I just got banned from a spiritual store in Minneapolis Where they provide tarot readings because I dared tried to share my opinion on something that was contentious and was immediately shut down from expressing my point of view and it solved nothing. The store said I would be a better fit where other stores express the same views as me- which is freedom of speech. I’m calling out the tarot reader who have not evolved their thinking in 2022 where they have 20 years experience just reading not really expanding consciousness for themselves and society!
Depends on the topic. If someone says something that would derail something good, they should be silenced. Plus, freedom of speech also means freedom of actions. If you yell offensive things and you get beat up, too bad.
@Based Adonis Lol like that will work. You're not listening to reason. People won't care about the law. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be difficult to call the police when you are dead for saying something offensive. Now go out and insult someone and see what happens.
@Cherished Cat Lover free speech isn’t going away at all. Actually it’s the exact same way as it was in the 50s and 60s. Our cultural values just changed. Plus we have the internet now and we all know that the first amendment obviously doesn’t exist there because it’s not a government operated network. What I wanted to say was on the tip of my tongue, but basically RU-vid and other social media platforms are allowed to censor content they disagree with because they’re not government owned. That goes both ways and a right wing website can censor someone who is liberal. I’m just explaining my understanding of the United States law and how it relates to this. I might be wrong though.
Have you people never had bad interactions with others, I dont get it, human beings are not entirely moral creatures, anger is a very normal human emotion, and with it comes offensive words and language, the fact that we think stifling the darker parts of the human psyche is the solution or morally correct, is asinine. People who talk like this sound like born again christians trying to police the world, sanctimonious pricks, the lot of you.
Can you have free speech without the right to offend? Seriously, you can't say anything to 100 random people without offending at least some of them. Not anything important anyway.
It depends on your approach and what exactly it is you have to say. Questioning something is not wrong but it should based on logic and wanting to understand something with an open mind. Of course, people who ask and question should also be open to admitting when wrong when pointed out. That’s the point of two way dialogue. It should never be about silencing others just because we don’t feel comfortable about what they’re saying. Now if the person expressing their opinion is totally unreasonable about defending their prejudices even when it’s been proven time and again that they have unfair ways thinking but they still insist on saying mean things or worse- hate speech…then that’s another story. But in general, people should be allowed to voice their opinions or ask about things. they should also be allowed to watch what they want and read what they want and look at whatever they want on the internet…it’s their life and it’s not for others to control. No one should try to own anyone.
The reason why "protest songs" no longer get an audience is that they are preaching to the choir. If your song doesn't offend anyone, then you are not making a protest, you are merely singing the virtues of the status quo.
@@zenzo4815 I'm assuming you're asking: Are you deliberately offending people with the speech you use or is it happening incidentally? My answer is simple: does it matter? If I were to engage in discussion over a political hot potato like (for example) trans rights, there is precisely ZERO chance of me offending nobody in that debate, and I know that going into it. So my choices are either that I refuse to get involved with an important issue of the day 'less I offend someone or I enter into it with the full knowledge that I will be offensive. Now that's a personal decision for me to make, but I should absolutely have the right to choose the latter option and BE offensive.
@@richardparke4105 I'm not saying u shd not offend anyone, there will be always sm ppl who will get offended with wht ever u say And fr ur example it depends on trans wht topic ur talking with and wht solution ur proposing 👀
At first, I thought this would be a student criticizing free speech. Thankfully, I'm happy to have been proven wrong. We need more enlightened youth like you
Your family sounds really abusive. And pretty authoritarian. It's very simple everybody should carry a weapon, you have the right to say whatever you want if somebody puts their hands on you or takes away your autonomy you have the right to delete them from the planet
That is a huge issue now, many people only believe in freedom of speech, if it means, "I am free to speak, and no one is allowed to disagree with me, or they are violating like Freedom," that is why they are so mad about losing control of Twitter. They like being able to ban anyone who disagrees with them
Should you have to defend yourself from physical assault just for the words you used? Isn't there a point when a person's forceful reaction is not justified and is in fact criminal?
Yes, offending is OK. Freedom of speech only becomes very important when we do offend. When we are in total agreement, freedom of speech is not necessary.
