[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Most definitely, on this matter the individual should have more power than the collective.

Yet it is the collective that affords the individual that right in the first place. Without that collective you would have not protections of that guaranteed right.

The idea that the individual should always be submissive to the collective is completely ####ed up.

Where did I say submissive to the collective. The individual should be respectful of the collective and comply with the norms and standards of the collective.

You might as well join a conservative, anti democratic form of Islam. It would undermine the a critical component of all the progress we've made, would prevent us from ever finding out if we are headed in the wrong direction as it would quell any unpopular dissent.

So you're suggesting that change only comes from the actions of #######s then. Change doesn't come from people having rational discussions and working within the system. Who had more traction again? Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X? I know, different strategies and such, but the point is that you get a lot more support if you are respectful and pleasant than being a disresctful and a ######.

So yes, people should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and should expect to have to deal with the consequence of having other people respond to it with speech of their own, reputation effects, etc.

It's more HOW they say what they want to say more than anything. Civility and respect in communication goes a long way to solving problems rather than exacerbating them.

There is a difference between mere speech and actions. When you act on a decision using speech, your are being punished for that action, not the speech itself. This is why discrimination laws and libel don't constrain freedom of speech despite having legal consequences. Hate speech laws do constrain freedom of speech; but I'm opposed to those too.

And to me, that's messed up. That removes all potential responsibility for those who wish to use inflammatory rhetoric as their primary tool of discourse. There has to be a balance, and I believe that balance comes from treating your fellow man as you would like to be treated. Hey, we all have slip ups, and those can be forgiven if your have a record of civility and respect. But you can see why people would take a dislike to Donald Trump and people that support or encourage his bad behaviors.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. People are free to remove their support, condemn you, mock you, and so on for what you say. You don't have to provide a platform for the person, you don't have to go to their speech, and you can boycott their business. Nevertheless, we should expect the consequences to be proportional to to the speech. The idea we should kick people out of society because they say something wrong is just incredibly dangerous and is massively disproportionate.

Which was exactly my point, even though I have found out I'm a fascist for suggesting that people have the right to react to your speech and use those reactions as a mechanism to correct your behaviors. If you want to act like a dick society has a right or a responsibility to treat you like a dick, and if that behavior continues, to ostracize you if required. You know, like has been going on for decades in cultures around the globe. But man, I'm such a fascist. Where did I put my brown short and jack boots again?

Originally Posted by evman150

Free speech is exactly like democracy. Both are good in reasonable doses; both are horrific when taken too far. This is the crucial point that free speech zealots fail to grasp.

Well said. Right on the money.