| "freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences" - this is just a fancy way of saying "if you step out of line, me and my friends will ruin your fucking life." |
 |
| Nationalize the Internet then the 1st Amendment would apply to it. I mean, 99% of the Internet in the USA is paid for by the Government it's the exact opposite of Australia where everything is 100% private. And there's 1000000000000000000000000000000's of Executive Acts in the USA where the Fed can seize control of literally anything that is in the USA. Unless you support Nationalizing the Internet you basically want the Government to force Private Companies that wanna attract customers and shareholders to accept your awful views. |
vasipi4946Jul 13, 2023 6:26 AM
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart!  |
deg said: If this is the USA we are talking about Hate Speech and Actual Literal Lying is Free Speech. Like it's 100% legal for people to say they are veterans when they aren't.im for 90% power of free speech but not 100% or absolute free speech due to hate speech, disinformation like fake news that destroys democracy, impersonation, defamation, etc so ye go ahead nationalize social media so they can be subject to protection of free speech too at the same time subject to regulation protecting the bad effects of too much free speech |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart! |
| If you believe that most people come from a good place then why would you either insult their intelligence or confuse them by wanting them to put up with reprehensible people having a platform. What is the value in having a discourse with or letting idiots express themselves? I don't want to live in a society where someone has the right to tell me they want to, for example, abuse my child, and I don't imagine many people would either. Judgement or discernment is hardly something people can be taught and even less something they can be incited to exercise - they already have enough incentives. Isolating Nazis or whatever has hardly eradicated their existence and well before the internet, especially in countries where freedom of speech is something valued, groups inciting race violence have a deep history. The only way you can have a meaningful application of freedom of speech is by having it enforced by the government, and needing someone to enforce a liberty is a paradox. If you want self regulating societies then the last thing you'd want is a law making freedom of speech a "right" - once people have the enforcement of cultural values into their own hands then they'll be glad they don't have a disembodied authority dictating things for them in such a direct manner. |
 |
| It seems fair to me to treat nazis with the same dignity and respect that they treat jews and minorities. epidemia78 said: "freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences" - this is just a fancy way of saying "if you step out of line, me and my friends will ruin your fucking life." Freedom of speech not freedom from consequences means that the government will not punish you, not private entities. Companies are free to associate with whoever they want, now the US made it legal for biz owners to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Laws are not the same as natural laws. Theft is illegal but you still make sure to close doors or avoid bad areas. |
| People should remember that freedom of speech mainly refers to the right to criticize your government without being silenced or punished by it, in which case, I fully agree that preserving it is important. However, it does not give you the right to hate speech, incite violence, break the law, or say "whatever you want wherever you want" as that would in itself violate the rights of other individuals or private entities. If someone posts something dumb on Twitter and gets banned by the platform or canceled by the community because of it, then it is not a freedom of speech violation. |
| ^ Facts are facts America its freedom of speech (+ obvi moral values) |
| Sorry gais but didnt you hear? Everyone having an equal playing field with freedom of speech is a threat to our democracy. Sorry the IRS is going to audit you now. |
  ♡ Harder Daddy ♡ |
| I believe that regardless of what happens, it doesnt stop me from donoing all my life saving to a t3 OF creator. |
| People often forget that freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say what they like, but also the freedom to listen to what they don't like. I understand where the logic comes from that freedom of speech allegedly protects against criticism of opinions, but this simply distorts the very spirit of freedom of speech. |
 |
149597871 said: The possibility of getting consequences due to controversial takes does not violate freedom of speech. But public persecution of "wrong opinions" is already their censorship.People should remember that freedom of speech mainly refers to the right to criticize your government without being silenced or punished by it, in which case, I fully agree that preserving it is important. However, it does not give you the right to hate speech, incite violence, break the law, or say "whatever you want wherever you want" as that would in itself violate the rights of other individuals or private entities. If someone posts something dumb on Twitter and gets banned by the platform or canceled by the community because of it, then it is not a freedom of speech violation. epidemia78 said: Here we already come to the conclusion that people confuse the possibility of getting criticism for their opinion and the possibility of being harassed in an attempt to shut you up. Freedom of speech apparently does not extend to objective and unequivocal incitement of hatred or incitement to illegal things. Although, of course, there are maximum radicals who believe that freedom of speech should allow any insult to morality. True, such people adhere to this only as long as morality is controlled by people from the opposite camp. A great example is provocateurs and trolls like James Gunn, who abruptly turned into moralists when society began to support their morality."freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences" - this is just a fancy way of saying "if you step out of line, me and my friends will ruin your fucking life." |
|
| Lets not kid ourselves, "challenging the authorities" is often used as an excuse to be obnoxious and say mean shit. That said, as long as it's not harassment I think it should be generally allowed to say mean shit. |
starflutter said: epidemia78 said: "freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences" - this is just a fancy way of saying "if you step out of line, me and my friends will ruin your fucking life." Not what I meant. I mean that I understand people may not want to talk to me anymore if I say what I believe, and that’s fine. Those are the consequences I have already faced and know I will continue to face. I’m still going to do it because stating facts is not hate speech. I know what you meant im just saying, doxxing exists. being outspoken on the internet can cost you a lot more than friends. It can can get you fired or worse. |
|
| Agreed that freedom of speech is important. In fact, a lot of freedoms are important. I'll list a few: - Freedom of speech in the form of people being able to say hateful, bigoted things - Freedom of speech in the form of telling others that someone said hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of owners of online platforms to remove hateful, bigoted opinions from their website if they don't want to host it - The freedom of employers to not employ people they don't want to employ, like people who say hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of landlords to not house people they don't want to house, like people who say hateful, bigoted things As I hope we can all agree, freedom and freedom of speech are very important. Of course, if you want more than freedom but also want people to not do things that harm your livelihood based on a sort of respect for discourse, you are not actually asking for freedom of speech. You're asking for tolerance. |
starflutter said: Too many people don’t ever venture to have their own independent thoughts about something and get every opinion from a checklist. They don’t want to evaluate the evidence of things for themselves. Yes there has definitely been an increase of such people over the last decade or 2, but thankfully it's not as widespread as it looks, it's just that with internet culture these people have become really loud and obnoxious, they are also the very people trying to destroy free speech, i guess that's what ignorance does to people TibetanJazz666 said: What is the value in having a discourse with or letting idiots express themselves? Knowing they're idiots? Freshell said: - The freedom of employers to not employ people they don't want to employ, like people who say hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of landlords to not house people they don't want to house, like people who say hateful, bigoted things Unfortunately dispite the types of people in your examples being total a-holes, these last 2 points count as discrimination, yes, doing to others what you are accusing them of doing does not make you in the right Now on the jobs part, if you're a bigot on the job and get customer complaints, that is a valid reason for termination, but being a dick online or in your own home should never cost you your job |
DigiCatJul 13, 2023 3:58 PM
| Free speech is needed for keeping standards high in all fields. If you're not allowed to tell others they're wrong, they'll only continue making the same mistakes. |
| その目だれの目？ |
| There is no freedom of speech.... And nobody has any rights... this joke from Family guy is not really a joke anymore.. Everyone is offended by everything |
 |
starflutter said: You need laws for Free Speech to happen. Like in California it's illegal to fire someone for their political opinion cause they tried to ban Communists from getting jobs in the Red Scare.vasipi4946 said: Nationalize the Internet then the 1st Amendment would apply to it. I mean, 99% of the Internet in the USA is paid for by the Government it's the exact opposite of Australia where everything is 100% private. And there's 1000000000000000000000000000000's of Executive Acts in the USA where the Fed can seize control of literally anything that is in the USA. Unless you support Nationalizing the Internet you basically want the Government to force Private Companies that wanna attract customers and shareholders to accept your awful views. Not what I’m advocating for. I’m not asking for internet laws to change but for the culture to change. For people to listen to each other in good faith and consider different opinions than their own |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart! |
vasipi4946 said: California also passed a law allowing doctors to be fired for their opinions, but it was quickly struck down in court.Like in California it's illegal to fire someone for their political opinion |
| その目だれの目？ |
DigiCat said: You can view the people in those last two examples as immoral. The more interesting question on a thread about freedom of speech is whether they have the right to do the thing you view as immoral.starflutter said: Too many people don’t ever venture to have their own independent thoughts about something and get every opinion from a checklist. They don’t want to evaluate the evidence of things for themselves. Yes there has definitely been an increase of such people over the last decade or 2, but thankfully it's not as widespread as it looks, it's just that with internet culture these people have become really loud and obnoxious, they are also the very people trying to destroy free speech, i guess that's what ignorance does to people TibetanJazz666 said: What is the value in having a discourse with or letting idiots express themselves? Knowing they're idiots? Freshell said: - The freedom of employers to not employ people they don't want to employ, like people who say hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of landlords to not house people they don't want to house, like people who say hateful, bigoted things Unfortunately dispite the types of people in your examples being total a-holes, these last 2 points count as discrimination, yes, doing to others what you are accusing them of doing does not make you in the right Now on the jobs part, if you're a bigot on the job and get customer complaints, that is a valid reason for termination, but being a dick online or in your own home should never cost you your job starflutter said: I read your post. My post was not necessarily disagreeing with what you were saying. I was agreeing with the notion that free speech is important while clarifying what that means to me.Freshell said: Agreed that freedom of speech is important. In fact, a lot of freedoms are important. I'll