Freedom of Expression doesn't need to be in sync with not offending someone. People will always find reasons to be offended by something. But that does not mean that we should misuse this power. You can keep your points respectfully and without unnecessarily attacking someone. There are people who misuse this ability on Internet being rude and offensive, for instance labelling somebody as a 5yr old etc and passing judgement about a person you've never even seen.
What I think you're saying is that people SHOULD be civil. I agree with that. Even though I believe people should be civil, we cannot force civility through regulation. Because someone will inevitably choose for the rest of us what "civility" means, and force it through the power of the state.
@@TheTaysoren Agreed. Fair use of this right should not come by force. Also fair use can be subjective. What I meant was that "freedom of expression is no excuse for rude behaviour and neither is feeling offended to that of Freedom of Expression".
Yes it does because freedom of speech is universal, it applies to everyone equally. The problem with freedom from offense is that it's not measurable or even definable in any useful way that doesn't positively disadvantage all parties involved. Our legal systems are based on intent, intent matters and we're able to scale punishments according to intent. Offense is personal and unscalable. I know someone recently who had a run in with a client of his over an unpaid bill, things got a bit heated, the client hit him, he retaliated and in the process called him a f++++t. The police got involved, the client walked away with a warning, the guy I know got a criminal record for hate speech. This is the backward culture we're living in all as a consequence of creating protected groups with undefinable offense at its heart.
I think in your example the intent of the word was to offend. Even though things got heated the person said something that was with the intent to hurt this persons feelings. In forming an opinion about someone/things you don’t have to like someone and you can voice that opinion but it should not be the intent to offend a person based on his beliefs and personal opinions. (In your case I probably would’ve got the police involved before it got heated but that’s just speculation and i don’t know the details so it could be different)
The main thing is what people consider offensive today. If something very normal makes you offended, then the problem is with you, not with the person who is supposedly 'offending' you.
Why can't freedom of speech allow us to be vocal in a court of law. Is our Judiciary still in the dark middle ages? 1) Why should we all rise when the Judge enters? 2) Why are we not allowed to speak out of turn? 3) Why can't we raise our voice against the judiciary? 4) Why can't we use verbal profanities against a judge/lawyer in a court of law? Even if there are laws against this, why should we follow them? Shouldn't it be a personal choice? 5) Are these laws out-dated? 6) Can we have these rules thrown out? 7) Perjury should be allowed as a part of freedom of speech and considered as a form of personal expression. 8) Why can't we sue the judiciary? Isn't it unfair? 9) Why do our judiciary set an environment of intimidation. 10) People should enter a court of law without fear or the feeling of intimidation.
That's your particular take on this.. if somebody has the freedom of speech as long as they're not making a call to action to take away somebody else's autonomy or to commit a crime, your flavor of how they use their freedom of speech does not matter and they get to wield it in any way they see fit. It's very simple if you don't like the way that somebody else behaves or the way that they think you can easily walk away and not associate yourself with them. You don't have to get offended by staying around them and listening to them. You have your own autonomy just walk away from them and don't associate it's really easy.
If offended, you turn around and leave. You don't prosecute or silence people. You can not control other actions. You can only control your own actions.
@Johnny Jacobs well... you can’t leave people going around telling false information or something that u consider rude, in a way it’s like you’re telling them they are right but they aren’t
A bit late to the party but I think we have the right to offend someone. It is what drives conversation and having a different opinion is completely natural. The problem is more that people voice these opinions in ways that are uncivilised and refuse to listen to other opinions. Like for instance: My neighbour. He is a friendly man who has a kind heart. He drives a nice car and likes to drive really fast through the neighbourhood. In my opinion that is dangerous for him and his surroundings because he could hit somebody. I voice my opinion and he gets offended by that. But instead of voicing his opinion on why drives fast and giving arguments on why he does that he starts to say things that have the intend to offend me. The difference is not in allowing different opinions that may offend someone but it’s the things that are said with the intent to offend someone. Like curse words, yes they can’t physically hurt someone but they can mentally. If you have a different opinion voice it but do it in a way that respects the person that is on the other end of the conversation. Should there be laws that punish people for saying curse words? In my opinion there shouldn’t because everybody can be civil in voicing their opinions. But it is good that there are some because not everyone is civil in voicing their opinion. Thx for reading/listening to my opinion. Peace
You could say this about the USSR: "You can criticize communism and Stalin all you want but don't get mad when you have to face the consequences (getting arrested and shot)."
