loadingreadyrun.com

You know, americans talk a lot about the chilling effect of punishment on speech, but isn't cooling down sometimes a good thing?

Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.

You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?

Elomin Sha wrote:Soooo, the joke was that he's annoyed that after all the years he's defended him saying he's living his dream because he's dying, that he hasn't died yet?

Yeah. Pretty NOT funny, huh?


Apparently the humour is that the syndrome the kid has is always mentioned but never explained, so everyone automatically assumes that it's terminal and by letting him do this, they're fulfilling a 'last wish'... The humour is supposed to be not at the kid but at the comedian (and the general public) for jumping to this conclusion, and not at all implying that the kid is a fraud for having a serious disorder and not dying from it in the short-term

again I say


Rights and freedoms are never absolute; they always come with restrictions, because otherwise they'd easily end up denying other people their rights and freedoms.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose."

I'd voted 'yay' in the poll way back when it started (and apparently I'm The Swing Voter) not because I feel new limits should be placed on existing freedoms, but LIMITATIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR THOSE FREEDOMS and I feel they should remain.

Personally, my next action would depend heavily on context. History with the individual, the venue where the thing was said and the refusal made, etc. Since they appear to be polite my first step would be to ask why not. The most likely situation is that the individual doesn't know that what they are doing is damaging, or at least the extent to which simple words like these are damaging. It seems inconsistent that a well meaning and polite individual would choose to continue to deliberately hurt and insult people around them instead of make a minor change to their speech pattern.

empath wrote:

Elomin Sha wrote:Soooo, the joke was that he's annoyed that after all the years he's defended him saying he's living his dream because he's dying, that he hasn't died yet?

Yeah. Pretty NOT funny, huh?


Apparently the humour is that the syndrome the kid has is always mentioned but never explained, so everyone automatically assumes that it's terminal and by letting him do this, they're fulfilling a 'last wish'... The humour is supposed to be not at the kid but at the comedian (and the general public) for jumping to this conclusion, and not at all implying that the kid is a fraud for having a serious disorder and not dying from it in the short-term

again I say


Rights and freedoms are never absolute; they always come with restrictions, because otherwise they'd easily end up denying other people their rights and freedoms.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose."

I'd voted 'yay' in the poll way back when it started (and apparently I'm The Swing Voter) not because I feel new limits should be placed on existing freedoms, but LIMITATIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR THOSE FREEDOMS and I feel they should remain.

It would be funny, but it takes too long to get to the punchline. And as it is typed inflections, noise and pauses aren't there for the effect. I've laughed at these types of jokes before, some to do with health, age of someone not being dead (Margaret Thatcher, The Queen refusing to die to annoy Charles in not getting the throne.
It's called morbid/gallows humour; some liek easy going ones and some like edgier. Also was the person it was targeted at offended?

Elomin Sha wrote:

empath wrote:

Elomin Sha wrote:Soooo, the joke was that he's annoyed that after all the years he's defended him saying he's living his dream because he's dying, that he hasn't died yet?

Yeah. Pretty NOT funny, huh?


Apparently the humour is that the syndrome the kid has is always mentioned but never explained, so everyone automatically assumes that it's terminal and by letting him do this, they're fulfilling a 'last wish'... The humour is supposed to be not at the kid but at the comedian (and the general public) for jumping to this conclusion, and not at all implying that the kid is a fraud for having a serious disorder and not dying from it in the short-term

again I say


Rights and freedoms are never absolute; they always come with restrictions, because otherwise they'd easily end up denying other people their rights and freedoms.

"Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose."

I'd voted 'yay' in the poll way back when it started (and apparently I'm The Swing Voter) not because I feel new limits should be placed on existing freedoms, but LIMITATIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR THOSE FREEDOMS and I feel they should remain.

It would be funny, but it takes too long to get to the punchline. And as it is typed inflections, noise and pauses aren't there for the effect. I've laughed at these types of jokes before, some to do with health, age of someone not being dead (Margaret Thatcher, The Queen refusing to die to annoy Charles in not getting the throne.
It's called morbid/gallows humour; some liek easy going ones and some like edgier. Also was the person it was targeted at offended?

He wasn't just offended. He was bullied for it.

The comedian was literally going "c'mon, die, guy!" and "Why isn't he dead?". In his show.

If he was personally offended, sure. I didn't know if people were getting riled up on his behalf.

That he was not offended should not be a defence. If it's decided that what he was saying is not ok, then it's not ok. I don't use the word 'gay' as an insult, not because I'm concerned a gay person will hear me use it an be offended, but because I believe that conflating 'gay' with 'bad' contributes to a overall attitude that being gay is bad, amongst all people. Same as 'retarded', using mental disability as an insult. If anything, I far more concerned that my actions will encourage or reinforce the beliefs of someone who hears me who actually does believe being gay is bad. Avoiding offence of the people around me is not my only concern.

If mocking a person due to their disability, etc, is a crime, then it's a crime. That the target was or was not affected by it I imagine would result in a difference in damages awarded, but that's different.

Elomin Sha wrote:

Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.

You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?

Then you stop talking to that person. If you have told them what they're saying is upsetting you, and they refuse to stop saying it (excepting that there may be no other way to say what they're saying), then they're either calling you a liar (i.e. they don't believe you are actually upset by it) or they are choosing their convenience of vocabulary over the courtesy of not intentionally upsetting you during this conversation. No one need subject themselves to either of those people.

Certainly, there is debate to be had about whether someone should be upset by some words, but to deny how another person feels about something, or to disregard it, regardless of whether they believe those feelings to be valid, would be incredibly disrespectful and rude.

Elomin Sha wrote:

Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.

You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?

Put bluntly, I don't have to listen to that person. Again, free speech guarantees that you can SAY what you like, but it does not guarantee you a receptive audience. Free speech provides the corner on which to shout, not the crowd gathered around the soapbox.

