Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences

[Waffles731]

Some people have this crazy idea that just because we have freedom of speech that it means that you can say what ever you want and not face criticism for it.

Like this story for example.

Some might say that what she posted on social media is protected under the first amendment and therefore prohibits her from being fired.

THOSE PEOPLE ARE WRONG; You see; You see just because the law protects a persons right to be, Racist, Homophobic, Sexist, etc. Does not mean that you can say what ever you want and expect.

You see your employer or other person dealing with this bullshit also has a right to decide that, its not good for business to have its employees posting racist tirades on facebook. A school has an obligation to make all students feel safe, if a teacher is casually racist in their social media, the school has every right to fire them.

You see thats not unconstitutional thats whats called consequences. If you are an adult and think the constitution protects you from consequences from your actions. Then you are a pretty pathetic individual.

Furthermore, When someone says that they should be able to say whatever they want without being labeled as, 'Homophobic' or 'Sexist' or anything else. They are being immature. While the First Amendment does protect your ability to say stupid shit. It only does that so the government cannot prosecute you for it. Now if the large majority of people are calling you 'Homophobic' or 'Sexist' or anything else derisively. They are also exercising their right to free speech by calling you on your bullshit.

In conclusion, You can say what you want but don't expect to not face consequences for it if what you say is racist or homophobic.

[Bluemax]

Quite right.

That being said, I believe the words racist, sexist, and homophobic are tossed around much too frequently.

On the same vein, you cannot fire someone because they have an opinion which you don't like and not run the risk of a wrongful termination suit.

[jacquesvol]

Good take

[Darkfairie17]

I agree with you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is obligated to agree with you. I think people still need to understand that we have to be wary about what we say.

[Anna96]

That's so true!! Far too many people think that freedom of speech means to be able to say everything without people pointing out the flaws in their opinion.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Just because what someone may be saying is unpopular, however, does not mean it isn't absolutely true.

I can understand that boycotts, blocks, etc. will happen from those who just don't want to hear the message. However, lines still need to be drawn.

Some may view Trump as Jabba the Hutt. So tune him out and change the channel. But when you write Twitter posts saying "shoot to kill," and start blocking traffic and physically assaulting his supporters, that's beyond fair and logical consequences. That's base intimidation, which should have its own legal consequences.

A legal protestor writes a sign and stands on a street corner. If a man accepts money from the other side to be disruptive or resort to gun violence or blocking traffic, that's not a protestor. That's a hired thug.

I'm no Trump supporter, but those who attacked the rally, saying their "being offended" by the man's messages somehow justified assaulting his supporters, are thinking with Sharia rape logic. And that has no place in a free republic. That they accepted money to do it, makes the Bernie supporters in those mobs no different than the German SA.

[Waffles731]

That they accepted money to do it, makes the Bernie supporters in those mobs no different than the German SA.
Trump supporters started the fights

[Waffles731]

and as for drawing lines, we have drawn lines and trump violated them

Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”

Trump has tried to incite people to riot multiple times

[ObscuredBeyond]

Bernie supporters instigated the riots, both in terms of who started swinging fists, and in terms of showing up to disrupt the rally in the first place. Yes, Trump's supporters didn't help matters any by their own behavior. And yes, security throwing out Bernie supporters who were causing a ruckus did aggravate the Bernie supporters, but let's not go assuming the Bernie supporters were innocent doves. They were there to cause trouble. Trump's supporters merely took the bait.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Let's also not forget that it was Bernie supporters first who started the "shoot to kill" posts on Twitter. And that Bernie has made his share of war cries from the pulpit. Hillary has contributed nothing positive either.

[Waffles731]

"Jabba the Hutt. "
So a Giant Slug that feeds people to be digested over a thousand years in complete agony then gets choked by a slave girl in a metal bikina

[evenlift]

This should be titled "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from non-violent consequences". You are right that an employer has the right to fire someone, though I would add some explanatory notes to this. 1. You are bound by contract. 2. The management is legally and morally responsible to the stockholders for maximizing profitability, which includes making the right hiring-and-firing decisions. 3. This right applies only to the private sector, not the government sector, which by the way should be much smaller. Schools, for example, are not a legitimate function of government, and by the way many of these controversies around freedom of speech and other freedoms would become irrelevant if the government would get out of areas in which it has no rightful role.

An internet community does have the right to ban you, but again contracts are binding.

A boycott is indeed non-violent, but the concept of a boycott has to be properly understood. For example, I remember reading that during the Chick-fil-A/gay-marriage controversy, people were telephoning Chick-fil-A and making fake food orders, thereby fraudulently wasting Chick-fil-A's money. That was not a boycott. That was fraud, a form of violence. On the other hand, simply refusing to buy from Chick-fil-A would have been within one's right of boycott.

Getting a show cancelled is also within one's rights, but again it has to be done non-violently, in other words without violating anyone else's rights. Trespassing onto someone else's property, for example, is a violation of rights. Threatening to attack someone is a violation of rights. Saying that Donald Trump is a bad person and should not be hosted is not a violation of rights, by contrast.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

Freedom of Speech does cause me many emotions - I totally support it when someone says stop this is injustice, what you are doing is endangering life but I agree it must be controlled when you say someone is an ugly fat bitch or a stupid limp dick, all (insert race, gender or group) are biologically inclined to be more stupid than (insert race, gender or group) so therefore the natural order is that group B rule group A.
You would think that my natural stance is freedom of speech but with offence restrictions but WHO decides these restrictions. Most societies that have bequested these powers tend to corrupt the powers to suit themselves so I am in a quandary till we find a group of people so innately fair I can trust my basic human rights to them. Maybe there will be an alien invasion in the future (an utopian ideal but really boring sci-fi film unless they are really bad like "V", I digress).
My point is I have no point, when I think of something, someone can show me a flaw within seconds so my ideal is for the least crap system at the moment which I believe is Freedom of Speech with Offence restrictions.

[bjjk067]

This is so true, i dont get how people can say insulting shit about people or a group and "people are just sensitive these days. Its freedom of speech their not doing anything wrong." Just because its not illegal doesn't mean you're not going to get a response. You knew the consequences of your actions and words, if someone was going around and being a dick to people in public all day, you think someones not going to do it back? If someone cussed him out or if it esculated to a fist fight and he got his ass kicked... If he went around complaining to people "i didn't do anything illegal why are they mad at me?" Everyone would be calling him a stupid ass. How is it different when you say something offensive , or say a regular opinion in a offensive manner (like the way you word it). Youd call out that guy who was being a dick and talking shit to strangers all day, so what makes what you're or their saying any different then public dick and shit talker?

Im sorry there is no difference. If you think thats okay and the guy talking shit to strangers all day shouldn't expect people do it back or get pissed off, please, id love to hear it.

[JRICHARDS1996]

Would you extend this same right to an employer that fired an openly homosexual employee for being open about their homosexuality?

If you answer "No," then you are a hypocrite. Either the private sphere has the right to make decisions based upon your speech--hence consequences--or it does not. Frankly the Left's lack of consistency when it comes to civil rights and the 14th Amendment is a joke.

Moore v. Madigan ruled that concealed-carry falls under the scope of the 2nd Amendment and McDonald v. City of Chicago ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to ALL of the states via the 14th Amendment.

... That said, do you believe that CCW permits should be recognized universally across the nation and that every state should be Shall-Issue?

I'm guessing you answered "No."

... But wait! Same-Sex Marriage applies to all of the states by virtue of the same argument.

How come the laws apply when they work in the Left's favor, but they do not when they work in the opposition's favor?

[Nachtmeerde]

Wait, how does a case about free speech in any way resemble a case about equal rights to jobs (and housing)? I mean, the equivalent of a man getting fired over being openly gay should be being fired for one's HIV-positive status, for being an ex-con or ex-member of the KKK. All of these are stuff you can't really hide without being shady as hell, and would most likely reveal themselves anyway. Also, all the above examples are things you CAN'T change/ erase about yourself.

Political views and moral beliefs, on the other hand, are things you CAN change. Moreover, they are things you can express in a respectful manner, by appealing to logic. Or choose not to express at all, because sometimes walking away from the argument is the mature thing to do.

So really, it all boils down to people remembering that not everything going on in their heads needs to come out of their mouths. Yes, this mean the rude section of liberals too.

[JRICHARDS1996]

@Nachtmeerde It relates because it is about people accepting the consequences for the opinions and/or actions that they express, and the degree of autonomy--if any--that we wish to grant the private sphere in penalizing people for some views. For example, most liberals probably wouldn't bat an eye if an employer fired a homophobic employee for making hateful remarks toward homosexuals, but say if the tables were turned and a religious employer fired a gay employee for being open about his sexual endeavors, all Hell would break loose. The liberals would call it a matter of "civil rights," "workplace discrimination" and get a bunch of lawsuits involved.

