Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Freedom of speech vs Respecting other people's feelings

Page 4 of 7 [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

What is more important to you?
Freedom of speech 74%  74%  [ 17 ]
Respecting other people's feelings 26%  26%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 23

Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,899
Location: Outter Quadrant

15 Feb 2023, 2:27 am

Time and a place for everything ... some workplaces , you best be thinking of your own future, or lack thereof ,if you are not keeping a civil mouth in your head . :wink:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

15 Feb 2023, 3:10 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Nades wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think new laws should be created to reflect the internet age, specifically prosecuting people for trying to get others fired or harassed for exercising freedom of speech.

So your solution to people getting fired for the things they say is... sending people to prison for the things they say?

That's a pretty dreadful solution, isn't it?

Encouraging harassment, yeah, that's criminal, but "trying to get someone fired" is so broad. Like, most people who get fired in these sorts of situations aren't being fired because someone called their employer and asked. They're being fired because the employer became aware of the comments and decided this person was a liability who they didn't want working for them.

There's no way to stop that beyond some sort of Orwellian "this person said something offensive so now their job is safe even if your business suffers" state overreach.


They're often fired for the backlash from the online mob and not because their views are illegal. I think there should be stricter punishments for bowing to the mob or being an organiser within a mob. For example, people with large followings on social media trying to stir very sizable numbers of people up against some hapless soul who just happened to brush them up the wrong way with their *legal* opinion.

Laws already exist against harassment and wrongly firing people which also covers the "mob" but I think they need to stretch further. Broadening them to take into account discontent stirred up on the internet by certain people.

The old laws just haven't caught up with modern tech. An example of such a law might be fines and prison sentences for someone using the internet to organise a boycott against a company who employs someone who might have said something controversial but perfectly legal about immigration, trans issues, animal welfare and slavery or whatnot.

This is what I would consider the state not being allowed to punish someone for speech, but the internet mob "repealing" the state and punishing that person themselves. Not allowed really.


Reminds me of the story of James Damore who's leaked memo went viral and was fired by Google. The memo suggested that there are biological reasons why women are not equally as successful as their male counterparts in the tech industry. Is that right? His arguments were fairly reasonable. Even if he was wrong, does he deserve to get fired for that?


Even if he was wrong, he didn't deserve to get fired for it. That was an example of the internet mob repealing state freedom of speech protections.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Feb 2023, 3:17 am

Nades wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Nades wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think new laws should be created to reflect the internet age, specifically prosecuting people for trying to get others fired or harassed for exercising freedom of speech.

So your solution to people getting fired for the things they say is... sending people to prison for the things they say?

That's a pretty dreadful solution, isn't it?

Encouraging harassment, yeah, that's criminal, but "trying to get someone fired" is so broad. Like, most people who get fired in these sorts of situations aren't being fired because someone called their employer and asked. They're being fired because the employer became aware of the comments and decided this person was a liability who they didn't want working for them.

There's no way to stop that beyond some sort of Orwellian "this person said something offensive so now their job is safe even if your business suffers" state overreach.


They're often fired for the backlash from the online mob and not because their views are illegal. I think there should be stricter punishments for bowing to the mob or being an organiser within a mob. For example, people with large followings on social media trying to stir very sizable numbers of people up against some hapless soul who just happened to brush them up the wrong way with their *legal* opinion.

Laws already exist against harassment and wrongly firing people which also covers the "mob" but I think they need to stretch further. Broadening them to take into account discontent stirred up on the internet by certain people.

The old laws just haven't caught up with modern tech. An example of such a law might be fines and prison sentences for someone using the internet to organise a boycott against a company who employs someone who might have said something controversial but perfectly legal about immigration, trans issues, animal welfare and slavery or whatnot.

This is what I would consider the state not being allowed to punish someone for speech, but the internet mob "repealing" the state and punishing that person themselves. Not allowed really.


Reminds me of the story of James Damore who's leaked memo went viral and was fired by Google. The memo suggested that there are biological reasons why women are not equally as successful as their male counterparts in the tech industry. Is that right? His arguments were fairly reasonable. Even if he was wrong, does he deserve to get fired for that?


Even if he was wrong, he didn't deserve to get fired for it. That was an example of the internet mob repealing state freedom of speech protections.


Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

15 Feb 2023, 4:21 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


Yes, but we are living at a time where censorship is not coming from the state but from activists and the cancel thirsty internet mob. Nobody is talking about neo-nazis but we are talking about people who are talking common sense things or that are attempting to engage in public discourse. And let's be clear, the censorship comes from the wokes. It's a modern form of wich hunt. It's a danger to democracy, and the general culture, it interferes with the scientific research, it thwarts the ability of a society to communicate reality through public discourse.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,768
Location: the island of defective toy santas

15 Feb 2023, 4:24 am

normally i'd defer to the other parties' sensibilities or what they can handle. depends on what you mean by "speech" - if a person looks a certain way, that is self-expression or speech IMHO. in light of that, politesse can be stretched to the breaking point if it means i have to conform my appearance to what certain right-wing reactionary forces in this country feel. i felt this most acutely in some unnamed southern states when i got the stink-eye for having hair down my back. and all these decades i thought southerners were raised to be polite and not to stare.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

15 Feb 2023, 4:42 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


You missed the point though. Nazis are not covered by freedom of speech laws and they neither should.

