| > I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves And I would conclude that you believe actions have no consequences when it comes to whatever you like to do. That being free to say or do something means being free to get away with anything that comes out of that. The political position is relevant, this is a combination of character traits and education. Or lack of. You all google "free speech" and only bother to read the first line. Just like the other hicks who think democracy is the right to do whatever the heck they want. You're free to call for violence against others just as you're free to be punished for the consequences of that call. Well guess what, freedom of speech also considers the harm principle. This is further down the page, too much for most of those people to absorb. [1] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else". Speech is like a weapon. They're not prohibited, and you're free to use them any way you see fit but you have to bear the consequences of misuse. But the further you go towards the extremes (left or right) you find that people are having a harder and harder time understanding this concept of consequences. It's in perfect correlation with the drop in education and usefulness to society. Low education, low income, spineless, always blaming someone else, and running from the consequences of their own actions. You're here to "negotiate" something that is already law and principles already accepted by many for centuries. To give a nice shine to something every person with the least bit of decency and education knows is wrong. You even have a hard time understanding the difference between not having your actions censored and not suffering the consequences for those actions. You have no arguments, you have a keyboard and an internet connection, and you don't even take full and productive use of those. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle |
Agreed. And there are laws on the books for this; there always have been. The more recent concept of "hate speech" (to return to your original post) is entirely redundant, unless its intended use is censorship.