I bring this up because people need to be aware that the laws which may work for you will also work for the opposition. I find that the two political extremes--though particularly liberalism at the moment--can be VERY hypocritical when it comes to this sort of stuff.

[ObscuredBeyond]

You have to define what you mean by "being open" about it. If someone admits they have perverted lust, that is one thing. If they keep bothering others over it, that's sexual harassment.

[Nachtmeerde]

Uh, I'll admit, I can't entirely wrap my head around this scenario, because where I live there's no legal protection for LGBTQ+ people. You could be fired, forced to move out, disowned/ abused by your family, assaulted by the police or imprisoned for being queer just fine and no amount of liberals complaining could change that. So it's a little hard for me to imagine a homophobe/ transphobe living in the same kind of situation.

[JRICHARDS1996]

@Nachtmeerde try visiting the Bay Area of California or any University campus. You'll face discrimination just for being a Republican.

[Nachtmeerde]

To the point of getting assaulted? O. o Or kicked out of your dorm? Wow, I didn't know that could happen in the US. So homophobes can get disowned by their family too?

[Josht11]

I think most people understand this concept and it's why the internet has a lot more offensive shit than real life it's because there's not really any consequences (unless social media) I get that there's consequences for free speech but I don't think a lot of these consequences are right for example a lot of companies and businesses are being pressured by SJW fucks to stop certain things that are deemed offensive a good example would be that Milo Yiannopoulos was doing a university tour and got banned thanks to SJW's calling him offensive the university had every right to do it people get that but the outrage is over the point that they shouldn't cave in to what people think is offensive they should allow different points of views to be given in a learning environment.

[Notreallyhere]

I agree, except on one point.

Your employer should not have the right to Cyberstalk you for reasons to fire you. there are such things as privacy and personal lives. If someone wants to share sexy photos of themselves on a tumblr, that's not their employers business, they aren't at work. a person also has a right to voice their opinion on social media without the risk of being fired. If they started saying racist things AT WORK, then there would be grounds for firing them.

[Waffles731]

The problem is that if you are a teacher anything that the kids can see is dangerous

[Sara413]

Disagree. How a person presents themselves on social media represents their employer. If the employer feels that their social media posts, pictures and/or comments are a poor representation of their organization, they have the right to terminate the employment. People need to learn to use privacy settings, self-restraint and anonymity where necessary. How you act in public, whether online or in real life, matters and has consequences.

[RationalMale]

So if social media mobs decide to get you fired or something for saying unacceptable things, or if angry mobs decide to shut down a Trump rally with force, that's not violation of freedom of speech.

So for instance, if I decided to start a campaign to try to get Bernie Sanders voters fired from their jobs, or started posting gay pride organizer's personal information online...

Oh wait, taking such action against leftist causes would have lawsuits flying, the ACLU getting involved, and leftists screaming harassment and civil rights violations.

[Laetitian]

> "if social media mobs decide to get you fired or something for saying unacceptable things [...] that's not violation of freedom of speech."
1.) Social media mobs cannot get you fired. They can make your employer aware of your behaviour, which is perfectly acceptable for them to do. It is then the employer who reacts. I will assume you meant to say that and continue from there.
2.) If your employer fires you for publicly representing the company in a wrong light, then there are cases where that is justified. Whether or not that is the case is defined by national and state law. Where is your point about the first amendment?

"[...] if angry mobs decide to shut down a Trump rally with force, that's not violation of freedom of speech."
What force are you referring to?

"[...] taking such action against leftist causes would have lawsuits flying [...]
Anyone who does anything to Trump voters will see a lawsuit, so this is not really an argument.

[ObscuredBeyond]

@Laetitian: No, it is NOT a perfectly acceptable thing for them to do. If you merely disagree with the mob on an issue, but aren't hurting anyone... then they have no grounds.

If, say, you oppose gay pseudomarriage. But the only way they know that is because they violated your privacy and found out how you voted on some state proposal... then they put pressure on your employer... that is gangstalking, and is wrong. If the employer complies, that's wrongful termination. If they threaten him for not complying, that's zapping, which is extortion and a violation of RICO and the Hobbes Act.

