The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: DBCowboy

fun fact

some of the Romans took offensive if you denounced paedophilia
some guy got killed over it

a reply to: kibric

Not much has changed then.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Free speech means free speech.

People here want to silence BLM because they consider what they say offensive.
Other people want to ban "draw Mohammad" contests because they offend Muslims.


People should be free to be offended over anything they want.

But being offended does not empower an individual with the right to silence others.

If everyone is acting on the up and up, I agree. I'm not for silencing BLM or Mohammad drawers. I'm not for silencing Hannity or NPR. I believe all of those people are acting honestly. They have different views of reality than me, but it doesn't mean they're purposefully lying to people for their own gain.

I would however be all for silencing someone like Alex Jones. He creates elaborate conspiracies and lies about people which do not serve the public good in any form. I believe that the government has a responsibility to provide non harmful products to the citizens, and that includes entertainment products. Some opinions, are fine... like Hannity, he makes no secret about the fact that he's a pundit or expressing his opinion. Alex Jones does not do that, he portrays his opinions as facts, lies to the public, and encourages them to make bad choices. Glenn Beck does this as well. So did the people with Nibru. These things deserve to be silenced.

Free speech is there to protect unpopular opinions. But it shouldn't also allow for unsafe products.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You're right about defenders of free speech being few and far between. People often play lip-service to the abstract idea of it; but when it comes down to standing up for unpopular ideas, which is the type of expression in most need of defending, its crickets. The examples are countless.

originally posted by: Aazadan


I would however be all for silencing someone like Alex Jones.

Then you can't say you're for free speech if you are placing conditions on what is being said.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

You're right about defenders of free speech being few and far between. People often play lip-service to the abstract idea of it; but when it comes down to standing up for unpopular ideas, which is the type of expression in most need of defending, its crickets. The examples are countless.

Apparently, free speech is conditional.

It's okay as long as you approve it first.

a reply to: DBCowboy

apart from now its a FUN FACT

....sigh....
chink...(loads chamber )

TV
" tonight breaking news
more horror for your dreams..."

BANG....

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Then why did you ask "who said that"? Do you mean a historical person?

Mainly in this thread but it can be expanded to ATS.

I'm sure someone somewhere has said it but it isn't the default although it is a popular cliche.

If you guys get a chance, read this Chomsky piece. Not only is it a pleasure to read him destroying critics, he makes some salient points about free speech in context with his own complications with it.

His right to say it

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Is retaliation words? Is ostracism, threat and coercion words? No

But that's not what you said. I quote "fear of retaliation, ostracism, threat". fear of. You're imposing your fears of what might happen due to words. Which is hypocritical to your various posts chastising people who impose their interpretation of what Trump might do due to his words...


Has your account seriously been hacked? This and saying Hitler didnt use chemical weapons...

Anyone has every right to be dick anytime they choose as long as they don't physically harm anyone else it is THE LAW

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: DBCowboy

We've always had speech that is considered socially unacceptable. In terms of the law, we actually have more First Amendment protections now than at any point in our history.

There are certainly "political correctness" zealots in the world who derive perverse satisifaction from nitpicking other people. There are also people who feign offense as a tool to shutdown speech they don't like.

On the flip side, there are those who will say things with no intent except to offend others and then cry foul when it works and people call them out for it, when they get canned from their jobs for it, banned from Twitter for it, have their threads closed for it, etc.

What I can't help but notice is how it seems more often than not, that when people start waxing dramatic about freedom of speech and offending people, it's in relation to somebody dealing with the blowback of saying something offensive about a whole swath of people.

Nobody makes a fuss when a guy calls his co-worker a "fat stupid ugly #$@-!$#%ing slut" and finds himself unemployed. Nobdoy laments the supposed creep of socially unacceptable speech when some idiot on Twitter says something off-color about the President's minor child and gets lambasted for it. We can all look at these things and agree that while this sort of speech should never be a crime, it's not what most people consider socially acceptable.

Yet somehow, when it comes to saying offensive things about a group, particularly one that is the object of identity politics rhetoric, some people pretend that there's a huge unnavigable gray area and it's all, "but but MUH UH-PINIONS! MUH UH-PINIONS!"

Problem is when one brings up science, studies showing large portions of a certain group favoring the cold blooded murder of innocents. And showing evidence of multiple crimes being committed by many members of said group when brought over to a new land.

I'm sorry but in society one should have a right to employment, or basic guaranteed income otherwise, this idea that you become unemployable and must live off the streets, that's BS. And a people that believe that, they don't deserve to govern themselves, they deserve to be dominated by a higher power, a higher unquestionable divine authority, like many if not most seem to dream of.

In fact there should be entire websites and channels designed specifically to offend, 24 7, with high budgets given by the government, and anonymity and even military protection from the most extreme of those offended.

There are individuals that if you draw something that offends them will come murder you in cold blood and others that will applaud them. If a high budget military protected no rules barred system was in place to offend all, there would be no viable response.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
Anyone has every right to be dick anytime they choose as long as they don't physically harm anyone else it is THE LAW

Perhaps in the U.S. but other countries have or are crafting laws for PC-ness, there are even countries where mere offensive drawings could get you jail time or probably even death penalty for blasphemy or for being offensive.

Look at the map of corruption in need of proper ruling to guide them.

originally posted by: Ridhya

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Is retaliation words? Is ostracism, threat and coercion words? No

But that's not what you said. I quote "fear of retaliation, ostracism, threat". fear of. You're imposing your fears of what might happen due to words. Which is hypocritical to your various posts chastising people who impose their interpretation of what Trump might do due to his words...


Has your account seriously been hacked? This and saying Hitler didnt use chemical weapons...

I'm imposing my fears of what might happen due to words? Word salad, friend. I'm speaking of fear of retaliation, ostracism, threat, or coercion, which has nothing to do with what a politician said, has nothing to do with feelings, and has everything to do with principle.

Your very use of the word hypocritical is hypocritical.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: seeker1963

Some teenagers are mentally ill so that is not the fault of their parents or society. And the bullies know the consequence.

And?

Even if you stop them from using said words on social media, they can use them in private chats and conversations, unless you're to do away with the right to privacy too.

And even if you barred them from that, the ostracism that can result from groups excluding another can take effect and be just as harmful.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I'm imposing my fears of what might happen due to words? Word salad, friend. I'm speaking of fear of retaliation, ostracism, threat, or coercion, which has nothing to do with what a politician said, has nothing to do with feelings, and has everything to do with principle.

That is also word salad.

What do you think "Everything to do with principle" means? When is fear of anything based only on principle?

a reply to: Xenogears

The point is that the bullies know the consequence of using their freedom of speech. Free speech has a price.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes. Just like speech itself.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Xenogears

The point is that the bullies know the consequence of using their freedom of speech. Free speech has a price.

What consequence, bullying is not just insults and physical attacks. It is also making someone a social outcast, and socially neglecting someone, has no consequence especially if it is from a group at large.

If you have the old fashioned bully and publish his private moments at large, using his image without permission, sure you might get trouble for classical bullies. But when it's the entire class that ostracizes you, there's nothing to show for ostracism. Short of them getting physical or verbal, which again if done in privacy, is a private affair.

The unpopular awkward kid is not getting a popularity medal or star and suddenly jellying with everyone. And if they've mental illness being a social outcast can be enough to push them over the edge.

a reply to: Xenogears

I think we misunderstood each other. What I mean by consequence is that the bullies know that when they bully troubled teenagers with a tendency of suicide that they might commit suicide due to bullying.
Sure the bullies have the freedom of speech but they KNOW what might happen.
It's why "inciting a riot" is illegal in some countries.