4 ms·

Free speech by necessity requires tolerance. If there are extreme consequences to what you say you’re obviously not free to speak what you believe. Losing your

by s__s 5y ago

Free speech by necessity requires tolerance. If there are extreme consequences to what you say you’re obviously not free to speak what you believe. Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.

crooked-v 5y ago
Loss of livelihood is an entirely acceptable response to some ideas or opinions. For example: a doctor who holds the opinion that microorganisms don't actually exist and that diseases are caused by humours should be removed from their position as a doctor.
SantalBlush 5y ago
>being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like. This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  Because many people in this discussion, on the internet and in our country do see it as an acceptable response.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    >many people in this discussion No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
    - vxNsr 5y ago
      I’m not sure how you twisted it: the OP said “harassment isn’t acceptable.” you said “why is that in the discussion?” I said “bec some ppl here think it is.” you respond by quoting free speech case law. We’re not arguing about the merits of how the SCOTUS rules on the 1st amendment. It’s a discussion of the appropriate response to encountering someone you disagree with. You calling my employer now and telling them they should fire me is not an appropriate response no matter whether or not it’s protected by the first amd.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        >you respond by quoting free speech case law. No, I didn't. You are making this up to win an argument. There is no reference to case law or SCOTUS whatsoever in my comment. What a bizarre fabrication. I see there is clearly no point in continuing this if you're going to argue in such bad faith. Moreover, a response you deem "inappropriate" is subjective. Either your free speech is being denied or it isn't. My boss can fire me for saying a lot of things they don't like; that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech. This is the way it has always been.
        vxNsr 5y ago
        Again we’re not having a legal argument before a judge here. You keep saying things about what your boss or someone else can or can’t do. That’s specifically not the discussion: you quoted the part of the OPs comment that called out the inappropriate behavior many like to engage in and agreed that it was wrong, but questioned its relevance to our discussion, it’s relevant bec many ppl don’t see it as inappropriate. Whether or not it’s legal is an entirely different discussion.
        SantalBlush 5y ago
        No, what I am saying is that you do not get to personally dictate what behavior qualifies as harassment or bullying and then conclude that you are being deprived of your free speech. That is what you are trying to do here, and it is nonsense. Just because you feel outnumbered does not mean you are being harassed or bullied. If I swear at a customer and they complain to my boss, that does not mean I'm being harassed or bullied. How utterly childish.

by s__s 5y ago

crooked-v 5y ago

Loss of livelihood is an entirely acceptable response to some ideas or opinions. For example: a doctor who holds the opinion that microorganisms don't actually exist and that diseases are caused by humours should be removed from their position as a doctor.

SantalBlush 5y ago

>being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like. This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.

vxNsr 5y ago
Because many people in this discussion, on the internet and in our country do see it as an acceptable response.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  >many people in this discussion No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
  - vxNsr 5y ago
    I’m not sure how you twisted it: the OP said “harassment isn’t acceptable.” you said “why is that in the discussion?” I said “bec some ppl here think it is.” you respond by quoting free speech case law. We’re not arguing about the merits of how the SCOTUS rules on the 1st amendment. It’s a discussion of the appropriate response to encountering someone you disagree with. You calling my employer now and telling them they should fire me is not an appropriate response no matter whether or not it’s protected by the first amd.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      >you respond by quoting free speech case law. No, I didn't. You are making this up to win an argument. There is no reference to case law or SCOTUS whatsoever in my comment. What a bizarre fabrication. I see there is clearly no point in continuing this if you're going to argue in such bad faith. Moreover, a response you deem "inappropriate" is subjective. Either your free speech is being denied or it isn't. My boss can fire me for saying a lot of things they don't like; that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech. This is the way it has always been.
      - vxNsr 5y ago
        Again we’re not having a legal argument before a judge here. You keep saying things about what your boss or someone else can or can’t do. That’s specifically not the discussion: you quoted the part of the OPs comment that called out the inappropriate behavior many like to engage in and agreed that it was wrong, but questioned its relevance to our discussion, it’s relevant bec many ppl don’t see it as inappropriate. Whether or not it’s legal is an entirely different discussion.
        SantalBlush 5y ago
        No, what I am saying is that you do not get to personally dictate what behavior qualifies as harassment or bullying and then conclude that you are being deprived of your free speech. That is what you are trying to do here, and it is nonsense. Just because you feel outnumbered does not mean you are being harassed or bullied. If I swear at a customer and they complain to my boss, that does not mean I'm being harassed or bullied. How utterly childish.