>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".

renewiltord 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

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_random 7 days ago | parent [-]

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".

▲

wredcoll 7 days ago | parent [-]

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?

▲

some_random 7 days ago | parent [-]

I do not give a shit about people responding to speech with speech. I am arguing that responding to speech by using your authority over the speaker to hurt them, or by lobbying an authority to do so is something different than speech. Did you see the context for this thread? This is the rhetorical question I responded to: "Do we have a right to object to speech that promotes and normalizes violence against us?". I hold that they absolutely do have a right to object to such speech, any speech in fact, but "objecting" is not the same as lobbying Visa/Mastercard to ban speech they believe "promotes and normalizes violence against us".

▲

moate 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

>>"objecting" is not the same as lobbying Visa/Mastercard to ban speech they believe "promotes and normalizes violence against us"

Why not? Like, I'm a full on anarchist, but how do you create any sort of functioning society without out people being able to say "we as a group don't like that shit and are going to do things to stop it from happening"? Like if burger king comes out and says "We sell dogs here now" am i not allowed to say "fuck this, I'm allergic to dogs but I loved whoppers, I'm going to picket outside BK until the king fixes this travesty of hamburgers?"

Again, I'm an anarchist so I have weird views on a lot of topics, but isn't this a problem that "the capital class wants to continue to have profit go up and to the right on their charts, they're cowardly and uncreative so they fear anything that destabilizes this movement on their charts, and large networks of people are the only thing that can utilize this fear to cause them to change their behaviors"?

	▲	some_random 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		If the shit that you don't like is people talking and that causes your society to stop functioning, your society should not exist.

▲

wredcoll 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> lobbying an authority to do so is something different than speech

Really? How is it different, specifically?

If you're a guest in my house and you say something racist and I ask you to leave...

Or you're a customer in my restaurant...

Or you work for the company I'm a ceo of...

Which one of those freedoms should I be disallowed from using?

(The actual issue here is that mastercard/visa are effectively a duopoly with no competition. The only reasonable way to have a monopoly provider of a vital service is to make it part of a democratic government)

▲

7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]