The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: DBCowboy

When the choice is no longer up to the individual, that that is "civil" speech.

So who is forcing that on you?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Probably both.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

When the choice is no longer up to the individual, that that is "civil" speech.

So who is forcing that on you?

Just look at college campuses (for example) and the way our language has changed just within the past decade.

You can't tell me that there has been a shift from free to civil speech.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, you agree with that statement?

If emotions are physical then what part is superstition supposed to be playing?

I do not agree with that statement at all. And your assertion "Nobody is actually arguing that someone's language physically affects anybody else" is false.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

So who is forcing that on you?

It's called the chilling effect.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you think the employers have no right to fire employees if they are not civil?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you. I've learned something new. But that still is about libel which is justified.

One word says it all

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Thank you. I've learned something new. But that still is about libel which is justified.

In a legal context, sure, but it's been discussed since long before libel laws even existed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, my statement was an absolute and those never end well.

Seems like you are trying to have it both ways. While the absolute part of the statement about being "susceptible to hurtful language" is also untrue, I'm not sure where superstition would play a part in believing that people are affected emotionally by language, since you said that emotions are physical. It isn't spiritual or magical.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you think the employers have no right to fire employees if they are not civil?

They have just as much a right as ATS has to ban us if we speak out of turn.

Employment, private websites are not venues for free speech.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Then apply that to colleges. So free speech at colleges is a bad example.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I am not aware of anyone being afraid of a lawsuit if they say bad things. Even if they are brought to the court the cases would get tossed out fast.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Then apply that to colleges. So free speech at colleges is a bad example.

I'd disagree.

But as we see, you are promoting civil speech.

Not free speech.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, my statement was an absolute and those never end well.

Seems like you are trying to have it both ways. While the absolute part of the statement about being "susceptible to hurtful language" is also untrue, I'm not sure where superstition would play a part in believing that people are affected emotionally by language, since you said that they are physical. It isn't spiritually or magically.

Yes, emotionally, physically, magically, spiritually, or any other word you wish to throw in there. Articulated sounds and scratches on paper are unable to affect anything more than the medium they are printed on.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Quote me where I said I do not promote free speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then what did you mean by:

Emotions are quite physical.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I am not aware of anyone being afraid of a lawsuit if they say bad things. Even if they are brought to the court the cases would get tossed out fast.

I'm not sure what your point is about.

a reply to: daskakik

Then what did you mean by:

That emotions are physical in nature.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not sure what your point is about.

You mentioned "chilling effect". From what I read on wiki apparently it's about the fear of lawsuits if you say the wrong things.