’t mean you have to enable them to do things you disagree with.

While we are on the topic, Who speaks for the CEOs here? They are human right? And has anyone asked the zionists about their feelings? their pains and fears?

Yes. Someone who genuinely believes they are acting morally, even if they do something evil, are not themselves evil. They are misguided. You shouldn’t enable them, but you also shouldn’t be needlessly cruel to them.

But also, Fetterman is responsible for his actions and his actions suck.

Yes, but context matters. People’s motives matter when you judge them. People’s circumstances matter.

Thats how responsibility works, and leadership comes with a lot of responsibility.

Nitpick not about you, but just how people talk about congress in general: let’s just be honest, most of them are not leaders. Or at least not leading anything beyond their team of staffers. And they were not intended to be leaders, they represent their constituents, serving them not leading them.

You perform or you get what Fettermans getting.

What? Ridiculed and mocked by people on the internet who’s primary hobbies are thinking of creative insults and coping? I’m not being facetious, I’m asking what just saying cruel things on Lemmy does thats productive.

Once he gets the eff out, he wont hold that responsibility and can be treated as just another human with human problems again.

Why can’t he be treated as a human now? Just a human who at least you believe is wrong on serious issues, and therefore causing harm based on misconceptions.

This is a reasonable position. I just don’t think saying calous and cruel things then justifying it by saying “it’s online” is a good excuse. You can think someone is wrong and causing severe harm without also hating them, vilifying them, etc. Some people are cruel so it’s fair to be cruel back to them, but I don’t think anyone can fairly look at Fetterman and think he actually intends to hurt people.

Literally like edgy 4channers

Why though?

BTW, I’m glad to hear you recovered! Stay healthy :)

Crappy take, friend. And the “so much for tolerance” is such a loaded phrase, you almost sound insincere, to boot. We don’t owe these politicians a fuckin thing, CERTAINLY not some prioritized level of compassion.

I think people should be compassionate to literally every other person.

Why do people need to be kind and sensitive toward someone’s recovery while that person insists on keeping a position of extreme responsibility, and constantly fucks it up, while “recovering”?

Probably because he feels passionate about his beliefs and feels its important that he fights for them.

So much for tolerance… in anonymous online forums?

I mean yea, I think people should be nice on the internet too

Would you feel the same way if his stroke destroyed his ability to drive a car but he insisted on continuing to do so anyway and kept putting lives at risk?

Being in political office isn’t driving a car. But regardless, even assuming the analogy were correct, yes I would say you should still be compassionate about it.