undefined | Better HN

0 pointssome_random8mo ago0 comments

>Do we have a right to object to speech that promotes and normalizes violence against us?

Worth pointing out that their definition of "right to object" is evidentially identical to "right to censor".

0 comments

Well, that's not precise. They are simply objecting. Others are listening to them. I have a right to tell you to go eat a pile of dung[0], for instance. Should you then go eat the dung, it is not that I exercised my right to make you eat dung.

They are simply participating in the once-maligned "cancel culture" which was protected as "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences". These kinds of escape hatches always have these results because one's enemies find a way to use them as well.

0: Just for the sake of argument. I'm not actually insulting you.

some_randomOP8mo ago

I am absolutely against the concept of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" in the same way I am against Soviet "freedom of speech but not freedom after speech".

wredcoll8mo ago

That makes no sense. Frequently the "consequences" of speech is other speech. Are you going to try to argue that the original speech should be privileged over the response?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse