|
|
|
|
|
|
by merb
3499 days ago
|
|
|
if I say "fuck you" it's not really freedom of speech. I directly insulted you, I didn't even want a conversation, I directly harmed you.
People who think they can the "free speech" excuse for insults are just horrible, they don't understand that free speech is to actually say something in a nice manner which needs to be addressed not just to hammer on some people who do it wrong, that's a different thing and people actually don't get that right, probably because there is a really small line between insulting and objectonable speech, but still you know when somebody insulted somebody and he actually did, he didn't want to address his behavior he just expressed his meaning with insults and not any objectonable speech. If I would've been banned, I would try to address that as well, but not in such a hateful manner than he did. |
|
|
But you didn't insult me because that wasn't a statement regarding my character, you clearly established you don't want a conversation, and you caused me no harm whatsoever, direct or otherwise.
#SticksAndStones
That's the problem with restrictions on 'insulting and objectionable' speech. Beyond the fact you just demonstrated how easy it is to get wrong by misapplying the very rules you brought up in this discussion, it also opens the door to claiming any statement regarding someone's character (such as 'incompetent', 'unemployed', 'hypocrite', 'terrorist', etc) is an insult, regardless of how true it is.
Speech becomes harmful when it isolates and marginalizes. It does not become harmful just because it's offensive or enraging. So in the context of this story calling everyone a 'cuck' wasn't harmful, but the otherwise innocuous phrase 'build the wall' was, and coming up with a set of rules which fairly and consistently cover cases like that is likely impossible.