list a few: - Freedom of speech in the form of people being able to say hateful, bigoted things - Freedom of speech in the form of telling others that someone said hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of owners of online platforms to remove hateful, bigoted opinions from their website if they don't want to host it - The freedom of employers to not employ people they don't want to employ, like people who say hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of landlords to not house people they don't want to house, like people who say hateful, bigoted things As I hope we can all agree, freedom and freedom of speech are very important. Of course, if you want more than freedom but also want people to not do things that harm your livelihood based on a sort of respect for discourse, you are not actually asking for freedom of speech. You're asking for tolerance. I think there is room for more nuance here. What one considers "hateful and bigoted" varies. Personally, I have been called such things when I wasn't being malicious and was simply expressing something that's uncomfortable for many people to hear. Of course I agree that people should be allowed to say they don't like what someone else said. I can't contest such a simple statement. I'm not asking for tolerance but simply trying to spark an open dialogue and asking internet users to consider something outside of their pre-established, often sheltered world views. Did you even read the entire post? I said it's fine if an online platform wants to remove me because my opinions don't align with their personal values. I don't believe in forcing private companies to keep hateful users on there. In my humble opinion, it is inhumane to deprive a person of housing because you don't like what they said online. Like I said in previous posts, it depends on the severity of the opinions they posted. If it's truly threatening others' lives then yes, those people should face legal consequences. If what you want is open dialogue where everyone respects each other's opinion and they don't try to use social sanctions to ruin each other's lives, then yeah, you're asking for tolerance. Tolerance isn't generally a bad thing. It's a good thing. The good thing you're asking for just isn't freedom of speech. I view whether someone lets you use the lot they own as a matter of freedom. You can disagree with it and think it's immoral, but should you outlaw it for that reason? When it comes to free speech and the legal system, I am in complete agreement with the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution and the current interpretation of the freedom of speech protections in it. So yes, I agree that imminent threats of violence don't count as protected speech. |
Freshell said: You can view the people in those last two examples as immoral. The more interesting question on a thread about freedom of speech is whether they have the right to do the thing you view as immoral If it's stops at words then yes they do, being an asshole is not a crime |
DigiCat said: I'm asking if it should be illegal for an employer to fire an employee simply because they don't want to employ them anymore, and one of those reasons can be they think they have morally reprehensible views.Freshell said: You can view the people in those last two examples as immoral. The more interesting question on a thread about freedom of speech is whether they have the right to do the thing you view as immoral If it's stops at words then yes they do, being an asshole is not a crime |
Freshell said: I'm asking if it should be illegal for an employer to fire an employee simply because they don't want to employ them, and one of those reasons can be they think they have morally reprehensible views Of course it should be illegal! And don't sound so vague about "morally reprehensible views", there's a difference between saying cringe bigoted stuff and actually supporting and encouraging violece or worse supporting p*dos |
DigiCat said: I see. I completely disagree then. I'm for at will employment. Employers should be able to fire you for basically any reason. Having a system of protecting workers from the possibility of being fired makes employers more picky about who they will hire because now there's a bigger commitment.Freshell said: I'm asking if it should be illegal for an employer to fire an employee simply because they don't want to employ them, and one of those reasons can be they think they have morally reprehensible views Of course it should be illegal! And don't sound so vague about "morally reprehensible views", there's a difference between saying cringe bigoted stuff and actually supporting and encouraging violece or worse supporting p*dos So how far would you take the bigoted views thing? Should a landlord be forced to keep a tenant who's a Neo-nazi? Where do we draw the line on the encouraging violence thing? |
Freshell said: That makes sense, but it also introduces the possibility of an employer who refuses to hire entire groups such as immigrants or women.I see. I completely disagree then. I'm for at will employment. Employers should be able to fire you for basically any reason. Having a system of protecting workers from the possibility of being fired makes employers more picky about who they will hire because now there's a bigger commitment. |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: I'd view these cases as distinct. In one case, we are talking about the immutable characteristics respectively of being a biological woman and being someone born from a different country. Being a neo-Nazi is not an immutable characteristic.Freshell said: That makes sense, but it also introduces the possibility of an employer who refuses to hire entire groups such as immigrants or women.I see. I completely disagree then. I'm for at will employment. Employers should be able to fire you for basically any reason. Having a system of protecting workers from the possibility of being fired makes employers more picky about who they will hire because now there's a bigger commitment. That said, it can be the case that you create anti-discrimination laws that are so burdensome that employers would avoid hiring minority groups. The same reasoning applies. Make it so much more burdensome to fire a minority group, and they'll start getting more picky about the members of that group they want to hire. So this should be used minimally and sparingly in my view. Mostly to avoid the situation where you have places of work that say things like "Blacks need not apply." |
