I do argue though that hate speech shouldn't be free speech. It doesn't serve anything and due to several reasons, it could be compared to other speech not being free speech. It's already proven that certain speech encouraged suicide, and other bad things.
Even if hate speech shouldn't be interfered with the government, I at least strongly suggest websites and non-internet public areas to adopt a rule against hate speech.
There is also speech that gets overly hated that a good point could just get hidden or create negative effects that lacks any control.
Though the general public opinion, criticism thing, and website agreements is not that new I think. However, I do think "free speech" is not just a legal US thing that should be respected. It should be morally respected too in some way, though in a depending way.
For example, someone makes a good interesting point on a website and the speech itself was legal, then a website bans you for it because "They hate it.". It's true that it doesn't exactly violate rights because after all, it's their site. It's nearly impossible to say they did something "morally wrong". They can ban you for probably any reason, just like how a house owner can ban a guest for a silly reason. Not sure if banning based off race for example is legal though.
But in a respectful practice, I can argue it's pretty stupid and exposes a mindset that the person doesn't allow both sides of some debate. If I get banned from a website because I tried to call out an unfair point, then I believe the website should be exposed for not respecting "free" speech in another sense. My rights are not exactly violated per se, but still.
There is also hypocrisy. Someone acts like they respect free speech, as in the ability to comment on other people's profiles for example. Yet, the person uses his free speech directly saying someone's freedom of speech expression is "wrong" and worse, may publicly humiliate someone for something like some fictional pairing that's allowed. In such practice, this person isn't respecting the speech of another person's expression that's allowed. That alone could be morally wrong in the mindset.
I've seen arguments about this free speech thing before, I think there was a word for the less legal protection thing, but forgot what it's called.
Anyway, yes, free speech is important, but so is the ability to post good points in places that legally reserves the right to delete such points. If a website doesn't allow an interesting point, and/or that people give the illusion that EVERY disagreement to certain arguments is "rude" and that we must not violate that subjective rudeness, then that's just damaging something important. I know that sounded specific, because it is. *sigh*
I do argue though that hate speech shouldn't be free speech. It doesn't serve anything and due to several reasons, it could be compared to other speech not being free speech. It's already proven that certain speech encouraged suicide, and other bad things.
Even if hate speech shouldn't be interfered with the government, I at least strongly suggest websites and non-internet public areas to adopt a rule against hate speech.
There is also speech that gets overly hated that a good point could just get hidden or create negative effects that lacks any control.
Though the general public opinion, criticism thing, and website agreements is not that new I think. However, I do think "free speech" is not just a legal US thing that should be respected. It should be morally respected too in some way, though in a depending way.
For example, someone makes a good interesting point on a website and the speech itself was legal, then a website bans you for it because "They hate it.". It's true that it doesn't exactly violate rights because after all, it's their site. It's nearly impossible to say they did something "morally wrong". They can ban you for probably any reason, just like how a house owner can ban a guest for a silly reason. Not sure if banning based off race for example is legal though.
But in a respectful practice, I can argue it's pretty stupid and exposes a mindset that the person doesn't allow both sides of some debate. If I get banned from a website because I tried to call out an unfair point, then I believe the website should be exposed for not respecting "free" speech in another sense. My rights are not exactly violated per se, but still.
There is also hypocrisy. Someone acts like they respect free speech, as in the ability to comment on other people's profiles for example. Yet, the person uses his free speech directly saying someone's freedom of speech expression is "wrong" and worse, may publicly humiliate someone for something like some fictional pairing that's allowed. In such practice, this person isn't respecting the speech of another person's expression that's allowed. That alone could be morally wrong in the mindset.
I've seen arguments about this free speech thing before, I think there was a word for the less legal protection thing, but forgot what it's called.
Anyway, yes, free speech is important, but so is the ability to post good points in places that legally reserves the right to delete such points. If a website doesn't allow an interesting point, and/or that people give the illusion that EVERY disagreement to certain arguments is "rude" and that we must not violate that subjective rudeness, then that's just damaging something important. I know that sounded specific, because it is. *sigh*
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.