3 ms·

If you are saying that I should not be able to respond to someone else's speech, including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer,

If you are saying that I should not be able to respond to someone else's speech, including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer, then you are saying that I should not have free speech. If you are saying that I am advocating violence as a "consequence", then you are not discussing in good faith.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer Individuals and businesses already have restrictions on their freedom of association already, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 that require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes being prime examples. So, yes, you could say that I am just as much in favor of restricting the freedom of association for businesses and landlords to preserve equality for protected classes as I am interested in restricting the freedom of association for common telecoms carriers and social media businesses to preserve freedom of speech.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Now we're just arguing over who you believe deserves protection, and how far that protection should go.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves... > Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. > So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. All you've done in this conversation is attempt to put words in my mouth while at the same time saying I'm the one not speaking in good faith. I see no benefit to continuing this discussion. I've presented my reasoning, analogies, and historical precedents to the best of my humble abilities. Let the readers decide.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Because you were claiming that I was advocating for violence. The things you quoted? Those are the results of what you’re advocating for. If Google employees cannot decide not to associate with Damone after what he said, then they do not have freedom of speech. And you said that you were fine with that.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer Individuals and businesses already have restrictions on their freedom of association already, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 that require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes being prime examples. So, yes, you could say that I am just as much in favor of restricting the freedom of association for businesses and landlords to preserve equality for protected classes as I am interested in restricting the freedom of association for common telecoms carriers and social media businesses to preserve freedom of speech.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Now we're just arguing over who you believe deserves protection, and how far that protection should go.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves... > Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. > So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. All you've done in this conversation is attempt to put words in my mouth while at the same time saying I'm the one not speaking in good faith. I see no benefit to continuing this discussion. I've presented my reasoning, analogies, and historical precedents to the best of my humble abilities. Let the readers decide.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Because you were claiming that I was advocating for violence. The things you quoted? Those are the results of what you’re advocating for. If Google employees cannot decide not to associate with Damone after what he said, then they do not have freedom of speech. And you said that you were fine with that.