forums.rs

Forums

Is free speech important?

Quick find code: 23-24-301-66036000

of 19
Pk3hitz

Pk3hitz

Posts: 91 Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
This conversation has gone beyond retarded when you ask if I'm drugged. I will just leave you by quoting myself. I trust that the audience is smart enough to see I am not "anti free speech".

Pk3hitz said :
if someone really believes free speech is something ought to be restricted, they don't believe in free speech at all. You can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. Your school indoctrinated you. Wake up.

19-Aug-2018 02:32:44

Raleirosen

Raleirosen

Posts: 5,069 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Pk3hitz said :
This conversation has gone beyond retarded when you ask if I'm drugged lol
Icy Spring said :
LDS here refers to the Mormon church
in any case, if you've been pro-free speech all this time, why not try clarifying your embrace of anti-free speech sentiments like "it only applies to the state"? I interpreted that as 1) confusing free speech with how it's implemented in law, and/or 2) an implicit rejection of free speech as a principle that exists independent of law. you could've at least tried to reconcile all of that. Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.

19-Aug-2018 02:49:51 - Last edited on 19-Aug-2018 02:55:08 by Raleirosen

Bernadette
Dec Member 2021

Bernadette

Posts: 5,417 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
How do you reconcile Free-Speech and conditions of employment?
Should Free-Speech trump expected representation of the institution/company policies?
Should employees be allowed to publicly express opinions, which may be unpalatable to some, without being censored by their employers?

Personally, I think Free-Speech/Employment conditions are a bit of a minefield for employers, but I do not think that an employer should be allowed to admonish an employee for their opinions, unless those opinions impact on the business directly. Additonally, action should only be allowed if the terms and condition of employment had been broken.
One man's Truth is another man's Lie

19-Aug-2018 22:03:37 - Last edited on 19-Aug-2018 22:05:12 by Bernadette

Pk3hitz

Pk3hitz

Posts: 91 Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
All sorts of laws against discrimination is wrong. That goes against the fundamental right of freedom of association. If an employer wants to fire someone, they have the right to do so.

Asking the state to protect your job is an illusion of security. The state could just as well throw you in jail because they don't like what you say, or kill you. You will never have the security to keep your job, with or without the state. Your school indoctrinated you. Wake up.

19-Aug-2018 22:24:44

Oss SpyV2

Oss SpyV2

Posts: 1,500 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Shady Nick said :
Trump being elected caused harm to millions of individuals. There are many videos of people crying, screaming, yelling, rioting, etc. His words cause serious emotional harm to millions of Americans and tens of millions of Europeans.

Any tweet the President authors shows instances of hundreds of thousands of individuals who express that they are extremely upset. Needless to say everything the man does is harmful to a lot of people.

Should his speech be interrupted?

There is zero doubt he causes harm.

1. People screaming, crying, and rioting are their choice. Nobody makes you burn down a city, nobody makes you loot stores, and nobody makes you lose control over your emotions...least of all by just winning an election.

2. People being upset over someone saying something is not a cause to remove freedom of speech. Just because you're too much of a bitch (not you specifically, in general) to handle that doesn't mean we should cater to you.

3. There is no evidence that he causes undue harm.
The Army is a great experience; it sucks so much that literally nothing else will seem as bad in comparison.

20-Aug-2018 03:09:55

Raleirosen

Raleirosen

Posts: 5,069 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Oss SpyV2 said :
1. People screaming, crying, and rioting are their choice. Nobody makes you burn down a city, nobody makes you loot stores, and nobody makes you lose control over your emotions...least of all by just winning an election.

2. People being upset over someone saying something is not a cause to remove freedom of speech. Just because you're too much of a bitch (not you specifically, in general) to handle that doesn't mean we should cater to you.

3. There is no evidence that he causes undue harm. you're responding to satire Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.

20-Aug-2018 03:14:46

Wild Bill63

Wild Bill63

Posts: 2,947 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Freedom of Speech is absolutely important. But there are side effects that comes with this freedom. When certain political parties guilty of crime get caught they will try to silence the group that caught them doing their deeds.

Or if a certain political party simply doesn't like what one individual is saying or doing they will do everything to ruin that individuals life and accuse them of some hate crime or discrimination to deflect attention from themselves. We have all seen these types of stories in the news.

Then another more positive side effect is it allows for new ideas and fresh perspectives and guess what else, increased freedom.

20-Aug-2018 04:45:23 - Last edited on 20-Aug-2018 04:47:51 by Wild Bill63

Pk3hitz

Pk3hitz

Posts: 91 Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Oss SpyV2 said :
1. People screaming, crying, and rioting are their choice. Nobody makes you burn down a city, nobody makes you loot stores, and nobody makes you lose control over your emotions...least of all by just winning an election.

2. People being upset over someone saying something is not a cause to remove freedom of speech. Just because you're too much of a bitch (not you specifically, in general) to handle that doesn't mean we should cater to you.

3. There is no evidence that he causes undue harm.

You're right. Let me add that Trump did not cause any harm. It's just speech. The protesters however did. How about putting the blame where it belongs? Your school indoctrinated you. Wake up.

20-Aug-2018 09:50:34

Pk3hitz

Pk3hitz

Posts: 91 Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Raleirosen said :
in any case, if you've been pro-free speech all this time, why not try clarifying your embrace of anti-free speech sentiments like "it only applies to the state"? I interpreted that as 1) confusing free speech with how it's implemented in law, and/or 2) an implicit rejection of free speech as a principle that exists independent of law. you could've at least tried to reconcile all of that.

Let me clarify that I really do think society should do their best to protect everyone from barbarians. But the state is not the same as society. Most people define The State as "monopoly on the use of violence". Nobody has the right to initiate violence on anybody. There is only the right to self-defense.

The one who starts the fight is always guilty. But there are other ways to protect yourself than robbing your neighbour. Your school indoctrinated you. Wake up.

20-Aug-2018 10:10:50

Quick find code: 23-24-301-66036000 Back to Top