In most of these cases, the fired individuals were targeted for their private aliases, NOT representing the company. Learning who they really are often requires the mobs to stalk the individual. Once again, stalking is required, negating your defense.

[Waffles731]

" the ACLU getting involved,"
The ACLU will help ANYONE who has had their free speech rights violated
They have DEFENDED KLANSMEN in court
www.aclu.org/.../aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech

[Laetitian]

@ObscuredBeyond
"No, it is NOT [...]. If you merely disagree with the mob [...], but aren't hurting anyone..."
< So? They still have the right to tell your employer you publicly expressed your opinions. My point was that it is your employer's decision how to deal with it. How does your answer disprove that?

"If, say, you oppose gay pseudomarriage. But the only way they know that is because they violated your privacy and found out how you voted on some state proposal..."
"[...] **often** requires the mobs to stalk the individual. [...], stalking is required, negating your defense."
Nice hyperbole.
Your Opinion had nothing to do with this.

[QuestionMan]

I'm all for criticism, valid criticism that is but censorship is wrong.
If you post something on Facebook that others don't like then they should tell you why they don't like it, not remove your post because it offends someone.

I had 2 instances on Facebook in which I addressed my peers from my university asking why niqabs were allowed on campus since they are a violation of women's rights. The responses I received were "It's part of their religion", "It's their choice", "Shut up no one wants to hear from you". The problem was I provided evidence to back my claims that niqabs are not only not Islamic because of their use by Daesh and the Taliban but are also not a choice and are anti-women.

My posts were removed for being "offensive" since I didn't spin the Liberal narrative.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Precisely. There's a difference between facing rejection, and being subjected to "convert-or-die" tactics. We're seeing the latter replace the former more and more.

A friend of mine was once attacked online by a stalker who wanted her abducted from her home and thrown in a mental hospital, because he had viewpoint disagreements with her. I posted a screenshot of his rant on Facebook, and then explained why Florida's Baker Act was an invalid citation on his part, for three major reasons.

(She wasn't a Florida resident, wasn't endangering anyone publicly, and she was factually correct, not him.)

TWO YEARS LATER, he gets my account suspended for 24 hours, because I was "defaming" him by posting a screenshot of his own words and calling him a hypocrite. Never mind the terror this troll had unleashed on others!

A lot like real life. A demented bully terrorizes a neighborhood. A Good Samaritan steps in and shields the kids. The Samaritan will get arrested, not the bully.

[Pampered]

Well yeah, obviously you have the right to criticize someone back that you think is being "inappropriate", because you're exercising your free speech. What I don't appreciate is when someone is presenting a logical argument that goes against the norm, and they get yelled at, ridiculed, air-horned, etc. You see it all the time at debates, speeches, rally's, etc.. it's not right to state your opinion and then block any sort of criticism or feedback. Liberals are going to ruin this country.

[Nachtmeerde]

Not LIBERALS, I should think, but anyone who doesn't have the courtesy and strength of character to listen to a different (if callously expressed) opinion. And people like that come from all political ideologies. Just pointing that out 'cos it's an odd bit of generalising in an otherwise objective appeal to mature discussion.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde That's true but Liberals have become far more radical forcing their views on others.

[Pampered]

@QuestionMan Exactly. Anyone who's been keeping up with the news would know that.

[Waffles731]

@QuestionMan Not here in the U. S
Honestly the GOP these days

[QuestionMan]

@Waffles731 In Canada we don't have an equivalent to the GOP. So the right wingers here don't really say anything crazy, they're just ignorant. The Liberals want to turn Canada into a full welfare state. They want to expand the government to every area of our lives so they can tell us what to do, how to do it, and what we should be thinking about while doing it. They cozy up to special interest groups and do whatever they say and make sure we do to.

When it comes time for filling taxes we have to pay more each year just so some member of a special interest group doesn't have to work and can use the courts to punish anyone they don't like by branding them a racist, homophobe or what not.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan Huh. Our situation here in Malaysia is the reverse actually: it's the conservatives who're more often the radicals. Now this wouldn't be a problem, except they're also the ones in charge and the loudest. Which is why gender inequality, religious intolerance, homophobia, transphobia and racism are all still out in full-force. Manifestations include open, unabashed hate speech by the authorities, criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people, child brides and attempts to govern the religious practices of religious minorities. There was a race-based riot last year too :/

[Nachtmeerde]

@Pampered "Keeping up with the news", lol. You mean, keeping up with the news in the US, Canada or wherever you live, right? Sorry, but I don't live there. Things are different in my country.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde At least with your government people know it's bad. With mine, the propaganda is so effective people genuinely believe that everything that's Left wing is good. Any criticism of the government or their ideology resorts to name calling and being ostracized. College campuses spew their propaganda in an effort to legitimize everything they preach. We're only one step away from the government arresting people with the "wrong" views.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan "We're only one step away from the government arresting people with the "wrong" views."

