SmugSatoko said: 149597871 said: However, it does not give you the right to hate speech, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States "Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment." Congratulations on failing the reading comprehension test yet again and polluting CD with another useless wall of highly emotional ranting and wikipedia links. It might not be controlled by the government, true. You CAN, however, absolutely fire someone from their job or ban them from your platform for using hate speech or for holding certain beliefs, and whether it's a legal term or not is highly irrelevant. Your constitutional rights mean nothing to me since I'm not a central authority - "deal with it." |
149597871 said: Congratulations for failing the reading comprehension test yet again and polluting CD with another useless wall of highly emotional ranting and wikipedia links. It might not be controlled by the government, true. You CAN, however, absolutely fire someone from their job or ban them from your platform for using hate speech or for holding certain beliefs, and whether it's a legal term or not is highly irrelevant. Your constitutional rights mean nothing to me since I'm not a central authority - "deal with it." I said this multiple times in my post, so it would appear that you are the one who did not read: Freedom of speech only refers to whether the government punishes you for your speech. You have never presented evidence that I have ever lacked reading comprehension, so I'm not sure what this "yet again" statement is about. |
SmugSatokoJul 14, 2023 4:03 PM
 |
SmugSatoko said: 149597871 said: Congratulations on failing the reading comprehension test yet again and polluting CD with another useless wall of highly emotional ranting and wikipedia links. It might not be controlled by the government, true. You CAN, however, absolutely fire someone from their job or ban them from your platform for using hate speech or for holding certain beliefs, and whether it's a legal term or not is highly irrelevant. Your constitutional rights mean nothing to me since I'm not a central authority - "deal with it." I said this multiple times in my post, so it would appear that you are the one who did not read: Freedom of speech only refers to whether the government punishes you for your speech. Spoiler alert, but nobody here is ever going to read your whole post or click on all these videos and links you've shared. I'm merely addressing the part directed at me, but good to know you understand how freedom of speech is supposed to work. |
149597871 said: I'm merely addressing the part directed at me, but good to know you understand how freedom of speech is supposed to work. You're just trying to weasel your way out. You were explicitly talking about the government punishing people in the context of free speech; immediately afterward, you said freedom of speech "does not give you the right to hate speech"; then right after that, you mentioned inciting violence and breaking the law, which are more things involving government punishment. Anyone reading that could reasonably assume that the phrase in between those statements was still talking about government punishment, and that you want the government to punish people for hate speech. Don't accuse others of failing to comprehend what you said when you are the one who did not clarify a series of statements that would otherwise only be interpreted one way. If you believe no one ever has the right to hate speech, then you necessarily believe they should be legally punished for it. If you only believe they should be punished by private entities (such as being banned from a website) but not legally punished by the government, then you still believe they have a right to hate speech in the legal sense, and it's your fault for simply saying "freedom of speech does not give you the right to hate speech" when that is not what you ultimately believe. |
SmugSatokoJul 14, 2023 4:33 PM
|
starflutter said: What I consider "hate speech" is something like this example (I'm open to other interpretations... I don't claim to be no expert on race dynamics or anything) Personally I'm of a minority group. Now let's say someone approached me in real life, in public, and started yelling slurs at me or something, threatening me, telling me to gtfo. (Which has never happened to me in my life and I don't think it ever will.) That would be aggressive, hostile, and make me fear for my safety. And in that hypothetical situation, I think people would stand up to that and tell that guy he's a dick for threatening me. There are degrees of hate speech, ranging from "an opinion someone doesn't like" to real threats and harassment. The latter is generally already a crime. I have no problem with someone getting arrested if they are harassing someone to the point of making credible threats (of the illegal variety) toward them. |
|
SmugSatoko said: 149597871 said: I'm merely addressing the part directed at me, but good to know you understand how freedom of speech is supposed to work. You're just trying to weasel your way out. You were explicitly talking about the government punishing people in the context of free speech; immediately afterward, you said freedom of speech "does not give you the right to hate speech"; then right after that, you mentioned inciting violence and breaking the law, which are more things involving government punishment. Anyone reading that could reasonably assume that the phrase in between those statements was still talking about government punishment, and that you want the government to punish people for hate speech. Don't accuse others of failing to comprehend what you said when you are the one who did not clarify a series of statements that would otherwise only be interpreted one way. If you believe no one ever has the right to hate speech, then you necessarily believe they should be