Do democracies sustain attacks from dictatorships because of this possible vulnerability ?

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Up to a point. When it crosses into harassment, slander, or libel, that freedom can be limited.

      While slander and libel are civil issues rather than criminal, that is still a government based limitation on speech/expression.

    • TheInsane42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Are you alowed to insult a person, yes absolutely, but it only proves you’re an absolute asshole. ;)

      You can even state you think an ethnic group is bad. You can’t state the same ethnic group is trash and should be whatever. That’s discrimination and not allowed in democratic or even civilised societies.

      In democratic/liberal societies you solve your differences via debate. The result may even be that the parties don’t like each other, but as long as they can decide to live in peace together it’s alright. Agree to disagree and continue to live your life is fine, trying to harm others isn’t.

      • IdiosyncraticIdiot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        In democratic/liberal societies you solve your differences via debate

        We have too little of this in our current society, I feel like. “Debates” are often just screaming matches and it’s really annoying and holds back progress on all ends I fell like.

        Also I wasn’t vouching for being an asshole, just pointing out it’s not illegal XD

        • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’d argue that debates aren’t useful without a neutral, mutually trusted media source that listeners from both sides would refer to for fact-checking. The US has debates but the soundbites that partisan media air are the main way people consume them. Few people watch the whole debate, and few want to because they’re mostly just hot air.

          Plus, one candidate can use the debate to lie out of their ass and at least one media source will follow that up by spitting out misleading info to support the lies.

          I don’t mean to both-sides this, obviously right wing media is more egregious on this front. But their captured audience tuning out fact-checks from other media is maybe the bigger problem.

          All of this happening on the sidelines fundamentally alters the purpose of a debate. For example, changing the tone and style of interaction; people aren’t trying to come to an agreement or win over new supporters, just shout over someone to get in soundbites that can be replayed by their team.