Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Same as in North Korea.

what's your point?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Irrationality is in the eyes of the beholder.

Not really.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What is foolish is pretending the speech leads to the consequences, and not the irrationality of the offended.

Now you're just being obtuse. Whether due to the irrationality of those offended or not the consequences remain. Most of the time the consequences are only maybe a sidelong glance or future avoidance of the perpetrator of the offending speech but the more irrational the offended party the more dire the likely consequences.

In a Utopian world/society maybe people would just calmly think to themselves "I disagree with that" but this is not a Utopian world/society and that behavior is a rarity.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

While we are guaranteed to have freedom of speech nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of protection from the consequences of that speech. If what you say offends the majority there will be backlash in any number of ways- anything from verbal retaliation to your house being fireballed or worse. If you're married and your wife asks "do these pants make me look fat?" you are free to answer as you please- but shouldn't be surprised when you're forced to spend the night on the sofa because of it. You are also free to post whatever you would like to say on ATS but should not be surprised if your account ends up banned if what you post breaks with the established boundaries of what is acceptable.

The point is you can say what you want but to act unaware that there can be consequences is foolish. The law only protects you from crimes in retaliation if the police are actually present to stop them, otherwise all they can do is apprehend criminals and prosecute after the fact- which is no protection at all.

What is foolish is pretending the speech leads to the consequences, and not the irrationality of the offended.

What do you suppose 'fighting words' are?

I would however point out that, for example, shouting down others is not violence or suppression of free speech, but a contrasting exercise thereof.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If only Galileo understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been jailed by the Inquisition. If Socrates understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been executed. If Martin Luther King had understood the consequence of his speech, he wouldn't have been assassinated. Imagine if these people had never spoken for fear of violent and oppressive reprisal.

For each of those 3, there are thousands who have been just as effective in elevating enlightenment but were not made into martyrs by going too far.

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: dfnj2015

So we should stifle intellectual progress for the sake of someone's feelings?

Of course, we should all strive to be kind to each other, but trying to oppress an opinion because it triggers an uncomfortable feeling in another is in no way being "kind".
In fact I would go so far as to say that it's a disservice to humanity in general.

But if I disagree with your opinion, why don't I get to say so? If you're my employee and your expressed opinion drives my customers away, why can't I fire you?

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Now you're just being obtuse. Whether due to the irrationality of those offended or not the consequences remain. Most of the time the consequences are only maybe a sidelong glance or future avoidance of the perpetrator of the offending speech but the more irrational the offended party the more dire the likely consequences.

In a Utopian world/society maybe people would just calmly think to themselves "I disagree with that" but this is not a Utopian world/society and that behavior is a rarity.

You're being obtuse. A consequence is the effect of a cause. The offended party is the only cause of the reprisal.

Abolitionism was quite rare too.

a reply to: dfnj2015

For each of those 3, there are thousands who have been just as effective in elevating enlightenment but were not made into martyrs by going too far.

But did they go too far? Or did those who oppressed them go to far?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

I must conclude that people want the same freedoms as those in North Korea.

There, you can say whatever you like, but you must also suffer the consequences.

If only Galileo understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been jailed by the Inquisition. If Socrates understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been executed. If Martin Luther King had understood the consequence of his speech, he wouldn't have been assassinated. Imagine if these people had never spoken for fear of violent and oppressive reprisal.

Uhhh...

Martin Luther King spoke fully knowing and understanding the potential consequences.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One man's religion is another man's cult. One man's freedom fighter is another man's insurgent. The same thing with subjective judgments about what is rational and what is not. It's like people who claim to have common sense. People who claim to have common sense often turn out to have the most irrational thoughts.

Many people used to think the earth is flat. Now thinking the earth is flat would be considered an irrational belief.

Are black people justified in being offended by certain speech? I think what is and what isn't is for each of us to decide. And each person's point of view needs to be respected on some level. Not everyone sees the world exactly as you do. To expect people to think exactly the way you do is not a good way to lucky on a Saturday night. You have to allow people to choose how they want to think if you want to be friends with them.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

I must conclude that people want the same freedoms as those in North Korea.

There, you can say whatever you like, but you must also suffer the consequences.

If only Galileo understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been jailed by the Inquisition. If Socrates understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been executed. If Martin Luther King had understood the consequence of his speech, he wouldn't have been assassinated. Imagine if these people had never spoken for fear of violent and oppressive reprisal.

Again (and again..ad infinitum) you expressed my sentiments fair better than I.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

I must conclude that people want the same freedoms as those in North Korea.

There, you can say whatever you like, but you must also suffer the consequences.

If only Galileo understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been jailed by the Inquisition. If Socrates understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been executed. If Martin Luther King had understood the consequence of his speech, he wouldn't have been assassinated. Imagine if these people had never spoken for fear of violent and oppressive reprisal.

Uhhh...

Martin Luther King spoke fully knowing and understanding the potential consequences.

Because he said "I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you."? It's beyond my conceit to pretend what Martin Luther King fully knew and understood. Either way, that's besides my main point.

a reply to: dfnj2015

One man's religion is another man's cult. One man's freedom fighter is another man's insurgent. The same thing with subjective judgments about what is rational and what is not. It's like people who claim to have common sense. People who claim to have common sense often turn out to have the most irrational thoughts.

Many people used to think the earth is flat. Now thinking the earth is flat would be considered an irrational belief.

Are black people justified in being offended by certain speech? I think what is and what isn't is for each of us to decide. And each person's point of view needs to be respected on some level. Not everyone sees the world exactly as you do. To expect people to think exactly the way you do is not a good way to lucky on a Saturday night. You have to allow people to choose how they want to think if you want to be friends with them.