legally punished for it. If you only believe they should be punished by private entities (such as being banned from a website) but not legally punished by the government, then you still believe they have a right to hate speech in the legal sense, and it's your fault for simply saying "freedom of speech does not give you the right to hate speech" when that is not what you ultimately believe. Read my first and final sentences of the post and my "Twitter" example. Unless you think Twitter is the government, then perhaps it's better not to make bold assumptions and then argue with yourself about what you assume I might have said. By "it should not give you the right to hate speech," I meant that you shouldn't be allowed the use hate speech on private ground under the auspices of the government. About "breaking the law" part - I don't know about the US and I don't really care either, but in normal countries, you wouldn't be allowed to scream slurs right outside someone's window with a megaphone in the middle of the night and then be able to get away from legal ramifications because of "free speech." Free speech should be mainly about the content of your words/ideas, but the way you express those ideas can sometimes be a law violation. Common sense for most, but I hope it clears things up. |
149597871 said: Read my first and final sentences of the post and my "Twitter" example. Unless you think Twitter is the government, then perhaps it's better not to make bold assumptions and then argue with yourself about what you assume I might have said. Your mention of Twitter later in the post does not change the logical facts I covered in my last reply. It isn't about just making assumptions, but how poorly you worded it. Most people would deduce you were talking about government punishment, since that is what you were talking about in the phrases surrounding that one, plus not allowing hate speech does usually refer to government punishment. By "it should not give you the right to hate speech," I meant that you shouldn't be allowed the use hate speech on private ground under the auspices of the government. Okay, but you did not specify that in your original post. About "breaking the law" part - I don't know about the US and I don't really care either, but in normal countries, you wouldn't be allowed to scream slurs right outside someone's window with a megaphone in the middle of the night and then be able to get away from legal ramifications because of "free speech." Free speech should be mainly about the content of your words/ideas, but the way you express those ideas can sometimes be a law violation. Common sense for most, but I hope it clears things up. Yes, that can get you in trouble in the US as well. |
|
| Freedom of speech indeed needs active safeguards. Otherwise various people will end up destroying it, by banning people who they disagree with. It will become a rule of moderators and other such creatures. This Cancel Culture is a symptom that freedom of speech needs protection from cancellers. Cancel Culture is first step towards North Korea style totalitarism. Eventually some idiotic block of moronic zealots who all believe in something like flat earth will simply cancel out everyone else and everyone who is not retarded enough to believe in flat earth will die out. None of us wants it, right? |
EmperorThorJul 14, 2023 5:33 PM
| Buy my awesome BDSM male domination book here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174760 Visit my Discord https://discord.com/channels/1047490147794550844/1047490149161898039 I am not there most of the time but you can leave a message. Or my blog here https://BDSMAnime.blogspot.com/ Or here https://BDSMAnime18.blogspot.com/ Submit to me and become my subject here https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=88107 |
SmugSatoko said: 149597871 said: Read my first and final sentences of the post and my "Twitter" example. Unless you think Twitter is the government, then perhaps it's better not to make bold assumptions and then argue with yourself about what you assume I might have said. Your mention of Twitter later in the post does not change the logical facts I covered in my last reply. It isn't about just making assumptions, but how poorly you worded it. Most people would deduce you were talking about government punishment, since that is what you were talking about in the phrases surrounding that one, plus not allowing hate speech does usually refer to government punishment. And why exactly would that be the case considering that it's private entities that usually do not allow hate speech and not the government, and that I even gave a specific example later on? Plus, you seem to be the only person who have so far assumed I'm referring to government punishment, so I don't know who these "most people" are. It seems to me that arguing was more important to you than actually paying attention to my words considering how aggressive your first reply was. |
| actually i do think that some control against hate speech should be encouraged usually when it comes to hate speech that shows up in my mind, that type of speech can lead to almost a million deaths an people will say stuff like "its not my fault, i did nothing" which is imo the problem, i dont think that the bodies should start pilling up before someone finally says "i guess we should perhaps disallow hate speech", now as to when is time for that, im glad its not my job to figure that out |
 |
149597871 said: And why exactly would that be the case considering that it's private entities that usually do not allow hate speech and not the government, and that I even gave a specific example later on? Plus, you seem to be the only person who have so far assumed I'm referring to government punishment, so I don't know who these "most people" are. It seems to me that arguing was more important to you than actually paying attention to my words considering how aggressive your first reply was. Here's what I mean: When people talk about freedom of speech, they usually mean whether the government punishes you. When people talk about banning hate speech, they don't typically only mean on private platforms, but in a legal sense too. |
|
SmugSatoko said: 149597871 said: And why exactly would that be the case considering that it's private entities that usually do not allow hate speech and not the government, and that I even gave a specific example later on? Plus, you seem to be the only person who have so far assumed I'm referring to government punishment, so I don't know who these "most people" are. It seems to me that arguing was more important to you than actually paying attention to my words considering how aggressive your first reply was. Here's what I mean: When people talk about freedom of speech, they usually mean whether the government punishes you. When people talk about banning hate speech, they don't typically only mean on private platforms, but in a legal sense too. Well, yes... but I wasn't talking about banning hate speech. My main point was that freedom of speech does not give you the right to say "whatever you want wherever you want" and you cannot expect private companies and communities to respect that. 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. I'm honestly confused at this point as to how can anyone read that paragraph and come to the conclusion that I'm talking about a government ban. (If it was the case, I would've at the very least used "should not" instead of "does not" - I was just stating facts) I could've worded it better if I tried perhaps, sure, but if you think it's solely my fault that someone misinterpreted that post to such an extent, then I'll have to disagree. |
Auron_ said: It is not at will if you have to keep them employed at your company against your will. That's kinda, how words work... Eh... no no no no no... you were willing to hire them (that's your will), now your employees have rights Auron_ said: His point was very simple. Do you or do you not agree, that, if you make it harder to fire, employers will be more stringent in their hiring No, plus, employers should be stringent in the hireing anyway, unless it's a company wit abundant open places, that doesn't mean it has to be based on qualifications or experience, there's other ways to mesure skill and quality, like i already said, most jobs have trial periods for just that reason, so employers don't get stuck with an eployee who's not fit for the job, but if companies decide to forgo that then that's on them And no that does not make it harder for entry level workers, again, there's trial periods for a reason, and if a company decides not to hire entry level workers, again, that's their will, it's not like all companies are like that and there's zero opportunity Freshell said: but you can nonetheless fire someone for no reason at all That is called unjust termination SmugSatoko said: Well...some jobs hold prestige, with the employees having an online presence as part of their work. In these cases, their online activity is more or less in their job description. (I do concur with you otherwise.) Again, if bigot is using work account, customer complaint, termination, if bigot is being an ass on private MAL account, that should not cost him/her the job!, Now there is a third option a bit more in the grey area, bigot has a personal account but it's public with name and all, because social media is considered part of the workplace for the job, a customer who sees it and links the two could complain to the company, resulting in possible termination SmugSatoko said: Even if their real reason was over political beliefs, they can just cite other reasons That just makes for a dishonest and shitty boss, if that happens, finding a loophole to fire people, then i'd honestly think you're better off not staying in such a shit company, the problem that does instead need solving is that being fired for any reason other than the company going bust and having no choice bit to lay people off can make it harder to find subsequent work, there are times where this is rightfully so, but this of course only counts if the boss was being honest with the fireing reason SmugSatoko said: They are the ones who hire you, on a voluntary basis, and in turn hold the power to let you go Great, so you like companies run by tyrants, good to know |
DigiCat said: Great, so you like companies run by tyrants, good to know I said nothing of what I like; I simply told it like it is. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of companies in the US are able to fire employees for more or less any reason. |
|
SmugSatoko said: the majority of companies in the US are able to fire employees for more or less any reason That doesn't make it right, and not everywhere is the US |
DigiCat said: That doesn't make it right Who are you to say what is right for any (or every) business if you're not in a position to make executive decisions? Low-level employees do not have high-level rights over a private company. Since you seem so adamant about making it illegal for people to be fired, you don't seem to understand business very well in general, and you certainly do not support free markets or a free society. I'm busy, so here's an article. https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/right-hire-fire/ "because no one has the right to any particular job, a free society must include the right of employers to hire and fire employees at will, without any interference from the government." |
|
SmugSatoko said: Since you seem so adamant about making it illegal for people to be fired I never said it should be illegal to fire people, i said to fire people unjustly, big difference |
ThorLL said: The Flat Earthers and Kim Jong Uns of the world want cancel culture because it benefits them.Cancel Culture is first step towards North Korea style totalitarism. Eventually some idiotic block of moronic zealots who all believe in something like flat earth will simply cancel out everyone else and everyone who is not retarded enough to believe in flat earth will die out. None of us wants it, right? |
| その目だれの目？ |
| Everyone else is writing walls of text, so fuck it. Most of this thread was tl;dr, so I don't expect anyone to read this, but thought I'd indirectly respond to some common arguments. -There is absolutely no reason why the state will protect you 1A Rights by monopolizing the internet, in any capacity. Go to any state run company and drop the gamer word, see how fast they kick you out. The only thing it does do is ensure that if you don't like their service, you now have no alternative. I see this from left liberals, and conservatives alike, and it's by far the worst, and most destructive "solution" to a perceived infringement on free speech online. - Restrictions on businesses hindering the ability to let associates go, often leads to unemployment, when the risks for hiring someone outweigh the potential benefit. The cost of keeping on someone who is a potential liability is a very fast way to ensure that the company goes under, and that more people lose their jobs as a result. And furthermore, not every job should have the same level of job security. Do you really think that you should be afforded job protection from working at McDonalds, as opposed to some much higher paying position that shows rigor, and ability? Most people would say no, if they thought about it for two seconds. - Hate speech laws do not do anything to stop hateful ideologies from perpetuating. The only thing that they do is impose severe consequences onto the individual for actions that will be sorted out voluntarily. Most of the time, those who are the victim of such laws are simply accused over menial things, like jokes, or "offensive posts", but the criminal records that they incur have very real consequences, such as making them unemployable, and paying large fines. It is an act of aggression by government and should be abolished everywhere |
DreamWindowJul 14, 2023 8:29 PM
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| it's super funny how 99% of people that talk about cancel culture wanna boycott disney for marxist propaganda because a character has a different skin color. |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart! |
MalchikRepaid said: Yeah practically every word has it's different meanings to different people, that's why we reach a consensus. You don't just to get rid of people's natural rights because some people disagree. That logic is absolutely absurd, "well if you can't define it, guess we're going to put you in jail for speaking words"This is the problem of freedom of speech. There are so many definitions on what free speech is. If you can't define it well, then it's better to get rid of it. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
MalchikRepaid said: An asshole has every right to live without receiving acts of aggression by the state, for simply being unlikable. If he pushes everyone away, he will change his tune eventually. But so long as he is not committing acts of aggression on other individuals, he has every right to live his life without intervention by the state. How can you possibly justify arresting, fining, and destroying someone's life with a criminal record, over the mere words that he speaks?StarfireDragon said: And you don't need a definition to dictate a society since an a**hole will always be an a**hole.Yeah practically every word has it's different meanings to different people, that's why we reach a consensus. You don't just to get rid of people's natural rights because some people disagree. That logic is absolutely absurd, "well if you can't define it, guess we're going to put you in jail for speaking words" This reminds me of Russia Today's editorial about this. Codifying the most basic rights – like a free press – is a pretty good indication that someone wants to mess with them And society doesn't need to be "dictated". Quite the contrary, order emerges spontaneously. And when there is spontaneous order, we sort things out voluntarily, rather than the whims of a dictator. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
MalchikRepaid said: StarfireDragon said: The whole world isn't divided as punishment and non-punishment like a person in Western democracy would usually think. It's more complicated than that.An asshole has every right to live without receiving acts of aggression by the state, for simply being unlikable. If he pushes everyone away, he will change his tune eventually. But so long as he is not committing acts of aggression on other individuals, he has every right to live his life without intervention by the state. How can you possibly justify arresting, fining, and destroying someone's life with a criminal record, over the mere words that he speaks? And society doesn't need to be "dictated". Quite the contrary, order emerges spontaneously. And when there is order, we sort things out voluntarily, rather than the whims of a dictator. You really have a secularized Calvinist view of the world. You know, in a generic sense, Western democracy is often called the secular version of a Christian theology called Calvinism.You ignored my question. We live in a western democracy. You and I live in the same country, do we not? So I'll ask you again: "How can you possibly justify arresting, fining, and destroying someone's life with a criminal record, over the mere words that he speaks?" And If you can't answer that, then by all means give me something else to go off of other than "it's more complicated than that". That has nothing to do with anything. You are trying to define my beliefs, yet you won't even define yours. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
