How does that take away your free speech? That's like saying laws against murder take away your right to free actions.
How so? Your right to be racist is different from my right to steal?
Someone saying mean things about black people or white people is repulsive but shouldn't be subjected to the boot of the state, by stealing you're putting your hand in another person's pocket and stealing money they worked for. Completely different
Yeah and stealing things is repulsive but it shouldn't be subjected to the boot of the state. So what if I'm stealing what someone else worked for? Why should that allow the state to get involved? It's between me and the person I'm robbing, the government has no right to be involved.
By being racist you're sticking your hand into their pocket and stealing their right to fair and equal treatment/opportunity.
Ok ur baiting or retarded so I'm not going to continue
No, I'm trying to show you how stupid your argument it, but you refuse to look at it through any perspective other than your own. You are creating differentiation where there is none.
I'm not going to look at your perspective because you're an enemy of the people
Lol ok, nice way to diminish my views without actually arguing against me. Cya loser, you're too cowardly to even argue so you can fuck off.
You're too cowardly to face mean words so I already score the W
@devilman666 Free speech hurts NOBODY but adults who never grew up.I'm glad I live in a country where I can say all the shit I want as long as I do not incite violence."Niglet" won't get me arrested in America.
Hurts nobody? What about mental pain? You are only looking at physical and financial forms of pain.
@devilman666 You do not have the right to not be offended.
There is nothing you could say to me that would touch me mentally. You might get me a little irritated and maybe get me to swear at my screen if you do a really good job, but I'm never going to be sincerely offended by anything you ever say to me.
You could get me absolutely fuming from mean words but I'm not pathetic enough to call in big daddy state to ruin your whole life
And even if I was, so fucking what?Comparing hurt feelings to financial or physical harm is ridiculous.
"Hurt feelings" can cause several mental disorders such as schizophrenia. Not all mental disorders are things you are born with
Putting someone in prison cuz they said mean words hurts their feelings so u gotta be consistent
@devilman666 LOL what a leap!Imagine criminalizing me calling you an asshole and hurting your feelings because there are some fringe cases of people getting schizophrenia?Our rights do not end where your feelings begin.
It's called emotional abuse and over a prolonged period it can cause several mental disorders. It's not a leap, it's been very well researched."Fringe cases" uh huh... explain this:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936529/These people are far more likely than the average person to experience mental health problems and the research shows it's largely due to the abuse and hatred they experience. I refuse to let you write off mental health just because your mental health is fine.
"I'm going to kill you Joe" this is an example of words that could hurt feelings that are wrong, because they are a threat and that REALLY hurts peoples feelings. It's TOTALLY different from normal hurt feelings!!!
It's totally consistent to think some mean words are harmful and others aren't. (Sarcasm)
I refuse to let you have the 0.1% have the right to not be offended against the 99%
Cool, miss me with that dumb shit. Try again when you grow a brain cell or two.
Quick maffs says 99% > 0.1%
Really? Well thanks for the math lesson but it's logic and reason that you need in this argument.Did you mean that you refuse to have the 0.1% (I'm assuming by this you mean mentally ill people though the statistic is wrong) be offended by the 99% (which I'm assuming means everyone who isn't mentally ill?)
@devilman666 Well we are not responsible for the well-being of the mentally ill, that is their responsibility and it is up to their doctor to tell them how to navigate normal society.
Logically it makes no sense to silence someone for mean words. That's not logic, that's being emotionally unstable
Yeah and I'm not responsible for how you feel when I threaten you... yet it's still a crime to threaten someone...
@Juxtapose as I said before, mental illness isn't always something you are born with, sometimes it develops later on in life and can be caused by factors in your life such as abuse. Therefore mental illness can be caused by the actions of others, which is why we protect children from abusive parents, including verbally abusive, because it can be extremely damaging to the childs mental health. Therefore if mental illness can be caused by others, we have a need to protect people from others causing them to become mentally ill.
Why dont you give some logical reasons on why silencing someone whos words are potentially causing mental illness makes no sense?
@devilman666 Child abuse & harassment is already illegal wtf are you talkin' about?
I was using that as an example of how other people can cause mental illness, try to keep up with me, alright? I get that your brain is a little slow, but if you want to argue about this then you jeed to understand what the fuck you're talking about.Here, I'll slow it down a bit: do we both agree that child abuse can cause mental illness?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Uhh this has nothing to do with murder or racism.
Oh sorry, I assumed this was to do with forcing people to call transgenders by their correct pronouns. Which while not racist would be discriminatory. Now that I know the truth, this is even more sad than it was before. You're this upset over people being forced to tell the truth about the pandemic? Imagine if pastors started saying they could heal cancer, would that be okay?
If you think compelled speech has any room in a democracy I really don't know what to say to you man.
Yes, it would be okay. You can look at the sky and say it is red without the government forcing you to say it is blue.And making the government the Arbiter of Truth is a very dangerous proposition.
