4 ms·

Suppose that rather than expressing anti-PC opinions, the person facing social ostracism made a statement like "I have a left breast, here it is on camera". Sup

Suppose that rather than expressing anti-PC opinions, the person facing social ostracism made a statement like "I have a left breast, here it is on camera". Suppose folks who disapprove of revealing breasts then wrote to her employer, publicly criticized her, and other such things. Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunter-moore-erin-brockovich-revenge-porn http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunte... Is this a sentiment you support? Strangely, I've never seen any of the people pointing out that the constitution only applies to the government (in the context of conversations like this) expressing similar sentiment on the topic of revenge porn, doxxing homosexuals, or similar things.

jkyle 11y ago
First, I didn't say the constitution only applies to the government. I stated the fact that the right to free speech does not protect someone from being removed from private property or dismissed from a private employer. You still have the right to free speech in whatever arena you wish to exercise it. I'm not sure what relevance your link has to my statement. Virtually all of the things described in that post are illegal. Death threats, harassment, stalking, breaking and entering. Are you suggesting that my telling someone to exit my property (for whatever reason) is the moral equivalent of threatening to kill them?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  No, I'm suggesting the actions of the revenge porn site are the moral equivalent of most PC activists: publicizing personal information about a target, criticizing that person to their employer, and encouraging social ostracism. I realize that some folks (both SJWs, revenge porn fans, 4chan doxxing a homo) take that too far, but I'm not discussing those particular actions. I'm sticking strictly to advocating for firing (and actually firing) women who post pictures of themselves, folks who advocate for or are outed as homosexual, etc. What I'm suggesting is that there is more to this discussion than merely interpretation of the law.

jkyle 11y ago

First, I didn't say the constitution only applies to the government. I stated the fact that the right to free speech does not protect someone from being removed from private property or dismissed from a private employer. You still have the right to free speech in whatever arena you wish to exercise it. I'm not sure what relevance your link has to my statement. Virtually all of the things described in that post are illegal. Death threats, harassment, stalking, breaking and entering. Are you suggesting that my telling someone to exit my property (for whatever reason) is the moral equivalent of threatening to kill them?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
No, I'm suggesting the actions of the revenge porn site are the moral equivalent of most PC activists: publicizing personal information about a target, criticizing that person to their employer, and encouraging social ostracism. I realize that some folks (both SJWs, revenge porn fans, 4chan doxxing a homo) take that too far, but I'm not discussing those particular actions. I'm sticking strictly to advocating for firing (and actually firing) women who post pictures of themselves, folks who advocate for or are outed as homosexual, etc. What I'm suggesting is that there is more to this discussion than merely interpretation of the law.