I don't subscribe to relativism.

Many people are justified in being offended, but being offended is never a justification for violence.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

I must conclude that people want the same freedoms as those in North Korea.

There, you can say whatever you like, but you must also suffer the consequences.

If only Galileo understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been jailed by the Inquisition. If Socrates understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been executed. If Martin Luther King had understood the consequence of his speech, he wouldn't have been assassinated. Imagine if these people had never spoken for fear of violent and oppressive reprisal.

People don't want free speech.

Period.

They want 'civil speech" governed by the metric of "Being offended".


Somehow, people are now under the impression that being offended empowers them with the ability to infringe upon the rights of anyone with impunity.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What is foolish is pretending the speech leads to the consequences, and not the irrationality of the offended.

Now you're just being obtuse. Whether due to the irrationality of those offended or not the consequences remain. Most of the time the consequences are only maybe a sidelong glance or future avoidance of the perpetrator of the offending speech but the more irrational the offended party the more dire the likely consequences.

In a Utopian world/society maybe people would just calmly think to themselves "I disagree with that" but this is not a Utopian world/society and that behavior is a rarity.

No, a rational person in TODAY'S world (i.e now) should not just think, but say " I disagree with that", then state their case. You'd be amazed how far an actual non-violent discussion can go.

An irrational reaction to something that makes you uncomfortable or is in opposition to your own thoughts is not the fault of anyone but the offended. Period.

You're closely delving into the realm of victim shaming.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dfnj2015

For each of those 3, there are thousands who have been just as effective in elevating enlightenment but were not made into martyrs by going too far.

But did they go too far? Or did those who oppressed them go to far?

There's a religious sect in India called the Jains. The Jains believe in the absolute sacredness of ALL life. If a Jain accidentally swallows a bug, or steps on an ant and kills it, according to their religious discipline killing any form of life is the greatest possible sin.

What is too far is a subjective and personal decision. What is "too far" is not an absolute truth to be decided by a single person.

a reply to: dfnj2015

What is too far is a subjective and personal decision. What is "too far" is not an absolute truth to be decided by a single person.

That's why we have debate and disputation and discourse in free societies. This is why we allow every viewpoint a hearing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

I must conclude that people want the same freedoms as those in North Korea.

There, you can say whatever you like, but you must also suffer the consequences.

If only Galileo understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been jailed by the Inquisition. If Socrates understood the consequences of his expression, he wouldn't have been executed. If Martin Luther King had understood the consequence of his speech, he wouldn't have been assassinated. Imagine if these people had never spoken for fear of violent and oppressive reprisal.

Uhhh...

Martin Luther King spoke fully knowing and understanding the potential consequences.

Because he said "I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you."? It's beyond my conceit to pretend what Martin Luther King fully knew and understood. Either way, that's besides my main point.

He was nearly killed in an attempted assassination before!!!

You really, really need to learn some history before writing things like this. It's even mentioned in that article.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: dfnj2015

So we should stifle intellectual progress for the sake of someone's feelings?

Of course, we should all strive to be kind to each other, but trying to oppress an opinion because it triggers an uncomfortable feeling in another is in no way being "kind".
In fact I would go so far as to say that it's a disservice to humanity in general.

But if I disagree with your opinion, why don't I get to say so? If you're my employee and your expressed opinion drives my customers away, why can't I fire you?

Thats EXACTLY how it should be.
Be willing to express your disagreement without stifling my opinion.
If you believe I'm wrong, then state your case and change my mind.

As to the employer/employee situation, I truly don't think an employer really needs a reason to fire anyone. They have to right to run a company however thay see fit. Now, if the employer decides to state his reasoning, then it would be a little irrational if said employee decided that the employers reason was wrong, and carried out an act of violence, correct?

Wouldn't it be more prudent and beneficial to all involved if there was an actual discussion held rather than an irrational reaction?

This is interesting.

How would you apply it in regards to speech made by someone who is deemed an authority figure? If they speak, and people act on their words, do they carry any responsibility for the actions of those who follow them?

I know there are legal cases in which this is true, when a figure has claimed something cult-leader-ish, like they must follow his command to stay in a heated "sweat lodge" and force their own body's to suffer without adequate breaks, proper medical supervision or enough water. This is an actual case, and a man is in jail for leading people, with only the force of his will, to their deaths.

Ritual Gone Wrong - Jay Arther Ray Convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter

He only served 20 months for their deaths, and now is back on the "self-help circuit" with all the lessons he learned in prison... (buyer beware, imo).

There are at least six categories of "unprotected speech" in America...
Link - Unprotected Speech

1. Subversive Advocacy
2. Fighting Words
3. True Threats
4. Obscenity
5. Child Pornography
6. Commercial speech concerning illegal activity or that is false or misleading (i.e. fraudulent claims)

Something merely "offensive," however, is certainly protected speech.

The (dreaded by the right) ACLU has come to the defense of the 1st Amendment, even in the case of "offensive" speech. ACLU - Offensive Speech Protected by 1st Amendment

"Hate speech" is protected under the 1st Amendment as well, unless it falls under the category of "fighting words" or sometimes for inciting violence (this can be tricky legally.)

I'm curious to see what happens with the case of a Trump supporter claiming in a court of law that he was just following Trump's "directives" when he forcibly removed / assaulted a protestor.
White Nationalist claims Trump directed rally violence - Politico

I don't want to derail with a tangent there, but the nuances of "free speech" and what is and is not protected under the Constitution is an interesting subject.