Also fuck your pronouns, I'm not going to be compelled to use those either
If you think compelled actions have any room in a democracy then I really dont know what to say to you man.Why dont you try an actual argument?
Yes you will, if you want to be in Canada.Damn, so all lies are okay? A company can lie about it's product? A pastor can lie about his religion? A building contractor can lie about what changes he will make to your house? A building inspector can lie about the quality of the building he inspected? Go fuck yourself because there are several areas where we control speech, you are straight up just being a hypocrite.
lol this man gives ZERO fucks about freedom of speech wtf xD
I give a fuck about freedom of speech to a certain extent. If you want a real conversation, stop acting high and moghty and give an actual argument based on logic. Everything you've said so far has been based on feelingsm
Dude.. free speech and its reasonable limits in the United States is not hard to understand."Fuck niggers" is a-okay."I will kill Joe" is not.The reasoning behind the First Amendment and how it is constructed has been well documented and you are free to look it up yourself. It effectively protects unpopular speech & prevent people like neo-nazis and Ku Klux Klan members from being persecuted just for having hateful beliefs.
Why is there a difference though? Use logic and reason and explain it, instead of just stating things based off your feelings.
You have tried so hard to avoid any real argument with me lol. You keep trying to justify why the first amendment protects racist speech but not threatening speech, but the truth is, you have no answer. Neither of those statements caused anyone any physical pain, so why is one worse than the other?
"Fuck niggers" its like a schoolyard insult and doesn't hurt anybody."I will kill Joe" is a threat to somebody's life.
So? Whats the difference? Neither causes physical or financial harm, so why should either be punished?
I don't understand how you can't see the hypocrisy here. You want to fully protect free speech except in the cases where you don't want to protect it.
"The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” 1224 In Watts v."#3 is the biggest reason.If a mafia boss calls you a bitch, chances are you are fine. If he threatens to kill you, you are in demonstrable danger.
So basically it's to protect peoples feelings from being afraid? If the violence is going to happen then it will happen regardless of the threat, if anything the threat is better because it gives you warning.I don't think that is demonstratable danger. That is you assuming you're in danger. Why would the mafia boss threaten you when he could just have you killed instead? You're just making assumptions and protecting people's feelings when you make threats illegal. So if you think it's okay to protect peoples feelings and protect them from potential danger then why should hate speech be any different? It protects them from the potential danger of mental illness and it protects their feelings. The reasoning is just as good as with the reasoning for making threats illegal.
Nah, I have witnessed people threaten others before getting into it. The mafia itself will use the threat of violence quite effectively to intimidate people.You're supposed to have a reasonable expectation that people will be punished for violence or acts that clearly lead to violence.Hurt feelings does not lead to violence & let's be real, it doesn't lead to mental illness unless there's something wrong with you to begin with.
by the way you are either born with schizophrenia or not, no amount of stress can cause you to develop it.
So? Just because you've witnessed a couple of the 0.1% of cases where the threat actually does end in violence, doesn't mean that the 99% of harmless threats should be stopped. Lmfao that's your logic by the way, not mine.Yeah, violence and acts that clearly lead to violence, threats do not clearly lead to violence, that is an assumption you're making.Threats don't lead to violence, lets be real, and further, it doesn't cause you any fear unless there is something already wrong with you.(Up until now I was just trying to show you how dumb your arguments are)The fact of the matter is that you are wrong and all the research shows that you are wrong, and yes, abuse aka hurt feelings (since you want to water it down), can lead to mental illness, just because you want to assume something wrong with the person doesn't mean jack shit because you have not studied or researched this field of science. You are ignorant, plain and simple.
That is plainly wrong. You should research schisophrenia because it can be developed later in life, and infact, it shows up after the person has reached adulthood in the majority of cases. So you are flat wrong and know little to nothing about schizophrenia.
The onset of schizophrenia tends to be late teens to early 20s in men, qnd late 20s to early 30s for women.
Yeah because it is dormant, duh.Schizophrenia can show up later in life but you still have to be born with it to get it dude.Hurt feelings will not cause a healthy person to just develop schizophrenia out of the blue, it is an inherited illness.
Yeah man, it's like how you're born with dementia and it is dormant until you hit the age of 80.You don't have to be born with itHere is what webmd says:"Research shows it takes a combination of genetics and your environment to trigger the disease. Knowing what increases the chances can help you put together a better picture of your odds of getting schizophrenia.""Think of your genes as a blueprint for your body. If there’s a change to these instructions, it can sometimes increase your odds for developing diseases like schizophrenia.Doctors don’t think there’s just one “schizophrenia gene.” Instead, they think it takes many genetic changes, or mutations, to raise your chances of having the mental illness.You’re more likely to get schizophrenia if someone in your family has it. If it’s a parent, brother, or sister, your chances go up by 10%. If both your parents have it, you have a 40% chance of getting it."