Freedom of speech is freedom to say what we wish regardless of offending others. If I say something and you just so happen to get offended your probably gonna have a long day
That's crazy. The whole liberal philosophy since the Enlightenment is about freedom of speech. As an atheist I am offended by the manifestations of religious expressions. I consider these expressions supports the hatred of religions (homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, etc.). But as a trul liberal I accept to be offended by these expressions. People who want to criminalize the expression are reactionaries who ignore themselves, inquisitive, heirs of Torquemada. A misconception cannot be refuted if it does not express itself. We can't fight intolerance by being intolerant.
@@Fuckblmfuckpalestine Should insults be protected by free speech. Should people be allowed to deliberately insult others. I'm ok with criticism. I think that should be allowed. But I'm not sure about insults.
@@energeticyellow1637 I agree. But I'm asking how can we rationalize it? We don't allow people to be violent because it causes physical pain. When people use abusive words it causes emotional pain but we allow it. Why do we allow emotional pain but not physical pain. I say it's because emotional pain is less damaging than physical pain. Do you agree?
@Johnny Jacobs Middle ground expired 16 decades ago when dems forfeited their citizenship and attempted to claim states as their own personal property.
Free speech is and inherit right to every human being. It's main use is to express what you think is true. And what you think is true might be offensive to somebody and that's consequence not the purpose.
For the record I'm not sure I won't offend anyone because I don't care if people are offended by things I say because I don't say things just to hear my own voice I see them because I want them to be heard and if you disagree fine we can agree to disagree tour we can't but there's new scenario where things I see are contingent upon anyone else's approval.
Freedom to offend doesn't exist. With that being said, a lot of people like to imagine a world where freedom of speech means freedom from consequences is the goal. That concept is flawed but a lot of people tend to think it's something they want. The reality is that it's a naive way to consider freedom as you then enable oppression/persecution of others which is inherently preventing freedom.
Language is always subject to context and interpretation. I believe in "Rules of Engagement." In other words, not using racial slurs, personal threats, or libelous comments. There are already existing laws against that, and can end up with you in court. But just because you find something "offensive" is part and parcel of free speech. Had King George not been 'offended' by Thomas Paine, there would be no United States.
I'm offended I should have to answer this question so I'm going to say there is no comparison. Freedom of speech is very important to everyone. Being offended is an individual's problem.
A cover up needed to take place at my work so my employer put in a written false report about me so I would take the blame. I told other staff the true story and was sacked. My union told me the employer has the right to sack me for saying something that brings them into disrepute and it don"t matter if I told the truth and it was what they done which caused the disrepute.
The thing is someone would always get slightly offended on what you say that you might as well shut up in which would made someone also offended because you're not talking to them.
Yes as long as what you are saying isn't personal or insulting the person in front of you, as for his ideology or beliefs, then you are allowed to shred that as you see fit
Everyone should have the right to offend because we become more tolerant by hearing what we find offensive. Offending others also allows us to learn what people find offensive which helps our respect for others to grow
Yes it does and here's why.... If you make it a crime to offend someone, then the crooked people out there are going to find a way to manipulate it for personal gain. Someone can simply just pretend to be offended by something just to get another person in trouble.
@@EneaG "Respect should be given" is a demand. It's also a fools notion to give respect to a stranger and it is also foolish to give it to those that share in your blood. Respect is like a roman road. You dont get to ride it based on others work. You start with the smallest speck of sand, build it in layers and fill that long trench with bits that slowly become heavier.
What if I accuse someone of doing something illegal with little to no evidence. And that persons reputation is effected badly by it. Is that still acceptable?
Dont ban hate speech. Educate responsibility. Freedom can ONLY be healthy with responsibility. But banning hate speech does not help improving responsibility because it takes the responsibility away from the offender. Instead, the government should have the absolute right heavliy propagate moral responsibility to our speech rights as education to living in our free democratic systems nature of freedom , especially at a very Young age, because its the government responsibility to maintain freedom of speech. This does not mean any restriction to our speeches. So in exchange only responsibility themed propaganda by the state. Banning words with any authority is irresponsible cowardice, Keep Expressing against words anyone but yourself is repsonsible bravery.
That Is Contrary Terms. People Don't Have The Right To NOT Respect Your Comments About Particular Topics. That Is Very Often Confused & Taken As A Personal Insult.
