4 ms·
From a legal perspective, sure. From an ethical perspective? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point. Normalization of ridiculous rhetoric like calling LGBT
by Shared404 4y ago
From a legal perspective, sure.
From an ethical perspective? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point.
Normalization of ridiculous rhetoric like calling LGBT folks groomers is leading towards more and more hate crimes towards those people, as well as helping push for regulations against adults being able to opt into their own health care and make decisions about their bodies[0].
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-bill-ban-gender-confirming-care-26-oklahoma/story?id=96261603 https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-bill-ban-gender-confirming-car...
- wonderwonder 4y agoWho gets the power to decide what is ethical and to then ban what they deem unethical? Elected officials? Academics? Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump? I understand that saying negative things about people is not a nice thing to do and can cause emotional pain, I just think that the consequences of removing free speech are far worse and leads to a place where suddenly people you voted against have unlimited power.
- Shared404 4y ago> Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump? Society as a whole, via the sort of discourse that we're having now. Freedom of speech comes with other people having the right/responsibility to also have freedom of association and reject the sort of speech that is found to be intolerable. Note that in this specific instance, it is not a case of legally unavailable speech, but a case which is more likely to result in ostracism of those who use it - which is the system working as intended.
- wonderwonder 4y ago100% agree that objectionable speech should not be free of social ramifications. My only concern is with government restrictions on speech.