I agree that hurt feelings won't cause a person to develop schizophrenia, but long term abuse can cause a person to develop schizophrenia. It can be hard to view a long term impact from your hateful words, but if a person has their feelings hurt 24 hours a day 7 days a week then eventually they will develop mental illness from it. It's simply not how humans are meant to function, we need happiness and self love, if everyone is putting you down then those two things can become very hard to find. Transgender people face this harassment on a daily basis, and while it isn't 24/7, it can be very constant, especially if they are open about the fact that they transitioned. This kind of harrassment and abuse can cause mental illness to develop if it is constant enough for a long enough time.Doctors aren't 100% sure what causes schizophrenia but current research shows a mixture of genetics and your environment can cause it to occur. Basically, if your mother or father has schizophrenia then you're more likely to develope it, and if you live in an abusive environment then you're more likely to develope it. But it is not nearly as simple as you want to pretend it is
Please stop making assumptions and go do research. You aren't as smart/all-knowing as you think you are.
You literally just affirmed what I said and what you describe is not passing insults but consistent child abuse & harassment.Your understanding of free speech laws and the reason why they exist is woefully inadequate.
No, I understand free speech, but you refuse to recognize that there are exceptions to free speech. If the tobacco companies wanted to go back to saying that tobacco is harmless, do you think that would be okay? Because the government currently forbids them from saying that Tobacco is harmless... oh wait you agree with that exception to free speech because you don't want your children to smoke cigarettes... but you refuse to recognize that there are exceptions to free speech? Blatant hypocrisy lol.
I did not affirm what you said, I was being sarcastic. If you can show me the dementia gene, or the schizophrenia gene then we drop this whole issue, but unfortunately you can't because no such gene has been identified and all our research shows that no such gene exists. Dont take it from me though, please inform yourself on what the experts say:www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/.../#what%20role"Dementia is caused by diseases that affect the brain, such as Alzheimer’s disease. The likelihood of developing dementia will usually depend on a complex mix of factors like our age, medical history and lifestyle, as well as our genes. Most cases of dementia are not directly caused by genes we inherit from our parents."
@Juxtapose simple insults are legal, you can call any black man a dumbass, but if you go racial and say, "You deserve to fucking die, you dirty little piece of shit fucking n**.", Then suddenly it's very much not okay and I'd argue it's just as threatening as an actual threat. But that speech would be protected in the current system, because it isn't a direct threat, it just instills the same type of fear into the person. This is no longer an insult, and now becomes abuse and harassment which could make the person fear for their life, no better than a threat of violence. Do you think racism is as simple as "you're stupid"? There are still areas where the KKK continues to exist as an organized group.
If anything man I would extend free-speech protections further rather than limit them. I want to eradicate censorship and only have legitimate threats "I will kill you Bob" be banned.
So cigarette companies should be allowed to lie about their product?So you're telling me that we should allow people to say, "I hope nothing happens to you and your family tonight you filthy fucking n**", but not allow people to say, "If you try to touch my family then I'll kill you you racist fucker"?How do you feel about defending racism?
The definition of tyranny doesn't include being a Giant JACKASS.
Defying the law at this point is his sacred duty!Fight and kill tyranny, do not make friends with it.
Good luck to him
Why not? Is it not okay to have laws against murder or theft?
This retard is equating actions and speech. If you see them both as the same thing you're a fragile human being and I can understand why you want the government to silence people you don't agree with
@disgustingweebtrash WELL SAID!
Lmao speech is an action... but whatever. Why is it illegal to make threats?
Difference between "I hate x" and "I'm going to kill all x"
How? What is the difference? Both are just words? Free speech? Why aren't you consistent with your beliefs?
So freedom of speech is super important and can never be messed with... unless you personally think it is a case where freedom of speech can be revoked?
Hate speech is free speech anyway ironically you're for government silencing speech but again yourself would cry if it did other authoritarian moves. If its okay for the government to silence views it deems "bad" then it should also kill people that have those bad views right?
Threatening speech is free speech.I'm just trying to show you the hypocrisy and inconsistency in your views.
@devilman666 Study the reasoning behind the First Amendment and it will all be explained.
I don't think threatening speech should be infringed on by boots either, but it's a lesser evil to racism
@Juxtapose or you could actually defend your position instead of hiding behind the first amendment?
@disgustingweebtrash then at least you aren't a hypocrite. You can't preach about the freedom of speech protecting all forms of speech and then turn around and say threatening speech is different. Either prohibiting speech is okay with good reason, or it isn't. If we all agree that it is okay then we can talk about the reasons why free speech should be prohibited, and then we could discuss whether or not it is okay to prohibit freedom of speech in this circumstance. At this point we can't even agree on whether or not prohibiting free speech is okay, because someone refuses to have consistent views on prohibiting free speech.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!