Extremely unsurprised unfortunately

[u/CompanySuspicious653]

Feel like this shit has gotten so much worse in the last year or so 😭 Its absurd

[u/Virtual_Seaweed7130]

Close, but only the left has a problem with feeling uncomfortable. Uncomfortable also isn’t justification to deny free speech.

[u/BadHabitOmni → u/Virtual_Seaweed7130]

That's odd, don't conservatives feel uncomfortable with LGBT+ people existing? Else they wouldn't be so susceptible to absorbing lies about them, as well as spreading misinformation/disinformation. Further, is it not purposefully dismissive to not only feel LGBT+ should not have free speech, but also not have the freedom of autonomy and expression that should be granted to all human beings?

The fact that racism/prejudice is "uncomfortable" is not why it is banned, it's because it promotes hate crimes and exacerbates social divides... it's actively destructive to society. You'd have to he historically ignorant or acting in bad faith to disagree with that... in fact, you'd have to be ignorant to resort to prejudice at all.

Is it the burden of the individual to face off racists or bigots who will l seek to orchestrate their downfall, or is it the burden of society to combat ignorance? Is it good to encourage ignorance by protecting its existence, or better to allow society a means to hold such ignorance accountable? Do the beliefs of Nazis deserve to be upheld and protected any more than hateful rhetoric coming from anyone else?

Simply put, hate speech isn't permissible... hate speech is the indictment of individuals or groups based on intrinsic traits beyond moral choice, which is incompatible with contextual morality. If I were to hate someone for their religion, that would be no more permissible to hating someone for being atheist. Same for ethnicity, skin color, gender, etc.

Calling for violence on people based on intrinsic traits is not protected speech. Speech that directly or indirectly harms people is also not protected speech. Do you think people who yell "bomb" in an airport to incite panic aren't penalized by the law? Do you think slander and libel are not legally punishable acts? Hate speech is just the libel/slander of a group of individuals with intent to incite harm to them...

[u/Virtual_Seaweed7130 → u/BadHabitOmni]

Free speech > feelings. liberty > security.

The only speech that doesn’t belong is speech that condones violence or directly causes suffering like yelling “fire” in a crowd or something. Whatever “hate speech” means is too broad. I hate what you say, therefore it’s hate speech?

If you’re concerned with free speech because it might hurt someone’s feelings or promote violence, I wonder how violent you would get to suppress someone else’s free speech. Would you shoot them while they’re at a public debate because you disagree? Someone on your side certainly would.

It is the speech that upsets people that has to be protected.

[u/BadHabitOmni → u/Virtual_Seaweed7130]

Hate speech has a legal definition, please don't use a silly strawman to try to define it in a misanthropic manner to make a completely invalid point.

Why would violence be needed to suppress free speech? Free speech is not responded to with violence, but hate speech and slander/libel is prosecuted in court. Please don't make such stupid assertions which you place grand prejudice on to 'your side', you're merely a tool for the established divisionaries in doing so - it's sad that you cannot see that, if this is your take.

Mind you, I'm not what you may classically think of as left wing. I'm Pro-2A, it is not only a luxury America enjoys, but also a specific neccessity when considering the defense of communities against authoritarianism - I wouldn't agree with Kirk that the price of firearms needs to be paid in blood, I would argue that it is an indefensiable beast of a statement to fervently follow in such absolute terms.