MalchikRepaid said: See the thing about democracy, is that we are supposed to have discussions on issues, and reach a consensus. A free press, and freedom of speech, are paramount to a democracy, yet you openly advocate for the removal of both. Your complaints ring empty, and simply act as a means to shout "squirrel" and point the blame elsewhere.StarfireDragon said: I don't need to answer your question. You will criticize me, so I politely avoid it. Sad that I'm living a failing country with people becoming increasingly emotional over many things. What happened to Canada's great democracy? It rotted from the core.You ignored my question. We live in a western democracy. You and I live in the same country, do we not? So I'll ask you again: "How can you possibly justify arresting, fining, and destroying someone's life with a criminal record, over the mere words that he speaks?" And If you can't answer that, then by all means give me something else to go off of other than "it's more complicated than that". Your problem is that you view the world in a dichotomy, a set of things divided into two polar opposites in conflict. That's a very dangerous way of thinking. And I have good reasons to avoid you afterwards. Of your past remarks, apologies in advance, but I would want to be very far away from you. You need help, a positive intervention, in real life. And I hope you get that help. That has nothing to do with anything. You are trying to define my beliefs, yet you won't even define yours. You know why? I know that you will twist what I said. Why bother?Dangerous way of thinking? And criminalizing others for their speech isn't dangerous? You don't want to be criticized? You seem to have no problem criticizing me. "Your problem is...", "You'll twist what I said...", " You really have a...". "You need help...". What makes you any different? |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
MalchikRepaid said: You are getting removed from the original argument. We are talking about freedom of speech, not western democracy. StarfireDragon said: But if those institutions don't work, then what's the point? Betrand Russell said that a fanatical belief in democracy makes democratic institutions impossible.See the thing about democracy, is that we are supposed to have discussions on issues, and reach a consensus. A free press, and freedom of speech, are paramount to a democracy, yet you openly advocate for the removal of both. Your complaints ring empty, and simply act as a means to shout "squirrel" and point the blame elsewhere. It's not the first time that people are losing faith in Western democracy. But also in America. My concern for you. 1. Possibility that you might like the idea of Western democracy in a theoretical sense, but just wants to avoid the real life applications of it. 2. Possibility that you might like only the idea of grassroot democracy, but wants to conflat it with Western democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've talked to similar people like you back in university, you're not that unique. Dangerous way of thinking? And criminalizing others for their speech isn't dangerous? There's the dichthomy again.You don't want to be criticized? You seem to have no problem criticizing me. "Your problem is...", "You'll twist what I said...", " You really have a...". "You need help...". What makes you any different? I don't think of it as a criticism. It's much closer to concern about you. Your post history is.... let's just say that it's not that good recently. You seem to be needing a break from the internet. I do occasionally take a break from the English part of the internet.That dichotomy that you will not provide any logical explanation for? It's not like you put any real effort into proving me wrong. In fact you deflected when I asked you to clarify. Spare me the faux concern, please. You keep telling me that you want nothing to do with me, then you pretend to act concerned for me. It's insulting. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
starflutter said: And I know my freedom of speech rights are protected by government one of the few things they’re useful for currently but I don’t expect that right to be protected by an individual online community. If they don’t like what I have to say and remove me, that’s fine. I’m still going to take the risk of saying it because that’s what I value. The issue is that while the government might not limit your freedom of speech, back when those constitutional rights were written, big tech didn't exist. Considering how much of the online communication goes through Google and similar megacorporations, there really should be laws limiting what they can not allow on their platform. 149597871 said: 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. And giving the power of censorship to private corporations that you can't even hold accountable by voting them out of office on the next election is horribly irresponsible. |
MalchikRepaid said: Oh so it's about hurt feelings...? Except that I really don't think that any nations have a problem with that when it's directed towards the west, so clearly that's not inherent to the west, now is it?StarfireDragon said: I don't know about that.You are getting removed from the original argument. We are talking about freedom of speech, not western democracy. That dichotomy that you will not provide any logical explanation for? It's not like you put any real effort into proving me wrong. In fact you deflected when I asked you to clarify. Arguments for freedom of speech for the West has been a common way to make fun of, better to say mock, people outside of the West, AKA the Global South. This also entails to the concerns of Western democracy. Using the idea of freedom of speech is super no bueno. It's better to be extra cautiious about this. Hell, if it's just about hurt feelings, then that's not a very convincing argument. I don't think people should be incarcerated for hurting people's feelings. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
MalchikRepaid said: Ok, yes, and we can have a discussion on how to change people's attitudes on that. We don't need to dismantle their freedom of speech in order to do that. Propaganda is always going to be around. What is important is, on an individual level, to grow a sense of critical thinking, to overcome it. Freedom of speech is helpful in order to determine this, since we can openly discuss the arguments with one another. But a dictatorship will always be ripe with propaganda. the only difference is, that you only ever get one side, and truth becomes muddled. StarfireDragon said: Most importantly, it's also about overcoming the white savior complex among people in the West. It's inconvenient to use aspects of Western democracy to make a feel-good propaganda by Westerns themselves.Oh so it's about hurt feelings...? Except that I really don't think that any nations have a problem with that when it's directed towards the west, so clearly that's not inherent to the west, now is it? Hell, if it's just about hurt feelings, then that's not a very convincing argument. I don't think people should be incarcerated for hurting people's feelings. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
MalchikRepaid said: Why should you care? Well, we are speaking freely right now! And if we didn't have freedom of speech, there is no way we could get away with such "dangerous", anti-establishment views. Criticizing the current establishment is a very liberal thing. But thankfully, we don't live in a dictatorship, and we are allowed to speak freely on such things. And I think that is a wonderful thing. StarfireDragon said: OK, then. You do you. Although there are more important things than that and I do think Canada is experiencing a huge shrinkage of the freedom of speech. What do I care?Ok, yes, and we can have a discussion on how to change people's attitudes on that. We don't need to dismantle their freedom of speech in order to do that. Propaganda is always going to be around. What is important is, on an individual level, to grow a sense of critical thinking, to overcome it. Freedom of speech is helpful in order to determine this, since we can openly discuss the arguments with one another. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
SmugSatoko said: 149597871 said: Congratulations for failing the reading comprehension test yet again and polluting CD with another useless wall of highly emotional ranting and wikipedia links. It might not be controlled by the government, true. You CAN, however, absolutely fire someone from their job or ban them from your platform for using hate speech or for holding certain beliefs, and whether it's a legal term or not is highly irrelevant. Your constitutional rights mean nothing to me since I'm not a central authority - "deal with it." I said this multiple times in my post, so it would appear that you are the one who did not read: Freedom of speech only refers to whether the government punishes you for your speech. You have never presented evidence that I have ever lacked reading comprehension, so I'm not sure what this "yet again" statement is about. Hate speech laws in the US just fall under other rulings against obscenity, inciting, and fighting words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
MalchikRepaid said: The difference, as I said right from the very beginning, is that we cannot be detained for mere speech. That is what makes freedom of speech free, it is government non-intervention in private affairs. And that is what the absence of freedom of speech brings; the right for the government to use acts of aggression upon individuals for their speech. StarfireDragon said: And we speak freely right now whether the freedom of speech exists or not.Well, we are speaking freely right now! Do you seriously need an amendment in the semi-written Canadian constitution, just so that you can poop in your toilet? |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
starflutter said: AncientCurse said: If you can say a thing in the face of a police officer, national television and your parents without being put in jail, then by all means speak. I have been threatened with doxxing, rape, and death, and called a nazi terf many times. It's hard to tell when internet threats are empty threats or not. You never know how far some people will go to hurt those with opinions they don't like. I am tired of living in fear for having opinions considered unfavorable or controversial. Indeed, my only comfort is knowing that legally, I can't be put in jail for anything I have ever said. But there are certainly some people who would want me in jail merely for what I believe. Unfortunately I think we are 10 years too young to go this far for our opinions. Not that our opinions are wrong, but because we and other people don't take ourselves seriously. Right now we are just educated enough to enter society. With experience in it we will also take on leading roles, be sure of it. P.S. I'm really sorry for hearing that. |
More topics from this board
» Is There a Better Combination Than Soft + Cute?KittenCuddler - Sep 25 |
13 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» What's the thing that separate the most friendgroups in your opinion?Zakatsuki_ - Sep 25 |
9 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» What causes you to eat so much ?VabbingSips - Sep 25 |
13 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Why does media hype up 16th birthdaysPandemoniumm - Oct 12 |
17 |
by ymiriii
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What do you think of men who act like it's manly to disregard their health or well-being? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Today |
51 |
by XMGA030
»»
2 hours ago |