Should Speech Deemd Offensive Be Supressed And Punished?

[steve_bank]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

In a politically, culturally, and sociay diverse country freedom of speech for all requires tolerance of that which we may despise. We atheists require our free speech regardless if it offends the religions, and vice versa.

In a diverse system we all have to tolerate that which makes us uncomfortable.

A polities said some were out to lynch him. Blacks took offense and he was attacked. I grew up with being lynched conversationally simply meant moil rule or somebody is out to get you. Protestors hung GWB in effigy outside his property.


Seems like everyday now someone is under attack for offending somebody. Is this a good thong or a bad thing?

Should people be free to be racist and express views, yes.

I vote no.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

 

[Patooka]

Who the fuck has been "socially" silenced? If I kept on calling you a cunt and ignored numerous warnings from moderators so they banned me, was my speech supressed?

Speech has consequences, and everyone, EVERYONE is selective as fucked when one decides if speech is suppressed or not. To use your push question as an example, everyone will have a different take on what is unrelated to work and whether you got fired over it or it was the final straw from the business because one had a documented history of violating the business' code of conduct.

In other words, your question is so vague and so open to interpretation any answer would be meaningless. But I'll give it a go; if your speech is offensive, and the business decides that had a detrimental affect to its brand and feel you compromised its integrity, then yes consequences should occur. That is exactly what happened to Colin Kaepernick and why few companies want to advertise on Tucker Carlson's show. Free Market baby.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Words have consequences and they affect peoples behaviors. See Jan. 6, 2021. Are you free to speak in a crude manner? Sure. And I’m free to walk away from you. Should this have a negative affect on your life including your job? It likely will. Whether it’s related to work or not, if coworkers know of it and it affects morale, I’d fire you.
Should it be suppressed? No. Should you have this freedom of speech? Yes. Should you suffer some social consequences because of it? You’re going to.

 

[laughing dog]

"Free speech" is a nice slogan, but it has never been operational at the social or legal level. People have the freedom to not engage in commerce with those with whom they disagree. The state can punish people for lying in court.

Speech has consequences. You can utter whatever you wish, but be prepared to deal with the consequences.

 

[prideandfall]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

how exactly is social punishment for speech not in accordance with the 'marketplace of ideas'?

the term 'marketplace of ideas' is analogous to an unregulated economic market, wherein reputation and the quality of one's products impacts how other people interact with your business.
if you have a shitty product that harms people, it's not unusual for your business to be poorly reviewed and even boycotted - so in this analogy, you're pretty much directly endorsing the idea of socially punishing people for saying shitty things.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

this has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with laissez-faire capitalism, which again pretty much proves your opening example wrong in every way to what you're trying to suggest it means.
that a company can fire you for saying something outside of work is because the right of the company to choose who they employ and why is given greater priority than the right of a person to have gainful employment.

if you want to stop people being fired for saying stupid shit the solution isn't a social one, it's a regulatory one.

 

[Metaphor]

People have the freedom to not engage in commerce with those with whom they disagree.

Not quite. The Colorado baker who was sued for not providing a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex wedding has been sued again for not providing a 'gender transition celebration' cake. That is, he was unable to refuse that commerce (at least, the decision has not yet been made, at a legal level, whether he can refuse that commerce).
Colorado baker who won Supreme Court battle calls gender transition cake case 'a trap' | Fox News

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who the fuck has been "socially" silenced? If I kept on calling you a cunt and ignored numerous warnings from moderators so they banned me, was my speech supressed?

Speech has consequences, and everyone, EVERYONE is selective as fucked when one decides if speech is suppressed or not. To use your push question as an example, everyone will have a different take on what is unrelated to work and whether you got fired over it or it was the final straw from the business because one had a documented history of violating the business' code of conduct.

A simple way to put it: Freedom of speech is bring-your-own-soapbox.

The right keeps screaming about not being able to freely speak using someone else's soapbox.

 

[KeepTalking]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

In a politically, culturally, and sociay diverse country freedom of speech for all requires tolerance of that which we may despise. We atheists require our free speech regardless if it offends the religions, and vice versa.

In a diverse system we all have to tolerate that which makes us uncomfortable.

A polities said some were out to lynch him. Blacks took offense and he was attacked. I grew up with being lynched conversationally simply meant moil rule or somebody is out to get you. Protestors hung GWB in effigy outside his property.


Seems like everyday now someone is under attack for offending somebody. Is this a good thong or a bad thing?

Should people be free to be racist and express views, yes.

I vote no.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

I selected "No suppression" in the poll, but that was before I read your OP.

Offensive speech should not be punished legally, but I have no problem with "social" punishment. There is a way to address unlawful termination from a job, and it is through the courts. If you can prove your speech did not in any way impact the perception of your employer by others, then you have a case. Good luck getting that to happen in any of the right-wing "right to work" States, and those are exactly the same places where there are an inordinate number of idiots whinging about "cancel culture" and "social punishment".

 

[Patooka]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

When it comes with violence or implied threats of violence.

 

[Politesse]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

When it comes with violence or implied threats of violence.