Errrmmmm they're already doing that in Malaysia. ; _ ; Here: https://www.suaram.net/?p=7474

www.hrw.org/.../malaysia

And who says everyone knows the government is bad? 😂😂😂 If that was the case, BN (the ruling party) wouldn't have stayed in power for 42 years (to put that in perspective, Malaysia has been independent for 59 years). Besides, even if they didn't support the government, it doesn't mean they give a damn about mental health awareness, LGBT+ rights or gender and racial equality. We're still a religiously conservative society with strongly reinforced gender roles and a good amount of racial tension after all.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde The opposite extreme is no better trust me.
Instead of no LGBT rights, the LGBT lobby has full control. If you so much as say that gays make you uncomfortable you can lose your job. They promote the sick notion that gender and sex are not the same thing and demand you accept it otherwise you get called hateful names.
There's nothing wrong with gender roles, it's up to the couple to decide how their family should operate.
I have nothing against religion, I actually support it's existence even though I'm an atheist. What I see happening however is an attempt to completely dismantle religion.

Your government uses sticks and stones to get you to comply, mine prefers a more subtle approach.

[Pampered]

@Nachtmeerde We're talking about "free speech", sweatheart. Part of the first amendment in the US.

[Nachtmeerde]

@Pampered Hey, no need to get condescending just because you grew up in a nicer country! >_< Besides, just because my government treats free speech like the boogieman doesn't mean I don't comprehend the concept or am unable to contribute my two cents.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan Personally I do agree with the notion of gender being different from sex. But I have to agree, your country sounds a little scary. ; _ ; When it comes to things that scare me though, the threat of jail and physical assault will win over the fear of losing my job, every single time.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde You get food and a place to live when you're imprisoned. Losing your job and being blacklisted means you are guaranteed to be homeless.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan Not if the food and place to live come with a risk of violence from both inmates and police. And death. But, you know... maybe we should trade countries? Since I'm bipolar and butch I'm more likely to enjoy Canada, as there's a higher chance of me being treated like a person. And pretty much nobody here will care if you use homophobic slurs. We have warm weather all year 'round too, if you like that sort of thing.

(And no, I'm not joking. I'm being perfectly serious. I've been tempted to move for awhile now.)

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde Well I'm a straight White male that's also an atheist. Last I heard Malaysia is a Muslim country and doesn't look to kindly to atheists. I'll stay here for now, I want to fight the good fight and who knows maybe I'll win. If not and Trump gets elected I can always move to the US.

You're welcome to come to Canada. No one would care about your mental disorder and sexual preference.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan Lol you can always let them form their own assumptions. I have no religion myself but many like to pretend/ assume I have one. Also, people have more lenient attitudes towards white male foreigners. ("Eh, must be a Western thing.") Some will even have a positive bias towards you.

by the way, I'm straight. But as you can see, being butch means I give off "gay vibes".

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde I thought butch was a slang term for lesbian.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@QuestionMan can my I move to Canada too? I like Canada, but i'm wondering if anyone can provide a some pros and cons?

[QuestionMan]

@FallOutBoy2001 Lol I'm not Canada's immigration agency but sure why not.
Pros:
-Less racism
-Less gun violence
-Subsidized education
-Nice people
-"Free" healthcare
-Lots of different cultures with most people assimilating nicely
-Laws against hate speech so groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis don't exist here.
Cons:
-Biased education from a Liberal perspective
-Getting a gun is only possible for recreational use and hunting. Self defence is not a valid reason. Gun laws are extremely restrictive to the point that firearms and munitions must be stored separately in two different safes which are inspected by the RCMP (our version of the FBI) upon purchase.
-No Stand your ground laws
-"Free" healthcare is extremely inefficient. The minimum wait time at a hospital is 8 hours while for surgery it's 4 months. People tend to go the US if they need immediate treatment.
-Hate speech laws can prevent criticism

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan No, it's a term for masculine women. The kind you can't call tomboys because the tomboys are still more feminine than the average butch.

