Should we accept all speech, no matter what is said? [reuters.com]
Freedom of speech is important. But it can run smack up against individuals' right to live their lives free of overt threats of physical violence. Statements that can be understood by most reasonable people to constitute threats of physical harm, including intimidation tactics, should not necessarily be protected as a free speech right. There will always be a challenge of interpretation in these matters, but the principle still counts.
@Closeted No, I did not say that threats are the ONLY thing that should off limits. I was just highlighting that particular category as the most obvious. When it comes to dehumanizing speech, there are the obvious over the line offenses, ...the "N" word, for example, that have no place. But there are also many more gray areas. Dehumanizing speech, arguably, is best countered with direct responses, rather than trying to ban it. Threats, however, shut down meaningful rebuke by force of sheer fear. Hard to speak out when you have to worry you'll be killed for your effort.
The pResident needs to get a brain... and a heart.
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).[1]
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Isn't this like the definition of religion? I don't need to make sense you just have to have faith.
I really like this statement, it is a bit wordy but it's a complex argument that can't be discussed simply or easily.
It's not what you say, it's the consequences of that speech..If Nazis, Bigots or Racist want to hold speech rallies, fine. They had better be ready for the consequences of that speech.
@Closeted. The response to the last "Free Speech" rally here in Boston was 2k counter protesters surrounding them and shouting them down..we drown out their message..successfully.That's the consequences that needs to happen.
Posted by KilltheskyfairyIt’s the only way…
Posted by KilltheskyfairyIt’s the only way…
Posted by KilltheskyfairyIt’s the only way…
Posted by HippieChick58Donnie thinks he had every right to interfere with the 2020 election
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyCorporate greed!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyCorporate greed!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyCorporate greed!