Also, the crowd might shout back.

Prospero101 wrote:

Elomin Sha wrote:

Prospero101 wrote:So if I call somebody a "cunt" (which I would never do, but for the sake of the hypothetical) and they say "Hey, could you not? That's a very offensive word," I can't claim that my free speech is being impinged upon just because I can't say whatever slur might pop into my head.

You can ask someone that, what if they politely say no?

Put bluntly, I don't have to listen to that person. Again, free speech guarantees that you can SAY what you like, but it does not guarantee you a receptive audience. Free speech provides the corner on which to shout, not the crowd gathered around the soapbox.

Not even that. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences from speech. It only protects you against law enforcement/the government limiting your speech. It does not protect you from being shunned from society or punched in the face by another individual.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with "normal human interaction" or what is acceptable to say to another person. It ONLY has implications for what a governing entity (be it local LEO's, city officials or senators or the president) is allowed to say and/or do to limit what you say.

I can only speak in an American context, but:

To continue with the soapbox metaphor, provided they are not receiving money from the government and don't break any existing laws (nondiscrimination, etc.), any person or institution is perfectly within their rights to take away your soapbox. If you are, for example, using twitter to harass people, twitter can ban you because it is a private institution and you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up.

Even in places that do receive government funding, like (American) public schools, there are limits on what you can say. Free speech is not absolute, no matter where you are. Libel is not protected speech, so there's no reason hate speech has to be.

Even in America, there is speech that is legal, but becomes illegal in certain contexts. Sending a text message to a person propositioning them is legal. Sending a hundred is harassment. Preaching from a soapbox might be legal, but shouting from a soapbox at all hours of the day and night is a public disturbance.

I put a picture of my fractured toe (it's brusied) and it was marked as offensive. What?

Psyclone wrote:I can only speak in an American context, but:

To continue with the soapbox metaphor, provided they are not receiving money from the government and don't break any existing laws (nondiscrimination, etc.), any person or institution is perfectly within their rights to take away your soapbox. If you are, for example, using twitter to harass people, twitter can ban you because it is a private institution and you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up.

Even in places that do receive government funding, like (American) public schools, there are limits on what you can say. Free speech is not absolute, no matter where you are. Libel is not protected speech, so there's no reason hate speech has to be.

Thing is though. With a company like twitter where providing the soapbox in the first place IS its actual business and use of the platform is as widespread as it is, the line between legitimate "everybody thinks you're not a nice person, we won't help you be an idiot" and "WE don't like you, go away"(Where we is a nebulous corporate decision, possibly influenced by politics and law enforcement) is very very blurry. There is plenty of evidence to suggests Twitter actively influences which topics become trending and more importantly do NOT become trending (even though they are the most used subjects). To me this starts encroaching on "limiting freedom of speech" again. Because now you have a corporation whose business model is providing everyone with soapboxes that decides who gets to "be heard by millions" and how has no chance.

Dutch guy wrote:

Psyclone wrote:I can only speak in an American context, but:

To continue with the soapbox metaphor, provided they are not receiving money from the government and don't break any existing laws (nondiscrimination, etc.), any person or institution is perfectly within their rights to take away your soapbox. If you are, for example, using twitter to harass people, twitter can ban you because it is a private institution and you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up.

Even in places that do receive government funding, like (American) public schools, there are limits on what you can say. Free speech is not absolute, no matter where you are. Libel is not protected speech, so there's no reason hate speech has to be.

Thing is though. With a company like twitter where providing the soapbox in the first place IS its actual business and use of the platform is as widespread as it is, the line between legitimate "everybody thinks you're not a nice person, we won't help you be an idiot" and "WE don't like you, go away"(Where we is a nebulous corporate decision, possibly influenced by politics and law enforcement) is very very blurry. There is plenty of evidence to suggests Twitter actively influences which topics become trending and more importantly do NOT become trending (even though they are the most used subjects). To me this starts encroaching on "limiting freedom of speech" again. Because now you have a corporation whose business model is providing everyone with soapboxes that decides who gets to "be heard by millions" and how has no chance.

BUT because twitter is a private entity, all of that is legal. It's a grey enough area that they can probably be sued for it, but there's nothing explicitly stating they can't do it. Now of course you can debate whether it's right, and I agree with you that having monolithic corporations like facebook and twitter influencing what we see as important is dangerous, but that's not free speech as it's defined in the bill of rights (again, American context). The other side of that is, of course, that they can be called out for it, just like any one of us can be called out for saying or doing questionable things.

Personally, I don't think that twitter does nearly enough to curtail free speech. The whole Milo debacle is only the latest example of it, and as far as I can see he's one of the few people twitter actually banned. Twitter's harassment problem is a much bigger deal (to me) than them potentially screening or influencing trending topics.

I should add that all this is a technicality, and I only bring it up as a reminder that "free speech" as we think of it doesn't exist and can't be put on a pedestal. I don't think the strict legality or illegality of these cases is a super important part of this discussion and I don't mean to get fixed on it.

I don't even think Twitter can be sued for it - to post there, you need to agree to legal terms that give Twitter the absolute right to remove your tweets or ban you for any reason whatsoever.

I don't think I read the twitter TOS when I signed up, so that's good to know. I think any suit might be more along the lines of manipulating trending results, but since facebook hasn't faced any legal action that I'm aware of for doing the same thing with their trending topics, I think you're right.

Not usually one to necro a thread, but I just read this and wanted to post this somewhere. Thoughts?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-free-speech-guided-by-judgment-and-conscience-not-rules

I agree with pretty much all of that column. There are no absolutes (he says, absolutely). The answer to pretty much any hypothetical question on free speech is "It depends".