Do you think free speech is evil?

[Alolan_Apples]

I guess I'm wondering what your definition of political correctness is? I would personally consider myself in favour of political correctness most of the time, but all that means is that I think that it's the morally responsible thing to do to avoid language that dehumanizes marginalized groups. But I don't always think people should be fired over "un-PC language", it depends on the application. If someone who is a relatively anonymous member of a company says something controversial on the internet, that probably doesn't warrant being fired, but I do think that if someone is a very public figure and represents their company, it should be taken more seriously. An example is that, I recently heard a story about a police officer who stated that he thinks gay people don't deserve to live, in a public setting. I feel like a police officer stating that he doesn't think certain members of the community should even be alive will make civilians feel unsafe, knowing that there is an armed homophobe in a position of power, and the whole point of police officers, whether or not they do a good job of it, is to try to make the community safer. Or in the case of someone like Roseanne Barr, who got kicked off of a show she was in over some racist Tweets, her entire career was based around being liked. Being a celebrity is about being liked. If you do something that makes you unlikable, that will inevitably impact your career, if the whole point of your career is that people like you. It's important to remember that, when you work with or for a company as a public figure, you represent that company, and are associated with that company, and if you do something that makes you look bad, it makes the company look bad, so I believe companies should be allowed to fire people that do and say things that make them look bad. I also think it's important to note that political correctness is not the only thing responsible for people losing jobs. Bigotry makes people lose jobs too, and a society that is overly-lenient on letting bigots get a free pass to say whatever they want with 0 social repercussions results in people losing jobs, too. Bigoted employers turning down employees based on their skin colour, or places where people are legally allowed to fire employees for being gay. Political correctness is not the only thing that gets people fired over personal things unrelated to their employment, bigotry does that too, and while it may not always be perfect, political correctness mostly exists because people want to fight against bigotry being considered okay and normal.

Personally, when I say I'm pro-political correctness, I don't mean that I think everyone should be fired if they say something messed up- I really do believe that the only times when you should be fired for saying "un-PC things" is when either 1. Your job is being a public figure and intrinsically linked to people liking and trusting you or 2. You are making the people in your workplace or community feel unsafe. But what I do believe is that we should live in a culture where people actually have conversations about words that hurt people and that saying "hey, this word hurts people" or "hey, this thing that happens a lot in society might hurt people" shouldn't just be met with "oh my gosh, shut up, cringy SJW!!", it should actually be given the respect of a discussion. Most of my "pro-political correctness" is not related to the law, it's related to people evolving how we talk to each other, to not think words have 0 meaning and that you can say whatever you want without it having any weight. There are even some cases where people have said extremely "un-PC" things but I still stand with them because I think the punishment they received was too harsh, like for example, Tyler, The Creator, is a rapper who said a lot of really, REALLY messed up stuff on his earlier albums, stuff that I find kind of sickening- but I don't think he should be banned from entering Australia over rap lyrics.

Basically, I guess I agree with you that political correctness isn't good when it gets to the point that non-violent language is met with a violent response, or when people have their rights stripped away over one offhand comment or something, but I also believe that we shouldn't pretend that words can't hurt people and should be allowed to have nuanced conversations about that without being put down as "SJWs", and I also believe public figures have the responsibility of maintaining their public image if they want to keep their status as a public figure. I don't necessarily believe people should make someone get arrested over an off-colour comment or whatever, but the right to be angry in response to ignorant remarks shouldn't be made to look like a crime either.

As a side note, I don't know every individual instance you are bringing up, but I looked up the Todd Snipes thing, and it appears he was a Beach officer, a type of law enforcement. In my opinion, law enforcement is absolutely one of those jobs where your public image is important. If your job is to make the community feel safer, then your image should reflect that. Making a disgusting comment about an 17-year-old black kid getting shot is, in my opinion, something that could make members of the community feel unsafe. If law enforcement or another authority figure makes their community feel unsafe, that should be grounds for firing IMO, even if it is "just their opinion" or "just their free speech", ESPECIALLY (but not limited to) if they make it public- social media is public. Saying something on social media is not equivalent to saying something privately, behind closed doors. "Thug" may technically be defined in a dictionary as a violent person, but in society at large, it is getting increasingly more racially coded. Even if the word "thug" didn't have racist connotations, in general, making a joke about a minor getting shot is something that I don't think most people feel comfortable hearing from someone whose job is related to public safety.

Wanna know what the irony is? The Todd Snipes thing is an old issue that was relatively a minor event, and it irrelevant to today?s events (especially since the Trayvon Martin thing is no longer relevant). Yet I cited it as an example of how bad political correctness is and why it shouldn?t be used to fire people. Now I didn?t defend Paula Deen because she used a racial slur. However, if that?s been done in the past and is not related to Food Network?s business, then they are wrong about firing her.

Today?s political correctness is more of a double standard rather than something that genuinely minimizes offensiveness. It?s also being used to silence opponents from even sharing their opinions (with Pinterest being the biggest bully since they harassed Project Veritas for exposing their corrupt and tyrannical business practices on Twitter).

Back to what I said before, just because the constitution grants free speech doesn?t mean you are free to say that everywhere without consequences, but just because you?re not guaranteed free speech everywhere doesn?t mean organizations and businesses can abuse that either. If you think it?s okay for businesses to refuse service to Trump supporters for supporting Trump, would you be okay for other businesses to refuse service to Obama supporters for supporting Obama? If you think Facebook is allowed to ban conservative posts and pages, do you think some other social network is allowed to ban liberal posts and pages? If you think it?s right to boycott Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby for their political beliefs, do you think others should be allowed to boycott Target and Nike for their political beliefs? If you want to remain fair, then you should think both sides should be allowed to do it or nobody should do it at all. Otherwise, you?re supporting double standards, no matter what your reasoning is.

 

[demoness]

educated people don't support people that punch down. it's that simple. double standard or not, all positions and beliefs do not have equal value. and i think you're smart enough to know the difference between those two hypothetical boycotts. don't try to make this a debate as if there are two sides and both are looking out for the little guy. it's disingenuous at best. on a piece of paper, sure, a thought exercise of if you can do this, they can do this" makes for a cute example of hypocrisy.

but when you live in a republic, with other people, it is an unspoken pact that you forfeit rights to expand the masses' unalienable ones, and once reality comes into play, the comparison you're making would seem irrational. because only one of these positions benefits the most people

 

[LadyDestani]

Back to what I said before, just because the constitution grants free speech doesn?t mean you are free to say that everywhere without consequences, but just because you?re not guaranteed free speech everywhere doesn?t mean organizations and businesses can abuse that either. If you think it?s okay for businesses to refuse service to Trump supporters for supporting Trump, would you be okay for other businesses to refuse service to Obama supporters for supporting Obama? If you think Facebook is allowed to ban conservative posts and pages, do you think some other social network is allowed to ban liberal posts and pages? If you think it?s right to boycott Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby for their political beliefs, do you think others should be allowed to boycott Target and Nike for their political beliefs? If you want to remain fair, then you should think both sides should be allowed to do it or nobody should do it at all. Otherwise, you?re supporting double standards, no matter what your reasoning is.

I do not agree that businesses should refuse service to anyone who is not causing a disturbance and is minding their own business, following the rules of the establishment. I know it is their right to refuse service, but I think it is wrong to do so when the customer has not done anything unseemly. That goes for press secretaries getting kicked out of restaurants and gay couples being turned away from bakeries. However, if you ask me, the latter falls into the territory of discrimination which is inherently worse.

Regarding social media, I think the rules should be clearly posted regarding what is not allowed and posts/pages that break those rules can be rightfully banned. Since I don't follow social media, I don't know the specifics of the scenario you're referencing, but I personally don't think any respectful, non-offensive pages that follow the rules should be banned. But being offensive is subjective, so there will always be gray area and it's the company's right to apply their judgment as they see fit.

As far as boycotting companies, that is the right of each consumer and they are free to base their decision on whatever criteria they want. It is up to each individual how they choose to spend their money and if they choose not spend their money at a certain establishment because that business does not espouse their own beliefs, or worse, because that company actively works to deny them their own rights, then that is the consumer's right.