"minimum wait time at a hospital is 8 hours" YIKES O_O How the hell did you guys manage to become even more inefficient than us?

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde When health care is free it means EVERYONE has equal access to it.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan Same here, except ours is subsidised. Still means a shit ton of people waiting in very understaffed hospitals though, and the average wait-time is 3 hours; max. 5-6 hours. You guys are scary.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde I was lucky I waited 8 hours, I've heard of people waiting 10.
People die in the hospital everyday because they don't get treated, it's a big problem but our politicians don't seem to care.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan Wow. F*** me sideways O. o I expected issues, 'cos no country is perfect, but people dying while waiting for treatment? You guys really are as effed-up as the US in some ways.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde Well they have crazy right wingers, we have crazy left wingers.

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan No escape huh? (*sighs) No wonder so many Westerners still dream of going to Heaven.

[QuestionMan]

@Nachtmeerde Lol
"there is no solace above or below, only us small solitary, striving" Frank Underwood House of Cards

[Waffles731]

@Nachtmeerde Eh , its still better than eastern cultures that don't believe mental illness is a thing

[Nachtmeerde]

@QuestionMan And here, ladies and gentlemen, our clear winner for Depressing Quote of the Day! 😂 (y)

[Nachtmeerde]

@Waffles731 True, but in all fairness, most Asian countries haven't had that many years to mentally advance as a society. 'Cos being conquered, kept poor and illiterate will do that to you. Give us a few more decades, maybe a century or two, to play catch-up.

[Waffles731]

@Nachtmeerde "True, but in all fairness, most Asian countries haven't had that many years to mentally advance as a society. 'Cos being conquered, kept poor and illiterate will do that to you. Give us a few more decades, maybe a century or two, to play catch-up." Oh please Europe recognized Mental illness as a thing during the age of the chinese and Japanese empires
There is no excuse
and as someone who suffers from them, I really fucking hate that

[Waffles731]

Europe may have treated them like shit but they realize insanity was a thing

[Waffles731]

That and most Japanese cinema is overrated barring kurosawa and the kaiju movies

[Waffles731]

@QuestionMan "If not and Trump gets elected I can always move to the US."
Wait really
Why in the hell would you want to move here for trump

[Nachtmeerde]

@Waffles731 Lol, if you hate the lack of legitimacy for mental illness in Eastern cultures, imagine how I must feel (I'm Malaysian and bipolar). That said, discrimination here doesn't occur mainly due to superstition, but because of media misrepresentation and ignorance. The tide is also turning. Slowly, but it's turning.

(Also, I must point out that even if medieval Europe recognised insanity, they didn't exactly have a favourable impression of mental illness. Not exactly an improvement really.)

[Nachtmeerde]

@Waffles731 As for Japanese movies, I can't say anything 'cos I've not seen any.

[Waffles731]

@Nachtmeerde Do yourself a favor
Watch the originally Godzilla, A genuinely haunting movie thats an allegory for nuclear war.
Its not campy in the slighest. You see people dying by radiation sickness, they use stock footage from the victims of the bombs in japan, people actually dying.
A mother comforts her children with, "Soon we will be with daddy." As she and her kids die horribly. Its a very good film and very disturbing unlike later works.
I'm a kaiju fan so and then watch the later works
Also watch Akira Kurosawas films, especially 7 Samurai

[Nachtmeerde]

Got it. Thanks for the recs. :)

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh such an awesome take. It is funny I used your title word for word without ever seeing this.

:D

Thanks for pointing me here. But I see you didn't get much play. Not many want to understand the reasoning behind writing Freedom of Speech into our Constitution.

[oddwaffle]

So it boils down to "you can say what you want and I have the perfect right to ignore your ramblings and show you the door"

[Waffles731]

Yeah pretty much,
Freedom of speech protects your right to be an asshole but at the same time people are going to treat you like an asshole

[kingofknights]

Don't abuse your right to freedeom of speech.
It does not give you an excuse to be an arsehole.
And futher more, if you dish out insults and discriminatory actions then don't be surpised and offended if people do it back.

freedom of speech is there to give power to the people for fair use of contructive criticism. Not as a cover to sprout bigotry without reprocusions.

