McNugget wrote:
Synthic wrote:
McNugget wrote:
Uchies wrote:
The idea of free-speech specifically being in place to protect unpopular opinions (why would you need a protection for speech that everyone agrees with?) vs. "hate speech" (defined as unpopular or "ugly" speech with no direct call to violence) not being protected under the first amendment.
That seems to be a heated topic that many people get angry about, and therefore controversial.
How i see it, freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequence. You can say whatever you want but be prepared for backlash.
that's the entire point, freedom of speech is just extended freedom of thought. In order to think freely you need to risk being offensive.
Yeah but some people believe they can say whayever they want and haveno repercussions as they use freedom if speech as an excuse. There is a difference between being opinionated and being offensive. Those who lean on the offensive side often feel others are attacking them and think they shouldnt be punished because of freedom of speech. EI The Westboro Baptist Church.They are extremely offensive with their bigotry and often find themselves being verbally criticized yet often play as the victim and proclaim they are doing “God’s work” in situations.
Synthic wrote:
ok and who cares? the only speech that should be "restricted" are threats. hate speech is free speech, and offensive speech is free speech. I am not responsible for how someone interprets or reacts to what I say.
It's nice to see my point being proven, that this is a topic emphatically debated.
Not to derail, but idiots like the Westboro Church
need to have freedom of speech so that everyone can see how stupid they are. We should listen to what
everyone has to say, no matter how outlandish, and morally advance as
individuals from there. The only speech that is truly feared, is that which is powerful and can change perceptions.
SpazzO
).