Freedom of speech vs Respecting other people's feelings

Post Reply New Topic

What is more important to you? Not hurting other people's feelings even if that means you have to self-censor, or the right to express your opinion even if that makes somebody feel bad?

This is also an Autism topic not just a political one, since autistics are notorious for being blunt.

I couldn't vote because both are equally important to me. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings unnecessarily, but I would never want to restrict a person's right to express their thoughts regardless of how insensitive or unpalatable they may be.

I feel its not one or the other; its situational.

Yes, I can't come down on one side or the other. Either can be tyrannical. I used to be more in the freedom-of-speech camp, but in those days I didn't know how powerful words can be.

If you say things people don't like, don't be surprised if they shun you. They have the right to shun you, just as you have the right to say what you want.

However, I don't think the government should be allowed to legally prosecute you for what you say (though if you are a government employee, you must still abide by the rules of your workplace, which may include limitations of speech and should have been outlined when you started the job).

What I've observed is that many free speech advocates (not all) seem to think that they should be able to speak free of any consequences. But that's just now how it works.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Freedom of speech isn't in conflict with other people's feelings. Freedom of speech simply means that you may say what you like, but that you are also free to take the consequences of that speech.

This isn't a spectrum.

Freedom of speech is what a government can retaliate against you for. It's freedom to 'legal speech' (excluding inciting mob violence and stochastic terrorism), most importantly your right to criticize the government without government retaliation.

The later is good social skills and obeying social norms.

That said there will be issues where some have reason to believe that most of society is dangerously wrong on an issue of substantial future impact, they have the right to express the concern / publicly make their case even if it hurts people's feelings but they'd also understand that public blow-back and damage to their reputation among people who won't see it their way is an imputed cost.

Where it gets tricky is if a person raises such a concern and finds out that they're on a hiring black-list across HR departments (for example the HR lady in Canada having her tirade about the truckers, or HR departments, it was a strange rant where it was tricky to tell if her vitriol was at the truckers or the HR profession). Some issues will come up where you then have to see whether people have the right to stab each other's right to income based on politics, and that's an issue that we're really not good at handling yet partially because it's hard to say there's a one-size-fits-all solution and a really unfortunate number of people are perfectly okay with their side doing something but not the opposing side so enforcement also would be tricky.

you are free to draw anything you like - Doing so may have intended or unintended consequences. You have to decide for your self which is more important to you in a given situation. There isn't an absolute here.