[TazeTSchnitzel]

Why doesn't what I'm saying make sense?

Absolute freedom of speech is tyrannical. It gives the privileged enormous power to do harm.

Freedom of speech must be limited so it is a power against the powerful, not the powerless.

Protecting people from hate speech and incited violence is not "infantilisation". It's basic human rights.

Are you not familiar with the Intolerance Paradox?

[JoeAltmaier]

All true. But FoS is also a normal behavior used by people everwhere, to make themselves clear. The guy standing on a stump in the park, complaining about his sister-in-law has the same right, for the same reason. Its not just a political-action-tool. Its supposed to be a human right, like life and liberty.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Yes. A human right that, like others, has limits where it conflicts with other human rights.

[paulhauggis]

Let's be a little more honest here. You say this, but like everybody else that makes this statement, it only applies to things that align with your narrow view of the world.

It's a common tactic to root out and silence opposing view points used in dictatorships and non-free nations. As long as someone isn't making death threats or something similar, speech should be free.

But I think people like you need to have their livelihood and speech taken away for good for something they said on the Internet to fully understand why speech needs to be free and protected for all, not just the chosen few.

If I donated some money to a pro-gay marriage proposal, I shouldn't get fired from my job (or bullied online)..so why did the ex-mozilla CEO get bullied and then fired for donating to what he believed in? Because it's against the narrative? This isn't how freedom is supposed to work...

How about gangsta rap groups of the late 80s? Local law-enforcement and many other people used the exact same words that you use today: The freedom of speech has limits. Should they have been prevented from going on stage?

How about occupy Wall street? Why should specific types of speech be allowed in the name of freedom and others deemed conflicting with 'human rights'????

I suspect you and many other people posting here will attempt to come up with reasons why the examples I listed should be accepted but other forms of free speech (which happen to be against your personal views) are wrong and need to be silenced.

This bullshit only creates a divide between us and if our society weren't so lazy, it would lead to another war.

[JoeAltmaier]

Its different to be fired by somebody for what you said, and for the boss to be fired for what he said. You have to see that difference.

[foiboitoi]

Only tyrannical totalitarians despise Freedom of speech. So that they can rule with impunity. The concept of hate speech cannot co-exist with freedom of speech. Either it's all acceptable or it means nothing. That's it.

Acting like people cannot control themselves or react reasonably to unsavory opinion is infantilization. The incitement argument doesn't apply to free speech because it isn't just speech. It's speech plus action & it's the action that hurts. The only human rights that exist are the ones you give yourself.