4 ms·

So what's your proposal for how to restrict the speech of others so they're unable to call for people to be fired? I'd be even more interested in your proposal

by zorpner 11y ago

So what's your proposal for how to restrict the speech of others so they're unable to call for people to be fired? I'd be even more interested in your proposals to require everyone to be admitted to privately owned stores and private functions. These calls for consequence-free speech are fundamentally hypocritical, because they require the speech of others to be suppressed so that the offending party doesn't suffer (where "suffer" has a very broad definition). Freedom of speech is freedom to criticize. You, of course, are free to criticize in return. But don't pretend that your calls for people's speech to be suppressed are some kind of noble act.

tunesmith 11y ago
You are arguing against a perspective that wasn't voiced here. Unless you'd like to expand on how someone is saying that criticism should be suppressed or restricted in some sense.
hsod 11y ago
Person A: says something offensive Person B: Dear Person A's Employer: Person A says offensive things and you should fire him. Person C: Hey Person B, you shouldn't write letters like that. who is attempting to restrict speech in this situation?
- ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
  Either person B or C, depending on whether or not they are enforcing laws for the government. Possibly person A depending on what was said I suppose (e.g. if it's new legislation).
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    "Either person B or C, depending on whether or not they are enforcing laws for the government." If there's no problem with B's behavior, the takeaway is that no one can say anything that anyone would take offense to, because they'd be putting their employment at risk. No thanks. There are ways besides government force to chill free speech.
defen 11y ago
> So what's your proposal for how to restrict the speech of others so they're unable to call for people to be fired? I'd be even more interested in your proposals to require everyone to be admitted to privately owned stores and private functions. Why do you assume I'm proposing restricting people's speech? I'm pointing out a thing some people are doing which I think is bad, and suggesting that they should think about the kind of world they're creating when they do that. Nowhere did I suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

by zorpner 11y ago

tunesmith 11y ago

You are arguing against a perspective that wasn't voiced here. Unless you'd like to expand on how someone is saying that criticism should be suppressed or restricted in some sense.

hsod 11y ago

Person A: says something offensive Person B: Dear Person A's Employer: Person A says offensive things and you should fire him. Person C: Hey Person B, you shouldn't write letters like that. who is attempting to restrict speech in this situation?

ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
Either person B or C, depending on whether or not they are enforcing laws for the government. Possibly person A depending on what was said I suppose (e.g. if it's new legislation).
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  "Either person B or C, depending on whether or not they are enforcing laws for the government." If there's no problem with B's behavior, the takeaway is that no one can say anything that anyone would take offense to, because they'd be putting their employment at risk. No thanks. There are ways besides government force to chill free speech.

defen 11y ago

> So what's your proposal for how to restrict the speech of others so they're unable to call for people to be fired? I'd be even more interested in your proposals to require everyone to be admitted to privately owned stores and private functions. Why do you assume I'm proposing restricting people's speech? I'm pointing out a thing some people are doing which I think is bad, and suggesting that they should think about the kind of world they're creating when they do that. Nowhere did I suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.