[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

I was thinking about this last night after i saw a really disgusting tweet that lucas showed me and there was people in the replies posting screenshots of the crime report they’d submitted online even though no crime had been committed (it was absolutely vile though)

Like idk i just think that there are some things you just shouldn’t joke about and i found it absolutely repulsive but then also people seeing it as an actual CRIME just feels a bit weird

[MB.]

Not without accountability/consequence, no

[Liam-]

Free speech shouldn’t mean free from consequence, I don’t think people should be reported to the police for making jokes, but people shouldn’t be surprised if their behaviour or language has personal consequences for them

[user104658]

Depends really. Free from legal consequences, yes, UNLESS it's slander/defamation. I think it's unavoidable that there will be social consequences for (in short) being an arsehole. However I also think respectful academic discussion of controversial topics should be protected.

[Nicky91]

everyone should have right of free speech

otherwise you live in north korea or russia like countries also what my dad tells me nearly 20 times now

[James]

If free speech was completely unconditional you wouldn't be able to do anything about things like bullying and defamation. Also laws against inciting violence is another limitation on free speech that most people would agree with.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by James

If free speech was completely unconditional you wouldn't be able to do anything about things like bullying and defamation. Also laws against inciting violence is another limitation on free speech that most people would agree with.

neither of these can be talked right with free speech

bullying, defamation are very wrong, violence is wrong

[Oliver_W]

I'd much rather someone be able to walk up to me and call me a "fucking fag" than for that to be illegal. I wouldn't go crying to the police or their employer because I'm over the age of seven.

But I agree that there should be consequences - no employer should be forced to keep employing someone who uses words like that.

I don't really agree with universities or other venues cancelling speaking gigs, as they're usually arranged by groups within the university rather than the university itself. If a student doesn't want to hear the likes of Amber Rudd or Katie Hopkins speak, they can choose to not go the hall at that time. At this point I'd certainly have no interest in what they have to say, but until they call for violence let them speak.

[Gusto Brunt]

No, not free speech for all. Especially not peados.

[Tom4784]

Free speech can never be unconditional, there always has to be accountability. You can't threaten people, defame or slander them, tell lies that could ruin or cost lives etc and call it free speech.

People are allowed their opinions but unconditional freedom of speech is simply more than that.

[Ammi]

...if we want ‘society/law and order and justice systems’ etc ...?...then there can’t ever be ‘unconditional’ because unconditional would remove all of those things and bring an entirely different world that I doubt that any of us would want as an existence...the laws and rules of protection from the ‘freedom of others’ must also apply .../...as others have said, basically...and as James has said, from childhood, in a school for instance...how could any society ever be structured with...’...of course, you can say whatever you like, target as much as you want to etc..and that person will just have to ‘cry it out’ or whatever, just deal with it..’...’maybe they’ll take their own lives even if it all gets too much, that’s always a ‘freedom’ for them to do...but you carry on...’....etc...

[Josy]

Free speech doesnt meant freedom from consequences, some people dont seem to understand that.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Josy

Free speech doesnt meant freedom from consequences, some people dont seem to understand that.

Sometimes the consequences are pretty stupid and needless though; see JK Rowling.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Sometimes the consequences are pretty stupid and needless though; see JK Rowling.

This is part of the problem these days; throughout 99.9% of human history, the social consequences for saying something people didn't like were self-limiting and relatively minor. In the digital age though, the entire world has a feedback platform to tell someone what they think, so there can be a thousand-person pile on that seems drastic even when it's only a small percentage of people overall. We're not really equipped to operate at that sort of scale.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is part of the problem these days; throughout 99.9% of human history, the social consequences for saying something people didn't like were self-limiting and relatively minor. In the digital age though, the entire world has a feedback platform to tell someone what they think, so there can be a thousand-person pile on that seems drastic even when it's only a small percentage of people overall. We're not really equipped to operate at that sort of scale.

Tru dat. There was nothing even particularly wrong with what JK said, but the amount of histrionics overshadowed what she actually said, so suddenly she was a "transphobe" with no-one being able to say why they think that.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Ammi]

..it’s a strange thing because social media and it’s influence and likes and dislikes and cancelling etc...is what we’ve made it...(...not we as in anyone of us personally...)...but it wouldn’t be what it is if it wasn’t made to ‘fit’ over time...but then it’s become everything we don’t want and never wanted and are completely opposed to...how odd really...it just goes to show that ‘unconditional’ can’t exist ...because ‘control’ can’t exist with these type things...

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is part of the problem these days; throughout 99.9% of human history, the social consequences for saying something people didn't like were self-limiting and relatively minor. In the digital age though, the entire world has a feedback platform to tell someone what they think, so there can be a thousand-person pile on that seems drastic even when it's only a small percentage of people overall. We're not really equipped to operate at that sort of scale.

Disagreeing with kings and religion has historically proved far graver than being cancelled on twitter.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Disagreeing with kings and religion has historically proved far graver than being cancelled on twitter.

One might say that not toeing the line on certain issues is the modern equivalent of disagreeing with religion.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Disagreeing with kings and religion has historically proved far graver than being cancelled on twitter.

Power hierarchies are a different thing to community homogeny, though. Organised religion is another cluster**** just like social media - I don't think we're evolved to be equipped for that either. It's just that it's been around for longer. Still not long at all in terms of full human history - certainly not the form of religion that had leaders.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Josy

Free speech doesnt meant freedom from consequences, some people dont seem to understand that.

.

[Denver]

I think some people believe free speech is a licence to make hateful, derogatory and vile remarks when its not

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Denver

I think some people believe free speech is a licence to make hateful, derogatory and vile remarks when its not

As long as people don't mind the consequences, why shouldn't they be able to say hateful or vile things? It's only words.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

As long as people don't mind the consequences, why shouldn't they be able to say hateful or vile things? It's only words.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

That's the whole point. They want the speech without the consequences.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

That's the whole point. They want the speech without the consequences.

Depends on the consequences, and if they're proportionate. The actor from the Flash and James Gunn both lost work for tweets from like 10 years ago, JK faces a witch hunt for basically no reason.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

As long as people don't mind the consequences, why shouldn't they be able to say hateful or vile things? It's only words.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Tell that to the families of thousands of kids who committed suicide because they were bullied on social media and told to kill themselves