It is not enough to do the right thing - it also must be done in the right way, or it becomes the wrong thing.
He does have a right to express himself… up to a point. That point is when it crosses over to affect someone else, in a harmful way - e.g. yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a well-known exception to the Freedom of Speech.
If we are authoritarians, then we ask what the content was that caused the response - if we agree i.e. it was directed at the “other side” then we allow it, if we disagree then suddenly it is labelled “wrong”. Similarly, look to the King to see if a joke was “funny” or not, etc. Hypocrisy is baked right into the system, by design.
But if we are liberals, then we ask whether the content harmed someone, period, regardless of the directionality, and label it permissible or not based solely on that. “Fair” is not just a word used to attempt to get our way here, but meant genuinely as in a goal worth enormous amounts of effort to strive for.
It gets slightly complicated b/c some that work forces burn crosses (claim to be authoritarian but are actually subversively opposing of the Will of The People) while some that march likewise merely claim to be liberal but actually uphold authoritarian principles, and anyway we all are guilty of something, somewhere, on a bad day, but the above is the theory as best as I understand it at least.
I think where points of view tend to diverge is in the definition of “harm.” There’s also some team sports at play, for sure, but I do think a big part of it is “harm.”
See, a devout Christian might say that an atheist T-shirt encourages children to turn away from God, endangering their immortal souls. If you truly believe in Christianity, can there be any greater harm?
At the same time, people who are more conservative tend to not view psychological effects as valid. If you do something that causes a person mental anguish, as opposed to damaging their body, property, or potentially their immortal soul, then it’s imaginary harm. To be totally honest, though, that’s one area I tend to be almost conservative. Psychological harm IS real harm, but I don’t think the government should be in the business of protecting people from it because as long as people have differing views there’s simply no way to protect people equally.
I don’t know if I agree, and I don’t know that I don’t, but either way I’m upvoting bc I am glad to be offered this to mull over - social media done right!:-)
Yelling fire in almost any circumstances isn’t illegal. The current basis of determining if speech is illegal is incitement, or the probability to incite imminent lawless action.
Excellent illustrative points:-).
It is not enough to do the right thing - it also must be done in the right way, or it becomes the wrong thing.
He does have a right to express himself… up to a point. That point is when it crosses over to affect someone else, in a harmful way - e.g. yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a well-known exception to the Freedom of Speech.
If we are authoritarians, then we ask what the content was that caused the response - if we agree i.e. it was directed at the “other side” then we allow it, if we disagree then suddenly it is labelled “wrong”. Similarly, look to the King to see if a joke was “funny” or not, etc. Hypocrisy is baked right into the system, by design.
But if we are liberals, then we ask whether the content harmed someone, period, regardless of the directionality, and label it permissible or not based solely on that. “Fair” is not just a word used to attempt to get our way here, but meant genuinely as in a goal worth enormous amounts of effort to strive for.
It gets slightly complicated b/c some that work forces burn crosses (claim to be authoritarian but are actually subversively opposing of the Will of The People) while some that march likewise merely claim to be liberal but actually uphold authoritarian principles, and anyway we all are guilty of something, somewhere, on a bad day, but the above is the theory as best as I understand it at least.
I think where points of view tend to diverge is in the definition of “harm.” There’s also some team sports at play, for sure, but I do think a big part of it is “harm.”
See, a devout Christian might say that an atheist T-shirt encourages children to turn away from God, endangering their immortal souls. If you truly believe in Christianity, can there be any greater harm?
At the same time, people who are more conservative tend to not view psychological effects as valid. If you do something that causes a person mental anguish, as opposed to damaging their body, property, or potentially their immortal soul, then it’s imaginary harm. To be totally honest, though, that’s one area I tend to be almost conservative. Psychological harm IS real harm, but I don’t think the government should be in the business of protecting people from it because as long as people have differing views there’s simply no way to protect people equally.
I don’t know if I agree, and I don’t know that I don’t, but either way I’m upvoting bc I am glad to be offered this to mull over - social media done right!:-)
Yelling fire in almost any circumstances isn’t illegal. The current basis of determining if speech is illegal is incitement, or the probability to incite imminent lawless action.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater