Just because you have freedom of speech..
doesn't mean you're safe from the consequences of what you say.
If you talk shit about another race, gender, age, or marginalized group sure, your government won't arrest you but it's not going to stop your family from abandoning you, your job from firing you, or your friends from leaving you.
Sometimes the best strategy in life is to keep your mouth closed. Most people already know this yet still choose to mess up their lives. I don't feel sorry for the people that mess up their lives.
Talk shit get hit. That’s reality.
Expecting outside forces to protect you and your opinion is unrealistic.
Bare-handed assault that does not result in serious bodily harm is legal here if there was verbal instigations or insults. Keeps people polite.
There’s an old Soviet joke, “Americans believe they are free because nobody can hit them, Russians believe we are free because we can hit whoever we want”
Yeah but the consequences of speech have gone too far. You see people's lives get ruined over something not even that controversial. Dr Robert Malone is a good example. He was one of the guys who invented the mRNA vaccines and said he didnt think pregnant women should get them. They canceled him and then Joe Rogan had him on his podcast so they tried to cancel Joe Rogan. He just offered his opinion and he's as qualified as anyone on the planet to talk about mRNA vaccines. I see more and more of this where people get their life ruined over an opinion when many times what they say actually turns out to be true later, or its not even that controversial.
The more you fuck around, the more you find out.
I agree, but I don't think it should be legal to fire someone over their opinion. It can prevent employees from speaking out about unfair working conditions for fear of being fired.
20 days ago
Comment Hidden (
"It can prevent employees from speaking out about unfair working conditions for fear of being fired."
That already happens though. They're called anti syndicalist practices, and it's an entirely different topic.
Being fired out of discrimination against religious beliefs or political inclinations is already illegal. However, saying stuff like "black people are inferior" or "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" implies you don't agree with human rights so it isn't protected by the law, and if a private company doesn't want their name to be associated to such people, the law protects their right to fire you.
On another note, anti syndicalism (censoring or firing people because they protest for better working conditions) is illegal in my country, but I doubt it would be in the land of the free corporations lmao.
Im not positive because I haven't finished thinking this all the way through. But I'm leaning towards a couple options. Ban all political groups, conversations, posts, what ever you want to call it from general social media sites. (Not really possible, I don't think)!
Options would be: 1. Ban/Censor almost nothing, or 2. Make separate subject categories obviously labeled with an acknowledgement block that states this is a liberal, conservative, left leaning , right leaning, communist, socialist, independent, and what ever other categories need to be put on as labels. That way if people are interested or just want to talk about stuff that they agree with they can, and if they want to look up and see another's view point they can knowing what side or leaning they are looking at. If you want to make an anti comment about a particular view and you get your post deleted or blocked you should understand why. If you want to censor what others are saying you're probably not on the right site.
Let's face it, that's is what is happening today, except the being transparent about which way they lean or support. They try to get people to believe they are open to free speech and all viewpoints but then censor anything they don't agree with or don't want their audience to see. Leading people to believe that 85 or 90% of the audience believe or agree with them and their views.
Tldr: Either all, Nothing, or Categorized with labels.
Yeah that is a good point. Social media is a place where ideas are spread on a massive scale so If too many members of one political party got banned it could seriously upset the dynamic and lead to one side having too much power and influence.
Or people could falsely claim intent in an attempt to silence or ban people they don't like.
I wouldn't want to see banning become something used as just another weapon to fight on the internet.
It wouldn't really be fair to tell them they couldn't access a great deal of the internet just because they aquired some power either.
So yeah I have to concede this one to you.
I guess all we can do as a collective is take a more vocal hand in discouraging people online from engaging in that kind of behavior.
I wish there was more we could do though.
I gotta admit you're a lot better with words than me and at presenting an argument. I've already edited this comment like 4 times.
It doesn't help it's almost 2 in the morning maybe I'll be able to make a more coherent response in the morning.
Or maybe I'm just dumb lol
I would also like to add physical consequences. You shouldn't be able to hurt people because they hurt your feelings.
Like if someone says something misogynistic to me or calls me a C U Next Tuesday or something I don't get to hit them over that.
Especially because men are expected not to fight back against women. Kind of messed up to punch someone and then go bUt MuH vAgInA.
On another note:
I'm ok with websites banning people permanently over use of slurs or blatant attempts to spread hate. I view that as social consequences.
I think if you violate a websites terms and services that clearly and explicitly forbid it they should be able to give you the boot.
I don't think that should be considered blatant censorship or a violation of free speech.