So you feel that implied threats of violence should not be considered protected speech?

 

[Politesse]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

In a politically, culturally, and sociay diverse country freedom of speech for all requires tolerance of that which we may despise. We atheists require our free speech regardless if it offends the religions, and vice versa.

In a diverse system we all have to tolerate that which makes us uncomfortable.

A polities said some were out to lynch him. Blacks took offense and he was attacked. I grew up with being lynched conversationally simply meant moil rule or somebody is out to get you. Protestors hung GWB in effigy outside his property.


Seems like everyday now someone is under attack for offending somebody. Is this a good thong or a bad thing?

Should people be free to be racist and express views, yes.

I vote no.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

I do not see it as "suppression" to respond critically to racist speech. What could justify such histrionic descriptioins of normal adult interaction? Challenge and argument are the means by which the "marketplace of ideas" defines the value of its wares. You want to say bigoted shit in public, grow a spine and do it. You have that right, but no one owes you special consideration or freedom from the social consequences of doing so.

 

[Patooka]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

When it comes with violence or implied threats of violence.

Last I checked, that was either assault or aggravated assault - both of which are criminal and not "punishment". Certainly not social.

I'm starting to wonder if this is another bullshit thread bitching about cancel culture with a new coat of paint on the argument.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

When it comes with violence or implied threats of violence.

So you feel that implied threats of violence should not be considered protected speech?

Not quite what I said.

First, I want to make absolutely sure that it us understood that I do not believe that silence is violence nor that speech is violence (both of these ideas have been espoused by the progressive left and perhaps sincerely believed, even though they are incoherent to hold simultaneously).

I said that a 'free' market mechanism can not include violence or credible threats of violence. So, if the government can punish me for my speech (which Australian governments have done repeatedly to its citizens), then that cannot be considered a 'free' market mechanism. Similarly, if somebody enacts or threatens physical violence on you for your speech, that cannot be considered a free-market mechanism.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

When it comes with violence or implied threats of violence.

Last I checked, that was either assault or aggravated assault - both of which are criminal and not "punishment". Certainly not social.

I'm starting to wonder if this is another bullshit thread bitching about cancel culture with a new coat of paint on the argument.

I'm starting to wonder if there is any capability at all for people to have a good faith argument on this board.

All I said was that violence or implied threats of violence cannot be considered a free-market mechanism. If you agree, then what's the problem?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm starting to wonder if this is another bullshit thread bitching about cancel culture with a new coat of paint on the argument.

Bingo!!!

 

[untermensche]

It is possible for one human to harass another human. And they can say stuff while doing it.

It all depends on whether there is only speech or whether there is also physical harassment. Physical impeding of movement. Continual close proximity. Threatening gestures.

Harassing someone while shouting at them is still harassing them. It is not just speech.

 

[jab]

Who the fuck has been "socially" silenced? If I kept on calling you a cunt and ignored numerous warnings from moderators so they banned me, was my speech supressed?

Speech has consequences, and everyone, EVERYONE is selective as fucked when one decides if speech is suppressed or not. To use your push question as an example, everyone will have a different take on what is unrelated to work and whether you got fired over it or it was the final straw from the business because one had a documented history of violating the business' code of conduct.

In other words, your question is so vague and so open to interpretation any answer would be meaningless. But I'll give it a go; if your speech is offensive, and the business decides that had a detrimental affect to its brand and feel you compromised its integrity, then yes consequences should occur. That is exactly what happened to Colin Kaepernick and why few companies want to advertise on Tucker Carlson's show. Free Market baby.

agreed--for instance some people think that disagreeing with them vigorously is suppressive of their speech, and sometimes go further and think the disagreeing speech should be socially suppressed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should speech deemed offensive by anyone be suppressed and even punished, not legally but socially? I say no, let it be worekd out in the 'market place of ideas'.

In a politically, culturally, and sociay diverse country freedom of speech for all requires tolerance of that which we may despise. We atheists require our free speech regardless if it offends the religions, and vice versa.

In a diverse system we all have to tolerate that which makes us uncomfortable.

A polities said some were out to lynch him. Blacks took offense and he was attacked. I grew up with being lynched conversationally simply meant moil rule or somebody is out to get you. Protestors hung GWB in effigy outside his property.


Seems like everyday now someone is under attack for offending somebody. Is this a good thong or a bad thing?

Should people be free to be racist and express views, yes.

I vote no.

For the push question, punishment's means for example loosing ypur job for unrelated speech outside of work and unrelated to work.

What is the difference between right-wing intolerance and left-wing intolerance? Right-wing intolerance for things is enshrined in legislation and by laws. Left-wing intolerance for things is enshrined in public opinion.

One guy takes a knee during the national anthem and the right-wing shits it pants. I don't want to hear about how the right-wing cares about the sanctity of expression!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm curious as to how "social" punishment isn't a mechanism of the free market.

When it comes with violence or implied threats of violence.

When you get right down to the nitty gritty, even regulations and governments are part of the free market. Everything is out there in the agora constantly being selected for and against, and I mean everything.

But I understand the academic distinction.