State of Speech

[Saelune]

How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

 

[Souplex]

People here have misinterpreted "Free Speech" to no end.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So no, nobody's obligated to give you a platform, and nobody has to put up with what you say, the government just can't stop you from saying things.
Notable exceptions: Things like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. You're not making a statement, you're just flagrantly endangering people. As such it's recognized as a crime.

 

[Saelune]

How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

I will never understand you.

It's mandatory if they dont want to be overthrown, especially in what is supposed to be a democracy.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

 

[Saelune]

We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

Looking at the web weren't those actively pushing segregation?

snip

Yay, I get to use the argument I preemtively thought of: A USA citizen gets captured by a terrorist organization (let's say in Afganishtan for example and the person was with a humantarian aid group) the USA can get the person out but they value there can be dozens of innocents Afhganistan people who might die in the operation? Would you say that the government would hurt its duty of "taking care of and protecting their people" if they decide not to risk the life of dozens of non-citizens (which they have no duty to protect)?

Would be nice if both country's governments cared about the wellbeing of their people that both worked together to protect all the innocent people.

And when LGBT people not being fired risks innocent people's lives, then maybe there will be grounds to allow them to be fired, but so far, no, LGBT people working does not risk lives.

 

[Silvanus]

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

I don't really get your point, as well as removing protections isn't really considered actively working for a cause. If someone wants to be a shitty person blame the person itself rather the platform that enables is shitty behaviour.

Uhrm, no, blame both. Removing protections against workplace discrimination can be directly blamed for the harmful effects of workplace discrimination.

 

[Saelune]

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

Uhrm, no, blame both. Removing protections against workplace discrimination can be directly blamed for the harmful effects of workplace discrimination.

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

Would be nice if both country's governments cared about the wellbeing of their people that both worked together to protect all the innocent people.

That's some fine circle strafing, now tell me if it counters your definition of the reason for government or not.

I am not a robot and do not think like a robot. Absolutes do not work in human terms. I -want- the best and fairest outcome for everyone. And sometimes it upsets people when they are treated fairly and not allowed to abuse others just as others would not be allowed to abuse them. Perhaps you think too often in robotic absolutes?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That's the funny thing about free speech: that's an example of free speech too.

 

[Catnip1024]

Your example is dishonest. If one is a public figure for a company, one has different expectations than otherwise. If a news reporter gets caught burning flags, for instance, they have no right to complain about getting fired - it's an industry about views and reputations, and if your behaviour is going to be detrimental to that then the company is within their rights to discipline you. Personal / professional social media accounts are also a grey area these days.

And it's the same at grunt level, just to a lesser severity.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

Looking at the web weren't those actively pushing segregation?

What was actively pushing segregation?
My point was the government had to step in to "babysit" when there was rampant discrimination going on against minorities by white people. Had the government (which is of the people, by the people, for the people) not stepped in when they did, I can't imagine how many more people would have been discriminated against and harmed and killed
Now the government has to "babysit" to ensure all their citizens have the right to at least eat at the same goddamn restaurants as everybody else

 

[Silvanus]

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That comes under the right to reply, doesn't it? It's a blog platform. The whole purpose of it is communicating. If people read and respond, that rather falls under the brief.

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

The Civil Rights Act, as it stood, was used to protect against workplace discrimination. The US government ensuring that the Civil Rights Act does not provide that protection-- while simultaneously blocking any other legislative attempts to provide the same protections-- is definitely, inarguably, removing said protections. There's no two ways about that.

 

[Trunkage]

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

Maybe I'm not in the right circles but the extreme left doesn't come across as Free Speech = Hate Speech. More like Free Speech can lead to Hate Speech. Currently, the conservatives in my country are using the same tagline to defend themselves from the 'hateful left.' So I felt that your argument doesn't really hold up (and I recognise the situation/ country I'm in might be a significant factor.)

I don't support anyone harassing another person. Punching a Nazi shouldn't be a thing. I don't know whether pointing out this is doing anything though. The right hasn't been any better. Or is more to do with the Left calls its self tolerant and this is a clear case of intolerance? Here's another thing - American free speech sounds like it should let the left speak these violent words.

We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

I find it funny how the people who liked the Jim Crowe laws back then hasn't realised that they made the federal government look like a saviour, much like the civil war. They only thought of how they could stay on top and thought no one would take them down despite evidence to the contrary from a few decades previous. Here's a motto - If you want a government not to interfere, stop treating people badly.

 

[Saelune]

I am not a robot and do not think like a robot. Absolutes do not work in human terms. I -want- the best and fairest outcome for everyone. And sometimes it upsets people when they are treated fairly and not allowed to abuse others just as others would not be allowed to abuse them. Perhaps you think too often in robotic absolutes?

You basically state my point, the world is not black and white so having a list of "jobs" for the government isn't true in real life.

What was actively pushing segregation?
My point was the government had to step in to "babysit" when there was rampant discrimination going on against minorities by white people. Had the government (which is of the people, by the people, for the people) not stepped in when they did, I can't imagine how many more people would have been discriminated against and harmed and killed
Now the government has to "babysit" to ensure all their citizens have the right to at least eat at the same goddamn restaurants as everybody else

Wasn't Jim Crow laws made by the government (or at elast state level governments)?

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That comes under the right to reply, doesn't it? It's a blog platform. The whole purpose of it is communicating. If people read and respond, that rather falls under the brief.

The problem is that in thunderf00t case he said legitimate opinions (at least back then) and the answer was to attempt to destroy his life. There's not a lot of point of being able to express your opinion if people can destroy your life afterwards.

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

The Civil Rights Act, as it stood, was used to protect against workplace discrimination. The US government ensuring that the Civil Rights Act does not provide that protection-- while simultaneously blocking any other legislative attempts to provide the same protections-- is definitely, inarguably, removing said protections. There's no two ways about that.

And it raises the philosphical question: Does not expressively forbidding something means actively encouraging people to act in this way? Which can be a thread in itself.

Except its exactly true. The Government has a purpose, and if it fails that purpose...or job, its...not doing its fucking job. Why even have a government if they arent doing anything?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

-snippage-

I might not be the audience you're looking for, Sunlight, because I'm largely confused by your message. Not your meaning, but your message.

Your language contradicts what I believe your attempt to be. You want to have a conversation about Speech? That's fine. But you begin with condescending language. "Let's try to have an Adult conversation". It's unnecessary. You're talking to (by and large) adults. It's like turning to your twenty four year old kid and going "We're going to this four star restaurant. Remember to behave like a grown up".

The obvious way to take such a statement for most would be that we fail your idea of how adult conversationalists act. We're children, and we need to be reminded on how to behave. Now, personally, I'm not offended by this. I don't think we've had much in real conversation betwixt us, so I don't feel anything aimed at me. But I feel like such a sentiment is aimed at someone. Which, then, hurts credibility.

Simply put, One deson't declare themselves to be the bigger person in order to be the bigger person. One declares it to let the other know that they are being juvenile while the original party is being mature. It's the polite version of "Fuck off, Kid".

Also, I don't see what's adult about getting your pot shots in while you can (The Liberal and Antifa comments) even though you've called for Adult Proceedings. People are not calling you out due to being supporters, but you can't ask for a quorum devoted to intelligent conversation while getting your jabs in edge wise.

It would be one thing if you also called out the right directly, instead of saying "both sides" and only giving examples of the side you seemingly disagree with. In the follow up responses to people taking note of that, you keep mentioning that you said "both sides" but again you focus on how liberals are bad. Do you find that the right has done nothing worth constant mentioning?

Standing for the flag is a great example on how the Right are hypocritical about free speech. It is a respect thing, however there's nothing in the flag code about having to actually stand for the speech. I've posted that in the football thread. But when you point out the facts to people, they don't care because it doesn't matter what the actual rules say, it matters more that people don't like it.

But back to Corporate Censorship.

Hey, Tomi Lahren is suing Glenn Beck for apparently firing her for her views about Abortion [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/media/tomi-lahren-lawsuit-glenn-beck-blaze.html].

Marc Lamont Hill was fired after getting into it with David Horowitz after David called him an "Affirmative Action Baby" [https://www.mediaite.com/online/david-horowitz-calls-fox-news-marc-lamont-hill-affirmative-action-baby/]. This happened in 2009. David Horowitz still gets called into Fox News with Hannity even in this year. It happens everywhere.

If we want to paint a picture, the conservatives all support the All-right and Neo-Nazis. But no, of course they don't. But some do. That's the difference of how we also use language. I very rarely see you say "Some Liberals" or "Some on the left". You blanket Left as all being one thing. Liberals too. And if in your heart you do not, all we have is your communication. And in your communication, you do that.

I simply want to know what is the end game if we start the whole conversation with innate bias. That's all.

 

[infohippie]

Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

Ummm...If the cop can just ignore the violent crime happening in front of him, what the actual fuck are we paying him with our tax money for?

You basically state my point, the world is not black and white so having a list of "jobs" for the government isn't true in real life.

I think we have completely different understandings of what the government is.

The government (at least in a democratic society) is supposed to be a centralized organization that everyone pays into in order for it to more efficiently handle the needs of the people.

Like, if everyone had to maintain the road in front of their house, it would be really hard for some people to maintain the roads in rough terrain (probably fucking up the local economy pretty badly) while some other people would be in a place where repairs are rarely needed and basically get a free ride, and it wouldn't cover all the space where no one lives. But, through the power of government, everyone pays in a little money, and the government can then allocate the funds to wherever the repairs need doing. Thus, the problem is solved more efficiently, the people who need the repairs more often aren't rendered broke and with malfunctioning economies, and the burden is more fairly distributed.

Likewise, when someone gives their tax money to the government, they need to expect fair treatment, like law enforcement doing their job and enforcing the law the same for everyone.

A democratic government is supposed a problem-solving machine that intakes our money and outputs results that make life better for the people in society.

Otherwise, what the actual hell is the point of the government?

No, really, if the government's purpose isn't to care for the needs of the people, why does it exist? Some holdover from the middle ages where kings ruled by Divine Fiat, because reasons?