- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 31,057
- Reaction score
- 3,969
- Location
- not here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
So restrict it for things that people don't like because......?
Aaaand, I said that where exactly.
So restrict it for things that people don't like because......?
Aaaand, I said that where exactly.
I'm asking for clarification.
And what part of "the results of speech" don't you understand.
How you are applying it. This is a thread about free speech and attempts to curb it. How does your statement apply to this threads topic?
(chuckle)
How do results apply to anything Kal?
It's not what you say; it's what you do...
What's been curbing speech forever - is litigation.
In New York City, new clarifications to the city’s human rights guidelines make clear that the intentional misidentification of a person’s preferred name, pronoun or title is violation of the city’s anti-discrimination law.
What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)
The purpose of law is to balance competing interests and rights. You don't seem to understand that is what it's there for, to provide limits.
When you're in a racist era, making the world safe for racists is not what I have in mind.
History tells us racists always escalate. But you don't have to take my word for it, it's happening.
Faux News.
Litigation isn't the only thing curbing it. SJW's are also curbing it by costing people their jobs and livelihoods. But yes, litigation is definitely a major player in curbing free speech. Particularly by big corporations and the government. In New York they passed a law which demands that people in government and business call people by their preferred title of address. Even going so far as to demand that the business demand that its patrons do the same. That is a violation of Free Speech. Yet fully accepted by many people.
She? Ze? They? What’s In a Gender Pronoun
You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
So, do you support this type of thing? Do you support litigation to shut people up? Do you support getting people fired for simply expressing their opinion? Do you support patrons of an establishment getting thrown out for simply not saying "he" to a FtoM Transgender? How far are people willing to go for their safe zones being imposed everywhere?
Think you're the one that needs to check your history. They created a system of checks and balances alright, but those checks and balances were placed on the government. There were no restrictions placed on The People. And I'd dare you to show one piece of restriction against people in the Constitution.
The purpose of law is to balance competing interests and rights. You don't seem to understand that is what it's there for, to provide limits.
When you're in a racist era, making the world safe for racists is not what I have in mind.
History tells us racists always escalate. But you don't have to take my word for it, it's happening.
That is what law is for.
We adopted most of English jurisprudence, which makes your point moot.
The law cannot overturn Constitutional Law. Try again.
What do you have in mind for people you label as racist? I take it you want them not to be safe. Given that just about everyone who disagrees with you about anything is liable to be labeled as racist by you, isn't this just a rationale to attack these people with violence or by other means?
Except the court takes care of that, and I don't remember them agreeing with you.
They often agree with me. You need to study up on Constitutional Law more. Besides, despite the rhetoric, the court isn't actually the final arbiter of The Law. Juries are.
The Supreme Court doesn't have jury trials. But that does help clear things up.