If social consequences go too far for perfectly legal speech (not neo Nazi) then people, like ones organising boycotts against a person's employer, should be punished. It's sort of falls under the sphere of harassment anyway. Widening it to cover the internet with greater ease isn't a big step from laws we already have and frankly it's long overdue. Online bullies, particularly ones with large social media followings have it too easy.

The internet is becoming a big obstacle to freedom of speech. A double edged sword that often cuts the wrong way.



Last edited by Nades on 15 Feb 2023, 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

15 Feb 2023, 4:45 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


Yes, but we are living at a time where censorship is not coming from the state but from activists and the cancel thirsty internet mob. Nobody is talking about neo-nazis but we are talking about people who are talking common sense things or that are attempting to engage in public discourse. And let's be clear, the censorship comes from the wokes. It's a modern form of wich hunt. It's a danger to democracy, and the general culture, it interferes with the scientific research, it thwarts the ability of a society to communicate reality through public discourse.


Agreed



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

15 Feb 2023, 5:57 am

Nades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


You missed the point though. Nazis are not covered by freedom of speech laws and they neither should.

If social consequences go too far for perfectly legal speech (not neo Nazi) then people, like ones organising boycotts against a person's employer, should be punished. It's sort of falls under the sphere of harassment anyway. Widening it to cover the internet with greater ease isn't a big step from laws we already have and frankly it's long overdue. Online bullies, particularly ones with large social media followings have it too easy.

The internet is becoming a big obstacle to freedom of speech. A double edged sword that often cuts the wrong way.


It's an interresting proposition. Yes organising boycotts based on expressing an opinion could be seen as harassment and a form of violence. Never thought of it in that way. I don't believe in state intervention except when it comes to violation of others rights or property. Cancelling campaigns are a form of violence.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

15 Feb 2023, 6:36 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Nades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


You missed the point though. Nazis are not covered by freedom of speech laws and they neither should.

If social consequences go too far for perfectly legal speech (not neo Nazi) then people, like ones organising boycotts against a person's employer, should be punished. It's sort of falls under the sphere of harassment anyway. Widening it to cover the internet with greater ease isn't a big step from laws we already have and frankly it's long overdue. Online bullies, particularly ones with large social media followings have it too easy.

The internet is becoming a big obstacle to freedom of speech. A double edged sword that often cuts the wrong way.


It's an interresting proposition. Yes organising boycotts based on expressing an opinion could be seen as harassment and a form of violence. Never thought of it in that way. I don't believe in state intervention except when it comes to violation of others rights or property. Cancelling campaigns are a form of violence.


A general rule of thumb I like to use is, if I can't get away with it by hanging up posters around town, then people shouldn't get away with it online either.

I'm pretty sure I won't be allowed to go around town hanging hundreds of posters on lamp posts and supermarket foyers asking the town to stop going to a barber shop if one of its employees said something about affirmative action being wrong. I would have been tagged with a restraining order very quickly. Same applies to slander and whatnot.

No difference with online rhetoric of a similar nature.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

15 Feb 2023, 10:31 am

Nades wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Nades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Freedom of speech means you cannot get prosecuted by the goverment for free speech. It does not mean you get a free pass from social consequences of expressing hateful views. If a company does not want nazis to tarnish their image they are entirely within their right to reject having neo-nazis work for them.


You missed the point though. Nazis are not covered by freedom of speech laws and they neither should.

If social consequences go too far for perfectly legal speech (not neo Nazi) then people, like ones organising boycotts against a person's employer, should be punished. It's sort of falls under the sphere of harassment anyway. Widening it to cover the internet with greater ease isn't a big step from laws we already have and frankly it's long overdue. Online bullies, particularly ones with large social media followings have it too easy.

The internet is becoming a big obstacle to freedom of speech. A double edged sword that often cuts the wrong way.


It's an interresting proposition. Yes organising boycotts based on expressing an opinion could be seen as harassment and a form of violence. Never thought of it in that way. I don't believe in state intervention except when it comes to violation of others rights or property. Cancelling campaigns are a form of violence.


A general rule of thumb I like to use is, if I can't get away with it by hanging up posters around town, then people shouldn't get away with it online either.

I'm pretty sure I won't be allowed to go around town hanging hundreds of posters on lamp posts and supermarket foyers asking the town to stop going to a barber shop if one of its employees said something about affirmative action being wrong. I would have been tagged with a restraining order very quickly. Same applies to slander and whatnot.

No difference with online rhetoric of a similar nature.


I think that you are really on to something Nades.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,171
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Feb 2023, 10:29 pm

I don't believe the two are inherently in conflict. Freedom of speech is largely a matter of how the state and I interaction, respecting others feelings (and the consequences of not doing so) is entirely personal.

