[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I agree on principle that legal consequences should only be for extreme cases.

What I find hilarious is that certain people now believe that they should have speech free from social consequences as well. This has never existed. You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want a world where free speech is upheld without the law interfering, you have to accept that groups of individuals also have the freedom to act on what's been said, i.e. boycotting, refusal of entry, social exclusion.

In "primitive times" a wee bit too much free speech would just have got you clubbed across the head .

Where on earth did the entitled idea that people should be able to run their mouth with ZERO consequences come from?

tl;dr "Free speech without government control", yes 100%.

But "Talk sh** get hit" -- that's nature, bro. If you keep saying things people don't like, it's going to bite you, so you weigh up how much flak you're willing to take and act accordingly. Surely.

Like that great SOuthpark cartoon

Just use violence and threats and you can shut people up no problem and back that up by framing any criticism as a phobia and get useful idiots to patrol that for you as it makes them feel virtuous

that is working a charm

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Like that great SOuthpark cartoon

Just use violence and threats and you can shut people up no problem and back that up by framing any criticism as a phobia and get useful idiots to patrol that for you as it makes them feel virtuous

that is working a charm

The only alternative is to have government-protected free speech "for some" as opposed to government denial of free speech "for some" and at the end of the day, what's the difference?

The line obviously should be physical retaliation, and the threat of physical retaliation, but it seems that there are an awful lot of people who don't like vocal retaliation or non-violent activism either and get very huffy/teary about not being able to "say what they want" without anyone getting mad at them and saying nasty mean things . Which is so gosh darned childish it's genuinely sad, and endlessly ironic .

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The only alternative is to have government-protected free speech "for some" as opposed to government denial of free speech "for some" and at the end of the day, what's the difference?

The line obviously should be physical retaliation, and the threat of physical retaliation, but it seems that there are an awful lot of people who don't like vocal retaliation or non-violent activism either and get very huffy/teary about not being able to "say what they want" without anyone getting mad at them and saying nasty mean things . Which is so gosh darned childish it's genuinely sad, and endlessly ironic .

I do agree with you tbh.

Especially with some people not being able to accept that people have the right to not like the controversial statement that's been made by an individual, it's controversial for a reason, and while the individual has the right to say their controversial opinion, the other person also has the right to disagree with it.