[Smithalicious]

Is it? Attacking someone's livelihood is a very real and impactful form of aggression. Compared threats of violence there's more cases where it's warranted, yes, but I think I would personally rather be on the receiving end of threats of violence than of someone attempting to make me lose my job and become much harder to employ.

Of course actual violence is a different case altogether.

[zamalek]

If that's your stance then that's fine. However, the correct approach would have been for Destiny to take legal action, instead of vigilantism.

In addition, the prior comments talk about things that may causally limit freedom of speech. Losing your job does not mean losing your voice.

When it comes to how FoS is constitutionally defined (across several countries), it is worth learning about "fighting words." Nearly every justice system agrees that any goes, except words that may (not merely will) cause imminent harm. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Banana699]

>the correct approach would have been for Destiny to take legal action, instead of vigilantism.

So the correct response to percieved harrassment is indeed taking legal action, and not, say, mobilizing mobs to retaliate back ? Mmm, I wonder who needs to hear that.

[TobyTheDog123]

It's quite frightening how people cannot piece together the logic like this when it comes to situations involving transgenderism.

You're obviously correct here, and I'm still trying to figure out how the above poster didn't realize what they were saying as they were saying it.

[zamalek]

What's more frightening is how many people can't piece together that every situation is not a dichotomy.

[galactus]

As far as I understand, the people on kiwifarms _also_ try to get their targets fired by enailing their employees and claiming their targets are pedophiles or something like that.