5 ms·

Yes - we have them here in Canada and I’m a huge fan. Say whatever you want but you should be held responsible for you words.

ta17711771 6y ago
By the government!?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  By the people, via the government, as all government action is theoretically supposed to be.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Government only remains "by the people" if the people maintain the ability to exercise effective oversight over it. Speech is an effective means of exercising government oversight, which is why marginally increasing government power to suppress it is so contentious.
geodel 6y ago
As Idi Amin would have said "I guarantee freedom of speech but not freedom after speech"
- Darmody 6y ago
  I've heard a lot of young people in my country saying "you have freedom of speech, you can say what you want, but then you will face the consequences". Which makes me think they don't really know what freedom of speech is.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I don't follow. It sounds like they know exactly what it is. In some places, you can be prevented from saying something that others do not want you to say.
    - Darmody 6y ago
      If you are going to be punished in any way for what you say, you don't have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that there's nobody physically preventing you from talking.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        "consequence" doesn't necessarily imply a punishment or something at odds with your freedom. For example: If you bad mouth a friend, they might no longer be your friend. This isn't a punishment for your actions or a restriction of your freedom.
        Darmody 6y ago
        Yes, but we're not talking about that here. Not being allowed to play a game you bought is a kind of punishment. Will they also ban anyone who posts and Hindu swastika? Or the face of Che Guevara? Or anything related to ancient Rome? Or anything related to the Ottomans? And I could keep going and going and going.
        kube-system 6y ago
        > Not being allowed to play a game you bought is a kind of punishment. I agree that is wrong, but I disagree on the grounds of contract law, not speech rights. I do think MS is well within their rights to prevent you from playing their game for any reason they want (other than membership in a protected class), but they should refund your money.
      - filleduchaos 6y ago
        > If you are going to be punished in any way for what you say, you don't have freedom of speech. So the punishment should instead fall on...other people? Because that's exactly what the sort of "free speech" you are advocating it - a restriction on other people's own freedom of speech and association.
    - pathseeker 6y ago
- f1refly 6y ago
  You mean like you could totally say the Jews are great during the nazi time but had to live with the effects? Yeah right, sounds like free speech to me.
Darmody 6y ago
My family lived in a place where they were responsible for their words. I can tell you it was not fun. Everybody is a huge fan until those laws turn against them.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  This applies to most laws. People are hypocrites about everything, all the time. Laws that hurt people I don't like are good. Laws that hurt me are bad. Even if it's the same law. The point is, that's not a good argument against a law.
Yetanfou 6y ago
Ah, yes, Canada, also the country where any individual can mandate by force of law that others call them by their preferred pronoun. Since the law does not specify a list of allowed pronouns people can pick and choose at will. The country, also, where people like Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson gained notoriety for pointing out the actual (Shepherd) and potential (Peterson) abuse of these laws. Shepherd was 'a leftie' by her own accord but she's now being painted with a broad right-wing brush. Peterson called himself 'a liberal' but he quickly ended up in the same right-wing box. Of course the accusations are pointed towards the right since these laws emanate from the left side of the political spectrum. Those who violated the older version of a similar law - the one against blasphemy - would be more likely to be painted with a left-wing brush. Blasphemy laws were struck from most western law books, a change which was welcomed by most. Unfortunately they are now being replaced by similar laws which have the potential for an even larger societal impact. While the potential for abuse of this type of law is enormous and there already have been clear cases of actual abuse, the benefits are vague and unclear. Some things - like pronouns - should not be mandated by law in a nominally free society. Other things - like 'hate speech' - are already actionable under earlier laws (against discrimination, slander, etc). Saying that 'you should be held responsible for your words' can be interpreted in many ways. Since the new 'security law' in Hong Kong was put in place people who state that the place should be independent from China can be put in prison for life. If that is not enough it is worth considering that there are now calls to apply this law retroactively [1]. Before that law was put in place Hong Kong was a relatively free place. Now it is not. People can say whatever they want but they are held responsible for their words... [1] https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/29/delegate-calls-on-beijing-to-make-hong-kong-security-law-retroactive-fears-of-life-sentences-for-offenders/ https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/29/delegate-calls-on-beijing-...

ta17711771 6y ago

By the government!?

happytoexplain 6y ago
By the people, via the government, as all government action is theoretically supposed to be.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Government only remains "by the people" if the people maintain the ability to exercise effective oversight over it. Speech is an effective means of exercising government oversight, which is why marginally increasing government power to suppress it is so contentious.

geodel 6y ago

As Idi Amin would have said "I guarantee freedom of speech but not freedom after speech"

Darmody 6y ago
I've heard a lot of young people in my country saying "you have freedom of speech, you can say what you want, but then you will face the consequences". Which makes me think they don't really know what freedom of speech is.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I don't follow. It sounds like they know exactly what it is. In some places, you can be prevented from saying something that others do not want you to say.
  - Darmody 6y ago
    If you are going to be punished in any way for what you say, you don't have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that there's nobody physically preventing you from talking.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      "consequence" doesn't necessarily imply a punishment or something at odds with your freedom. For example: If you bad mouth a friend, they might no longer be your friend. This isn't a punishment for your actions or a restriction of your freedom.
      - Darmody 6y ago
        Yes, but we're not talking about that here. Not being allowed to play a game you bought is a kind of punishment. Will they also ban anyone who posts and Hindu swastika? Or the face of Che Guevara? Or anything related to ancient Rome? Or anything related to the Ottomans? And I could keep going and going and going.
        kube-system 6y ago
        > Not being allowed to play a game you bought is a kind of punishment. I agree that is wrong, but I disagree on the grounds of contract law, not speech rights. I do think MS is well within their rights to prevent you from playing their game for any reason they want (other than membership in a protected class), but they should refund your money.
    - filleduchaos 6y ago
      > If you are going to be punished in any way for what you say, you don't have freedom of speech. So the punishment should instead fall on...other people? Because that's exactly what the sort of "free speech" you are advocating it - a restriction on other people's own freedom of speech and association.
  - pathseeker 6y ago
f1refly 6y ago
You mean like you could totally say the Jews are great during the nazi time but had to live with the effects? Yeah right, sounds like free speech to me.

Darmody 6y ago

My family lived in a place where they were responsible for their words. I can tell you it was not fun. Everybody is a huge fan until those laws turn against them.

happytoexplain 6y ago
This applies to most laws. People are hypocrites about everything, all the time. Laws that hurt people I don't like are good. Laws that hurt me are bad. Even if it's the same law. The point is, that's not a good argument against a law.

Yetanfou 6y ago

Ah, yes, Canada, also the country where any individual can mandate by force of law that others call them by their preferred pronoun. Since the law does not specify a list of allowed pronouns people can pick and choose at will. The country, also, where people like Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson gained notoriety for pointing out the actual (Shepherd) and potential (Peterson) abuse of these laws. Shepherd was 'a leftie' by her own accord but she's now being painted with a broad right-wing brush. Peterson called himself 'a liberal' but he quickly ended up in the same right-wing box. Of course the accusations are pointed towards the right since these laws emanate from the left side of the political spectrum. Those who violated the older version of a similar law - the one against blasphemy - would be more likely to be painted with a left-wing brush. Blasphemy laws were struck from most western law books, a change which was welcomed by most. Unfortunately they are now being replaced by similar laws which have the potential for an even larger societal impact. While the potential for abuse of this type of law is enormous and there already have been clear cases of actual abuse, the benefits are vague and unclear. Some things - like pronouns - should not be mandated by law in a nominally free society. Other things - like 'hate speech' - are already actionable under earlier laws (against discrimination, slander, etc). Saying that 'you should be held responsible for your words' can be interpreted in many ways. Since the new 'security law' in Hong Kong was put in place people who state that the place should be independent from China can be put in prison for life. If that is not enough it is worth considering that there are now calls to apply this law retroactively [1]. Before that law was put in place Hong Kong was a relatively free place. Now it is not. People can say whatever they want but they are held responsible for their words... [1] https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/29/delegate-calls-on-beijing-to-make-hong-kong-security-law-retroactive-fears-of-life-sentences-for-offenders/ https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/29/delegate-calls-on-beijing-...