[Nachtmeerde]

Another nugget people seem to have forgotten: just because it's what you're feeling or thinking at the moment doesn't mean it needs to come out of your mouth. 'cos, you know, part of being emotionally mature is self-restraint.

[Anonymous]

I don't have anything against offensive speech. In the West, you can say whatever you like without being killed or prosecuted for your thoughts.
I am tired of our PC society. I am tired of the tactics of the left who call me a bigot or a racist without evidence just to shut me up.

I have the right to say outrageous things and be left alone.

[cipher42]

No, you don't have that right. You have the right to say what you want, but other people have the same right to call you out if what you say is bigoted or otherwise shitty. You can't just say blatantly discriminatory things and then get upset when you end up having to face the consequences of your words.

[Opinion Owner]

@cipher42 Then bring it on. I will say whatever I want and I don't care people don't like me or call me out on it. If I want to be politically incorrect, it doesn't mean I'm a bigot.
In fact, most of the time, people are just telling the truth. Most of the time, people can't even demonstrate that what I say is bigoted or discriminatory. Just because I have a different opinion from your doesn't mean I am bigoted.
So yeah. I have the right to say whatever I want.

[Waffles731]

"I have the right to say outrageous things and be left alone. "
Only one part of that is true though,
You say outrageous things and people are going to exercise their right to free speech and call you out

[Opinion Owner]

It's fine? Don't care. Exercise your free speech. I HATE CENSURE. That's my point. Get it?

[Imatexan]

Most people are not assholes when they engage with other people. The problem is fucking political correctness and retards accuse you of being a bigot when you have an opinion they don't like. Free speech is a right and political correctness just destroys it. So fuck yeah, I'm all for offensive speech ;)

[Anonymous]

I think that people have the right to have freedom of speech and say whatever they want but they shouldn't go around using the words like retarded as a insult towards people who have disabilities like me and they shouldn't call people things like fat ugly pig

[Careless_Whisper]

Yer but now the liberals and the government want to block opinions that are different from theirs. I believe all people should have the right to say whatever the want. The difference is that I don't try to censor and block other people for expressing their free speech. Go figure.

[cipher42]

Since when? They disagree with people who state differing opinions, particularly when said opinions are bigoted or otherwise shitty, but no one's actually trying to legally censor others. Or at least those who are certainly aren't taken seriously. Please, quit with the imaginary victimization, please.

[Careless_Whisper]

@cipher42 Yes they are. Liberals are the most intolerant people on the planet. They try to shut down other people's freedom of speech whenever they have a different opinion. Liberals are intolerant hypocrites.

[Walls_and_Doors]

The teacher actually wasn't fired for the post (beliefs / what she said) but conduct (teachers have one) as a community leader. The story is misleading as this has nothing at all to do with the First Amendment.

To make matters worse you're actually wrong about the story to begin with; Free Speech does not protect Hate Speech and this is clearly such. So again it wouldn't have anything to do with the First Amendment twice over.

[Waffles731]

Yes actually it does, its a common misconception but yes the First amendment does protect hate speech.
Its one of the reasons the confederetards of the south aren't in jail

[Walls_and_Doors]

"Some hateful speech is unprotected if it crosses over into conduct -- such as the use of a racial slur to threaten or intimidate someone. And hateful speech in the workplace can create a “hostile environment” that the courts have treated as a form of discrimination. (Some courts have also recognized an analogue to a hostile workplace environment in educational settings, though this is more controversial.)"

www.latimes.com/.../...endment-20151030-story.html

No.

There is a difference between speech that is "general" and speech that is "institutionalized" if you will. Teacher's Code (long and boring) pretty much makes you a government employee which institutionalizes your speech which makes your hate speech completely unprotected.

You are right though that it's not generally covered. This would fall under the blurry lines of things like Obscenity; some of it is obvious, most of it is not.

[ColinHarvey]

Free speech, according to the text in the bill of rights, is a creator-given right, not a constitutional government-given privilege: Thus, the first amendment stands only to prevent the government from infringing on the creator-given right to speech, not to give one the ability to say what they want lawfully under any circumstance.

There's no such thing as "exercising free speech," you were born with the ability to say whatever you want, it isn't a right that's been granted.

[aliceinwonderland69]

Thank you, finally, couldn't have put it better myself. Like people have the right to say what they want and I have the right to say it's bullshit.