 

[Reginald Fairfield]

educated people don't support people that punch down. it's that simple. double standard or not, all positions and beliefs do not have equal value. and i think you're smart enough to know the difference between those two hypothetical boycotts. don't try to make this a debate as if there are two sides and both are looking out for the little guy. it's disingenuous at best. on a piece of paper, sure, a thought exercise of if you can do this, they can do this" makes for a cute example of hypocrisy.

but when you live in a republic, with other people, it is an unspoken pact that you forfeit rights to expand the masses' unalienable ones, and once reality comes into play, the comparison you're making would seem irrational. because only one of these positions benefits the most people

Regarding your first few sentences, if we were in a properly moderated debate setting, you might lose a point for an ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

educated people don't support people that punch down. it's that simple. double standard or not, all positions and beliefs do not have equal value. and i think you're smart enough to know the difference between those two hypothetical boycotts. don't try to make this a debate as if there are two sides and both are looking out for the little guy. it's disingenuous at best. on a piece of paper, sure, a thought exercise of if you can do this, they can do this" makes for a cute example of hypocrisy.

but when you live in a republic, with other people, it is an unspoken pact that you forfeit rights to expand the masses' unalienable ones, and once reality comes into play, the comparison you're making would seem irrational. because only one of these positions benefits the most people

In those three questions about hypothetical situations, I see no difference in either situation. I?m smart enough to know what both actions are like, and I?m not oblivious to violence and bigotry from the right wing. Yet I also see violence and bigotry from the left wing, and they are just as bad. Other things to point out:

1. I stand for moral values and civility. I cannot condone bigotry nor would I side with bigots, but I cannot support those ?equality issues? because of moral reasons and the fact that expanding ones? rights can take away others? rights (which is good if you?re taking one?s right to be evil, but bad if you?re trying to oppress someone or force people to violate their religious beliefs).

2. To question someone?s age, intelligence, or education in a debate to diminish their arguments is disrespectful and rude. Even calling someone?s use of terms ?cute? is belittling others.

Now I?m going to answer my own questions, but I can only do it to one because if I explain in full detail, it would also show what I would say for the other scenarios. In that first question, if you think it?s morally wrong to discriminate against people that support Obama, you should also be against discrimination against people that support Trump. Both presidents are crazy people, and both of them have a handful of supporters that are arrogant and intolerant. If you don?t want Trump supporters to buy from your bakery because he blocked illegal immigration by threatening tariffs on Mexican exports, it makes you no different to a fireworks shop owner that refuses to sell their products to Obama supporters because of Obama?s DACA and DAPA policies. And if you do see a difference, you should also see how bad what they?re fighting against really is. If you?re not a citizen, you shouldn?t even live here in the United States, nor should you be allowed to have access to our government-funded programs that uses taxpayer dollars from American citizens. That?s morally wrong. And if you do think it?s wrong to refuse service to Obama supporters, that?s exactly what you?re doing if you?re refusing service to Trump supporters.

 

[demoness]

i guess that's why i'm an english teacher and not a politician

not to mention, if it was an academic debate you wanted, it's probably a good idea to make that known being those kinds of discussions are outliers in forums of this nature. and i am not at all concerned with the appearance of neutrality on issues that are blatantly weighted differently or, put bluntly, etiquette over substance

for the record though, none of that was directed directly to you, lol. by educated i was referring to the people with the power and influence to shift social attitudes or profit from them. as for using cute to describe the structure of the argument you are using (your argument is a stock argument used by a lot of people, therefore it is again, not intended to be a judgment of your character, which i have no interest in whatsoever) i stand by calling it cute. a different word could have been more efficient, though. what i was getting at was "this argument is cookie cutter and i have to question the genuineness of your position" because it seemed to me, these are the views of a devil's advocate, not someone who truly wants to consider why their assertion is not a favored viewpoint. your OP was loaded to begin with, because you started with the implication that people must have a problem with free speech if they tolerate this disagreement that is not as black and white as some would like to believe.

now, i could make sense of this if your intention was to understand why people accept this seemingly double standard, and that was the question you asked. but you prefaced yourself with a conditional, implying you actually do understand, you just want someone to say something to allow you to challenge their stance on political correctness through asking about free speech, which turns out is a far different concept in governance than it is philosophically, and that it even has precedence for being limited or altered due to the interests of minorities and equality to start with... so to frame this thread the way you have, intentionally or not, i hope you can understand why that might seem like you are really trying to make a point instead of seeking a discussion. as others have also questioned your purpose and intensity, i don't think this sentiment is something i'm feigning curiosity about to make you seem foolish because i am trying to personally attack you

as i said before, you do you, and i ask again, do you honestly not see why intent, motive, and cause make this double standard necessary. would you feel better and like i'm treating you respectfully if i said i agree with the principle you stand for, but that it is detached from how the world actually operates. what i mean is, morals are noble and all, but what is your ideal way to handle this. how do you approach offensive or insensitive language without making ethical judgments? is the right to say something something to worship regardless of its potential to be weaponized, or are there lines people should be discouraged from crossing? and how do you suggest we protect minorities from verbal abuse? how else do we deprogram bigotry without active consequences to displaying it?
the current administration and those before it have refused to officially discourage such behavior and neutered past legislation to prevent discrimination for any reason.

if the government won't affect mandates to define what is free speech then what do you do? how would you motivate people in power to move without squeezing their moneybags? that is the stuff i'm talking about absent from your argument that makes it feel hollow and automated to me

 

[LambdaDelta]

your OP was loaded to begin with, because you started with the implication that people must have a problem with free speech if they tolerate this disagreement that is not as black and white as some would like to believe.

yeah, this was one thing that stood out to me quite a bunch

I'm not sure if it's just ignorance or what, but the way the op is framed feels very much like a bad faith argument

 

[Rusolando-Kun]

Free speech is good, but I think it's very dangerous and it needs some control.

For example, today I've been thinking whether or not I should pre-order the game called "Catherine: Full Body". It comes out in English on September 3rd and apparently, the localization company is going to change a few "transphobic" lines in the game which is pretty crazy... Some people contacted Atlus USA (the company that will publish and localize this game) and demanded to remove "transphobic" comments out of the game. And the "transphobic" content is absolutely exaggereted: one of the characters meets a trans character, and mentions their gender in a dialogue, the comment is basically character A saying that character B doesn't sound convincing because they're trans. Then there were a few similar dialogues. The Internet went crazy and accused the game of being transpobic because it... shows a character who doesn't feel comfortable with a trans-person - a situation that can easily happen. So, the character interaction needs to become broken and unnatural, because games are "supposed to have unrealistic missions"?
I honestly don't know what kind of world the people who called this game transphobic live in... they clearly don't know a single thing about the problems people face on daily basis outside of USA and just want to find "phobias" and windmills to fight. Or they themselves realize that their identity is a joke and want to be angry at games? Ah...

Now, my view on transgender is that it's mostly caused by psychological traumas. I've had similar experiences and I know well enough how badly people treat those who don't fit the stereotypes of a typical male or female, but I feel like changing your gender is a very flawed idea. You don't need to change your gender, spend money on operations, risk your health and then suffer because other people won't call you whatever gender you want to be called... all you need is to accept that you're born one gender and it cannot be changed - biology is not something you can play with: today I'm female, tomorrow I'm male - that's not how it works. But it doesn't mean that you can't be yourself - wear feminine / masculine clothes, date whichever gender you prefer or like whatever you like. Not even mentioning that there's far more to life than just having genitals of one gender or being able to wear skirts.

Now, that's my view. But they're not transphobic since I am not saying that all trans-people need to be penalized or whatever; I just believe they are wrong and just cause more problems for themselves. And that's exactly what we have here with that game - a character (who may or may not be wrong) is expressing how they feel uncomfortable with a trans-character. You can't deny that this could happen in real life. And it's not like that character represents the idea the game shows and it's not like they're supposed to (!!!) represent or have any ideas. Art is art and it cannot be controlled unless that art is an open call for violence against one or another group of people.

Overall, I feel like free speech is a good thing, but a lot of people in the West are loosing the meaning of free speech - you can express yourself, but you cannot make someone else express themsleves in a way that doesn't offend you. Unless one side wants to do harm to another - it's not "phobia" or something worth of criticising.
We're definitely going into some very unfortunate times for art and I just hope these people will start waking up and will see how branding things they don't like or things that make them (I'll use this popular word) "insecure" - that's the exact opposite of free speech. You're not disliking something, you're hating and branding something as sick or wrong because it doesn't express your views or doesn't deal with problems in the way you want them to.

Free speech is a difficult thing.

 

[NookSchnook]

As a wise man wrote in 1949:

The danger, to those who hold freedom as the highest good, is not the ideas [espoused] but the power [aspired] to. Let them rant their heads off—that is their right, which we cannot afford to infringe—but let us keep from them the political means of depriving everybody else of the same right.---Frank Chodorov, republished in Fugitive Essays.

 

[-Raven-]

It’s going to sound like a cop-out, but I think there would be arguing either way. Where I live we don’t have codified free speech so I guess it’s assumed/taken for granted.

