Using 'free speech' to purposefully offend people

[Felya]

I will never, ever understand people that get so upset about being "offended". Even if someone stops short of violence, getting really wound up about something someone said is just an absurd, childish reaction.

I agree 100%...

When someone calls you an ass hole, it doesn't actually turn you into an ass hole.

[Spectral]

I agree 100%...

When someone calls you an ass hole, it doesn't actually turn you into an ass hole.

Similar to what you said earlier, if you're actually that wound up about it, maybe it means you're kind of worried that it just might be true. It doesn't make sense to get mad about something that's obviously false and that no one will believe. If someone calls me fat (I'm 5'8", 132), I'm not going to yell, "YOU TAKE THAT BACK I AM NOT".

[GennGreymane]

#triggered

[Deleted]

Sounds like an excuse to censor people.

[Felya]

Similar to what you said earlier, if you're actually that wound up about it, maybe it means you're kind of worried that it just might be true. It doesn't make sense to get mad about something that's obviously false and that no one will believe. If someone calls me fat (I'm 5'8", 132), I'm not going to yell, "YOU TAKE THAT BACK I AM NOT".

Part of that is also that all 3, being called fat, skinny or avarage, can be insults.

[Deleted]

Among the few things that American free speech laws do not cover are "fighting words," such as direct threats of physical harm to another person.

Im not going to beat him up. I just want to ask in person why hes spamming shit on my channels.

[Haven]

Sounds like an excuse to censor people.

A certain degree of censorship is necessary. Otherwise how do you deal with nazi, radical Muslim or racist propaganda? It always finds those foolish enough to believe in their supremacy if all it takes is hatred and discrimination against those who are weaker than them.

[Deleted]

Complicated issue.

On one hand, you want to protect free speech. Free speech gives people the right to express their point of view, debate, and build out of the conversation.

On the other hand, you have things like radical madmen, secret service agents missions and stuff like that, which, if getting shared, do quite a bit of harm to the people all over and lead to devolving.

I guess this French shooting event is an example. The caricaturists used their free speech to mock a character that 1 billion people consider holy. No matter how you spin it, you do need to expect that there are some extremists that won't respond with merely angry letters and such. So the question is, should the caricaturists have expected such an example? Debatable. Why is it debatable? Well, you know there's a badly famed neighbourhood, do you go there yelling you're packed with stacks of 100$? No? Why? Should the state not protect your right to do this? Well, yes, but that doesn't mean you should purposely get in harm's way "just because". You don't do that because you know there is a high possibility to get mugged. Same issue here, do you have an issue with the muslim faith? Fair enough, you discuss that, you can make comics and such, but when you need to work up a pyramid, if you insult one of the most holy parts of that belief from start you should expect the same as yelling about the $ stacks in that bad neighbourhood. The fact remains that even if it would be amazing if you would not get mugged, to continue my example, we're not at that point yet and putting yourself in danger to prove that the neighbourhood is dangerous won't actually achieve much.
By the way, I don't condone what happened to the humourists from Charlie in France(I condemn the terrorists who were murderers and despicable beings) but in a way they also crossed the line too knowing they're walking in a bad neighbourhood and that the world isn't yet ready to play nice yet. They put themselves and others in danger knowing that. It's not like this was the first time something like this was tried, I remember few years back when a newspaper in Denmark also made a similar thing and that also got really bad as I remember. So it was known.

So, overall, not really sure where I stand. Is free speech great? Yes. However, should arguments that mock the core of countless other people's beliefs, extremist propaganda, secret service personnel names etc be allowed? No.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like an excuse to censor people.

Yet the censorship already exists if you think about it. Even here, if I call someone an idiot, I get banned. If I bring racial stereotypes, I get banned.
It also exists in real life for a very long time. If I give the names of secret service members undercover, I get charged with treason, if I give your name and all details to an advertisement company and they use them without your accord, I get charged for identity theft and false advertisement, if I say something does more than it does, I get charged with false advertisement etc. And all these things exist for reasons. I can't say the names of undercover agents for it means risking their lives, I can't give your details to a company without your consent because you could be involved in something you hate, I can't lie about a product to people when I advertise it because I'd essentially cheat on people with words.

Overall, pure free speech does not exist as long as there is a punishment for it. It's like being free to do what you want. What it means is that you can do whatever you want as long as you doing it does not harm others. Same here, speech can be a powerful tool and it can harm people, directly or indirectly. Yes, whatever you say could be interpreted by someone as offensive, but these are marginal cases, yet when you know something is going to do harm to you or someone yet brings you or others nothing good... why say it?

[Wewlad]

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."—Stephen Fry

I'm also fucking tired of people who use them being "offended" to push their agendas against free speech.

[Crissi]

I think the entire point to that Fry quote is to say : being offended doesn't give you license to stop people form doing said offensive things. Saying you're offended IS just a whine / comment on how you feel.

[Deleted]

If you don't like what someone else says, there is no call for censorship. Censor that person on your own, refuse to read or watch his material or whatever it is, but you have no right to take that stuff away, regardless of how "offensive" it is, from other people who might not share opinions.

This is why when people demand books be pulled from libraries I get livid. It's a very simple matter, if you don't like the book, don't fucking read it. Don't take it away from everyone else.

Just because YOU think that Harry Potter promotes Satanism, doesn't give you any rights to remove it.

Good post, this is generally where am I am on this issue as well.

[Fojos]

Sweden also has laws against hate speech and acts meant to rile up ethnic groups of people, which is what dan park got hit with.

So muslims are an ethnic group (even though muslims are many different groups) yet Swedes are not?

I fully support peoples right to be cunts. If that's how they want to go by in life then by all means go ahead. But don't fucking dare come crying when you have to deal with the consequences of your own words/drawings. You're not untouchable just because you have free speech. If you don't like it then stop running your bitch-ass mouth. Easy as that.

If the consequences are being the victim of illegal threats and actions against your own body or property (which tends to happen when you make satires of a specific religion), then yes, the person has every reason to complain.