Freedom of speech doesn't trump freedom of association, both fall under the broader freedom of expression. If people dislike me because I'm outspoken and often disagreeable I have no choice but to accept that. If people discuss that and choose to shun me en masse, I also have to accept that instead of whining about being cancelled.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,111
Location: wales

16 Feb 2023, 3:23 am

funeralxempire wrote:
I don't believe the two are inherently in conflict. Freedom of speech is largely a matter of how the state and I interaction, respecting others feelings (and the consequences of not doing so) is entirely personal.

Freedom of speech doesn't trump freedom of association, both fall under the broader freedom of expression. If people dislike me because I'm outspoken and often disagreeable I have no choice but to accept that. If people discuss that and choose to shun me en masse, I also have to accept that instead of whining about being cancelled.


Depends on the extent of being cancelled though. It often goes to far in the modern age.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

16 Feb 2023, 4:16 am

funeralxempire wrote:
I don't believe the two are inherently in conflict. Freedom of speech is largely a matter of how the state and I interaction, respecting others feelings (and the consequences of not doing so) is entirely personal.

Freedom of speech doesn't trump freedom of association, both fall under the broader freedom of expression. If people dislike me because I'm outspoken and often disagreeable I have no choice but to accept that. If people discuss that and choose to shun me en masse, I also have to accept that instead of whining about being cancelled.


Being shun and getting fired are two different things.

Freedom of association, you mean the right of those business owners to decline services for gay marriages. Yes I agree with that.

But organising defamation campaigns against an individual or a business in order o damage them financially, that's harassment. And could be arguably illegal.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,899
Location: Outter Quadrant

16 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I don't believe the two are inherently in conflict. Freedom of speech is largely a matter of how the state and I interaction, respecting others feelings (and the consequences of not doing so) is entirely personal.

Freedom of speech doesn't trump freedom of association, both fall under the broader freedom of expression. If people dislike me because I'm outspoken and often disagreeable I have no choice but to accept that. If people discuss that and choose to shun me en masse, I also have to accept that instead of whining about being cancelled.


Being shun and getting fired are two different things.

Freedom of association, you mean the right of those business owners to decline services for gay marriages. Yes I agree with that.

But organising defamation campaigns against an individual or a business in order o damage them financially, that's harassment. And could be arguably illegal.


^^^^am definitely not in concurrance with the above Post ^^^^^. . . . :roll: ,
certainly hopes this is not a widely held belief on this planet , but respect right to expression.
Perhaps there is some further explanation of this idea ,am not aware of ?


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Silence23
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2022
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 255
Location: Germany

16 Feb 2023, 12:30 pm

There is a fundamental human right to bodily integrity/self-determination. Your body is not a democracy. Only you have the natural right to control it. Your body is your property.

This includes the fundamental human right to freedom of speech, as your mouth is a part of your body.

There is no fundamental human right to have all other humans stop talking, because them opening their mouths may hurt your feelings. Your feelings are your problem, not the problem of other people. Only you can master your own mind. You are responsible for your own feelings. If you have trouble controlling your feelings, then you need to work on that, not anyone else.

If someone calls me "ret*d", then I don't care about it. It doesn't hurt my feelings. It just shows me the person is stupid or something. Maybe I bruised their snowflake ego or whatever.

Some people get their feelings hurt by being called "ret*d" however. Now who's the problem? The idiot who calls them "ret*d", or the person who allows their feelings to get hurt by being called a "ret*d"? With a healthy dose of "don't give a damn" they wouldn't have their feelings hurt. So they should work on that. Like become a stoic, who is not a victim of their own emotions.

So it's clear to me: freedom of speech is more important than feelings.

That doesn't mean that it's ok to go around and deliberately hurt people's feelings though.

You should avoid doing harm, even if it's just some feelies. However, it is up to you to rationally decide what could hurt feelings and what doesn't. You shouldn't let other people force their taboos on you. Taboos must never inhibit the free dissemination of ideas. E.g. some people get their feelings hurt when you say earth is much older than 6000 years. It would be an extremely bad idea to abide such taboos. The free dissemination of ideas is more important than the feelings of some minority who may get hurt by it, because they can't control their feelings.

Freedom of speech - as a fundamental human right - becomes a problem when it's used to threaten other people's fundamental human rights, their bodily integrity, their self-ownership of their own body, etc. Like when someone says "Stop saying things I don't like, or I kidnap you and put you into a cage", then that threatens the fundamental human rights of another person. One may assume that this is already a violation of the non-aggression principle.

That being said, the actual problem of people who want to ban free speech typically isn't the noises a mouth makes, or the letters the hand writes. Their problem is the thoughts of the people, who just express their thoughts. If they had the capability, they would invade the brains of other people to stop these "evil thoughts" from happening.

That's why one must be wary of people who want to ban speech. Often they are totalitarians in disguise as "feeling protector".



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,171
Location: Right over your left shoulder

16 Feb 2023, 1:02 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
But organising defamation campaigns against an individual or a business in order o damage them financially, that's harassment. And could be arguably illegal.


Can more than one person decide to shun a business?
Does it only become a problem if they coordinate their shunning?
Are people no longer entitled to discuss if they find a business problematic, and how to deal with those concerns?

This sounds like you seek to limit some people's freedom of speech because it conflicts with a business interest.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.