FreshellJul 13, 2023 6:29 PM
Freshell said: Employers should be able to fire you for basically any reason Great way to encourage corruption Freshell said: Having a system of protecting workers from the possibility of being fired makes employers more picky about who they will hire because now there's a bigger commitment And they're free to be picky about who they hire! I never said they're force to hire someone they think they'd hate working with, personally i think skill shoud be the n. 1 priority over anything else, but i can understand there's a human element to it Freshell said: Should a landlord be forced to keep a tenant who's a Neo-nazi? If he's not herrassing his neighbours or landlord there's no basis to evict him, he's literally paying you to live there |
Freshell said: I didn't say anything about Nazis. I was discussing whether employers should or shouldn't be able to fire people for any reason. I agree it's probably enough to ban disclaimers such as "Blacks need not apply," but I believe diversity of thought deserves the same accommodations as diversity of race. Job listings should not say "communists need not apply" or "libertarians need not apply."I'd view these cases as distinct. In one case, we are talking about the immutable characteristics respectively of being a biological woman and being someone born from a different country. Being a neo-Nazi is not an immutable characteristic. |
| その目だれの目？ |
DigiCat said: Feel free to explain how. We already have at will employment in the US.Great way to encourage corruption DigiCat said: People with less qualifications and relevant job experience shouldn't have extra burdens put up toward them getting a job. But that's what will happen by requiring that all firings are justified. It ups the stakes and makes businesses less willing to take a chance hiring someone.And they're free to be picky about who they hire! I never said they're force to hire someone they think they'd hate working with, personally i think skill shoud be the n. 1 priority over anything else, but i can understand there's a human element to it Also, why is there a magic moment after which suddenly what the employer wants doesn't matter? You're fine with them being as picky as they want before they hire someone but that is completely stripped away after hiring. DigiCat said: In this situation, the exchange happened largely because the landlord wanted the tenant's money more than they wanted the unit to be unoccupied by anyone. Upon learning that their tenant was a neo-Nazi, their preferences have flipped. They no longer want the tenant's money and their occupancy more than they want the unit to go unoccupied. Forcing the agreement after the fact would no longer be respecting the consent of the owner. If he's not herrassing his neighbours or landlord there's no basis to evict him, he's literally paying you to live there Really, the situation gets more absurd if the landlord happened to be Jewish yet we're insisting that he must house people who praise those who genocided his people just because the tenant is able to put on a nice smile when he goes outside. |
Lucifrost said: I disagree. I really don't care if a job opening said I must agree with the employer on some political issue in order to work with them. Beliefs aren't immutable characteristics like race is and should be treated differently.Freshell said: I didn't say anything about Nazis. I was discussing whether employers should or shouldn't be able to fire people for any reason. I agree it's probably enough to ban disclaimers such as "Blacks need not apply," but I believe diversity of thought deserves the same accommodations as diversity of race. Job listings should not say "communists need not apply" or "libertarians need not apply."I'd view these cases as distinct. In one case, we are talking about the immutable characteristics respectively of being a biological woman and being someone born from a different country. Being a neo-Nazi is not an immutable characteristic. |
Freshell said: People with less qualifications and relevant job experience shouldn't have extra burdens put up toward them getting a job Excuse me what? Btw you're confusing skill with qualifications and time on the job, but anyway, the point you're making is that you want people to be hired "just to give them a chance" even though there might be someone else far better at the job? Freshell said: You're fine with them being as picky as they want before they hire someone but that is completely stripped away after hiring. Because at that point you've commited to hiring them, you have given them a contract, which if they breach you fire them, but that works both ways, cuz if you breach it, they can sue you, what you're saying is they should give contracts that they can fire you whenever they want, that is a one way contract to the soul advantage of the employer and is unfair to the employee Freshell said: In this situation, the exchange happened largely because the landlord wanted the tenant's money more than they wanted the unit to be unoccupied by anyone. Upon learning that their tenant was a neo-Nazi, their preferences have flipped. They no longer want the tenant's money and their occupancy more than they want the unit to go unoccupied. Forcing the agreement after the fact would no longer be respecting the consent of the owner Not how property renting works, again, same as with employment, if you don't like the tenant, don't rent to him in the first place, once you have a contract, i am sorry, unless your tennent breaches contract or breaks the law you are stuck with them |
More topics from this board
» All of you who learned English as a 2nd language, is your accent clear or thick?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
41 |
by FZREMAKE
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Social Philosphy: The Individual and the GroupJustaCrat - Oct 9 |
11 |
by JustaCrat
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» china crossdresser are so cute omg!!!Ymir_The_Viking - 10 hours ago |
39 |
by philtecturophy
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» Do the well-known stereotypes associated with people from your country actually apply to you? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Oct 8 |
84 |
by Auron
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What's your favorite quote?Zakatsuki_ - Sep 18 |
27 |
by Theodoricos
»»
2 hours ago |