Right - nothing says “I’m for free speech” like insuring that those you dislike need to watch what they say.
Firing someone for saying words like
nigger, cunt, retard
is not silencing them. They can still speak/talk. They can still express negative opinions. They just can’t use hateful language. If the stated policy of the job is that you get fired for using such language, then it is a rule, like any other rule of the job.
That’s not what happened when somebody uses the word niggardly and is then forced to resign.
Besides, your logic can be turned around on you. Firing someone for being a
nigger, cunt, retard
is not silencing them. They can still speak/talk. Right?
You know what: I give up
If you want to continue to champion and defend people to be able to use hateful, derogatory, cruel and mean language, go ahead.
Talking about this topic depresses me. There is nothing good about this topic. Calling someone a nigger, cunt, or retard even defending someones “right” to do so, has no value or merit. It doesn’t to me at least.
I do not think people should go to jail for using those words. I might not even fire someone for it, in some few cases, if they used those words, if I were the boss. But, if I had heard they were fired, I’d not have any/much sympathy for them. Particularly in today’s climate when anyone with a functional IQ and a TV or internet connection knows they are firing offenses.
Use all the big words and clever tactics you want. At the end of the day you are using “free speech” to defend people insulting each other. There is no good reason to insult someone. Not using those words.
BTW- people who need to insult other people, and be derogatory, and overly cynical, they are, in my assessment, by and large unhappy, damaged people. There is no need, ever, to be mean and cruel.
I’m simply arguing in favor of good old free speech. If that’s upsetting to you, c’est la vie.
Reminding someone not to run afoul of laws, different from what they’re used to, is still just fine by me.
And believe what you like about my wanting to ‘silence those I disagree with’, (i.e. Republicans), I was just choosing the lowest hanging fruit.
I give up too, you’ve rendered further discussion pointless, I feel.
Even if that law is simply criminalizing unpopular speech?
Can you cite examples of statements made by liberals/Democrats/progressives you’d like to see punished by law?
I find this move to be absolutely precious. Argue against limiting free speech and everybody feels like giving up. But, I should expect as much from those who want to criminalize political disagreement.
Expressing hatred in clear and simple words is a crime? What about artfully worded insults? What about non-verbal media like illustrations passed on as satires?
This is pretty much the essence of free speech. If you’re not doing at least the “defend” part, you don’t believe in free speech.
Surely it’s stone obvious that “hateful”, “derogatory”, “cruel” and “mean” are all in the eye (or possibly ear) of the beholder. A legal system that says “You can say anything that isn’t mean [or one of the others]” is exactly equivalent to “We control what you are allowed to say.”
No, what’s stone obvious is that cruel, mean, derogatory, unpopular, or silencing opinions you disagree with, are not hate speech.
That’s how you’ve rendered further discussion pointless. But I think you know that. You’re being purposely obtuse, I believe.
If free speech is the end all be all, do explain why it’s illegal to scream fire in a crowded theatre, please.
What’s that you say? Public safety? The greater good? Criminal intent?
Not really.
If the guy at McDonalds burns your french fries and you call him a stupid fat loser who needs to get a “real job” that is not really an “eye of the beholder” type of thing. It is just cruel. And unnecessary.
If you want to persist in the idea that it is an “eye of the beholder” type of thing, ok, but I see no point in deliberating with you if that is your POV.
Oddly enough, no one here has said it should be - illegal - to say mean things. Yet people posing your side of the debate continue to imply that is what we want to do.
I hope not, but it looks like we might be headed that way. I’d seen similar results to those about how youth are more in favor of banning hate speech. And as it’s popularity seems to have a positive correlation with youth, if the trend continues upward, it could happen within a couple decades.
That said, I remain hopeful that this is just a bit of a trend, as these sorts of things tend to ebb and flow. At first, it seems like everyone is being verbally offensive and aggressive, then it seems like everyone is being to careful to say or do anything. I’ve seen this happen a couple times in my life, and I’m technically at the oldest edge of the millenials.
Absolutely not. Hate, like with ignorance, is best fought in the open. It’s when people keep their hate buried that it festers as more and more confirmation bias and their like-minded peers just feed into it. Yes, by being open, it makes it easier for their allies to find each other, but it affords us an opportunity to engage in a dialogue and to counter each other’s ideas. We can look at various statistics or news stories and point out the flaws in logic. Further, even for those who cannot be persuaded against hate, I think often just getting the opportunity to express it probably does a lot to help prevent them from taking it further into acts of violence.
More importantly, I think it’s a matter of principle, that we should allow hate speech. Yes, I’m not a fan of hearing Neo-Nazi drivel and to the overwhelming majority, that’s clearly over the line of hate speech, but where can we draw the line? Censoring speech is definitely a slippery slope, because if we enable the government to restrict some speech, how can we be sure how far that will go? Certainly it’d be difficult or impossible to come up with a definitive line that we can all agree on. What happens when we draw that line and then we get a boundary case where we can’t agree which side of the line it ends up on?
And what happens as standards on what hate speech is change, as they’re wont to do. It wasn’t that long ago that hating on the gay community was largely acceptable socially, but now it generally isn’t. Today, it’s slowly becoming less socially acceptable to say hateful things about the transgender community, I still hear plenty of it, but it is definitely getting less. Obviously, this is just anecdotal, but if we had passed laws, we’d be needing to regularly update them as these social standards change and, more importantly, it seems to me that, as a general rule, society is doing a better job of responding and handling it than the government could. When a celebrity says something hateful on twitter, they often get massive backlash, and if it’s bad enough, it can even directly affect their career. When businesses do similar things, often they get bad press or boycotts.
But even more importantly, I’m concerned about the abuse or fear it might cause. If the government can ban some speech, even if justifiably, how do we keep them from expanding that slowly to eventually include speech that criticizes the government or whatnot? What if people are afraid to express potential concerns, like the recent example of potential terrorism, but don’t because they think it might be seen as racist or islamophobic?
People say a LOT of stupid stuff. But the appropriate weapon to combat hate speech is with speech, not legislation, not coercion, and certainly not violence.
Since that is what this thread is about…
Well, I still don’t know what you are trying to imply. Since, I have said, multiple times, it should NOT be illegal.
Its illegal because you are putting lives at risk. Calling Canadians whiny fascists doesnt put any lives at risk…except mine.
So is it your view that only speech that puts lives at risk may permissibly be regulated? I’m not taking a position on this debate; just asking.
let me rephrase my response. from another poster from post 28:
I quite honestly assumed everyone already knew this. There is a long long long way to go - in the USA - from going from getting fired for using the word “dyke” to getting fined or jailed for it. Asserting the opposite seems a bit hysterical to me.
You are a lawyer right?
If it is not too much trouble could you explain why liable and/or slander are illegal? Shouldn’t it be “free speech” to lie about other people???
I don’t think it will be a law - more probably a court decision broadening the concept of “fighting words” to include micro-aggressions or things of that nature.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t even get fired for a micro aggression. How then do you think it is destined to become illegal?