If you didn’t have it, people would argue for it. If you do, people will argue over what others say or believe in. Hell, the latter will happen anyway. I’d rather live in a world with free speech. The other extreme, of being persecuted for believing in progressive ideas, or even using certain words sounds much more horrifying. With free speech, at least more in in our hands when talking with others. At least we can share ideas without as much fear of retribution- cracking down on free speech would also mean censoring progressive ideas, not just the harmful and not even just extremists, but anyone who simply had the thought.

Freedom of speech shouldn’t equal freedom of consequence anyway. Ideally you’re not going to police people just for saying harmful things, but you’re not going to brush it off either. The problem isn’t that the US of A has free speech but that harmful groups/behaviours, actively hurting and suppressing others aren‘t cracked down on. As bleak as this is though, it isn’t surprising, because people arguing with eachother benefits the highest class by keeping mobilisation/violence further from them.

 

[Millysaurusrexjr]

This is a really old post so I hope it's fine to put in my 2 tbts.

I think Freedom of Speech is misunderstood. You're free to say anything, well, almost anything (obviously can't go around yelling out death threats to important people like the President), but that doesn't mean you're free from dealing with the fallout (the consequences) of whatever you say. It also doesn't mean that private corporations have to let your voice be heard, as far as I understand it.

 

[NookSchnook]

This is a really old post so I hope it's fine to put in my 2 tbts.

I think Freedom of Speech is misunderstood. You're free to say anything, well, almost anything (obviously can't go around yelling out death threats to important people like the President), but that doesn't mean you're free from dealing with the fallout (the consequences) of whatever you say. It also doesn't mean that private corporations have to let your voice be heard, as far as I understand it.

A man or woman's freedom of speech does not include an absolute obligation by anyone else to listen.

 

[Xara]

chiming my 2 cents in even though this thread is a few years old now, but freedom of speech isn’t evil, and it isn’t the reason why people say and do vile, mean, offensive and/or inappropriate things. it’s the excuse they commonly use, but it isn’t the reason. vile, mean, offensive and inappropriate people are. i obviously don’t agree with the views every person i meet have, but like it’s my right to not agree with them and even not interact with them depending on the view, it’s their right to have the views they have. everyone is entitled to be who they are and think whatever they like, and no one has the right to take that away.

and that being said, i don’t agree with what antifa was doing. regardless of what views a person has, no one has the right to get violent towards them. to me, that is no different than a hate crime, and there is no situation in which those are okay. hate speech isn’t okay, but neither is violence. two wrongs don’t make a right. i don’t agree with everything on that list of examples (ex. supporting donald trump), but i would never dream of getting violent towards someone who does.

 

[Shawna]

I think a lot of people misuse it. That's the problem. It is not meant to be evil, but people take advantage of it to be hateful.

 

[nightglow]

I wish this thread would be closed honestly. It comes from a negative angle with concepts assumed or put into other's mouths. Not sure if that was intended, but that is how it comes across to me.

Free speech is never evil, but people can be evil (as in harm others or advocating to harm others whether they feel it is a justified action in their minds or not). Eye for eye leaves everyone blind.

 

[QueenCobra]

Just because I am liberal, does not mean that I support Antifa. I support freedom of speech, but sometimes it’s used for hate speech or inciting violence. However, when it’s used for good, it can have positive results.

 

[Kitsuragi]

I wish this thread would be closed honestly. It comes from a negative angle with concepts assumed or put into other's mouths. Not sure if that was intended, but that is how it comes across to me.

Free speech is never evil, but people can be evil (as in harm others or advocating to harm others whether they feel it is a justified action in their minds or not). Eye for eye leaves everyone blind.

I don't think this was made with the intent of civil conversation. It should probably be locked.

 

[Mick]

As a wise man wrote in 1949:

The danger, to those who hold freedom as the highest good, is not the ideas [espoused] but the power [aspired] to. Let them rant their heads off—that is their right, which we cannot afford to infringe—but let us keep from them the political means of depriving everybody else of the same right.---Frank Chodorov, republished in Fugitive Essays.

Hi! While TBT allows threads to be posted in years after they went inactive, please do not bump old threads unless both the topic and your new reply are still relevant for further discussion. Otherwise, your posts might simply be deleted.

Like many people here, I think this discussion isn't very productive, and that this thread is better off closed so that it will not be bumped in the future.

Fun little note that seems to confuse people sometimes: freedom of speech basically only means the US government will not take legal action against its people for their expressions, with minor exceptions to things like threats and inciting criminal action. It does nothing at all to stop a European moderator from pressing the 'lock thread' button. It is closed now. You may leave. :)