Cancel culture has gone too far

[userque]

we didn't had online "Cancel Culture" running amok.

That's because we didn't have the internet.

We had a bunch of people, expressing their opinions. Same as today.

Others can agree, or disagree. But there is nothing wrong with people exercising their right to free speech ...

Unless you are in China, Russia, North Korea, or your house.

 

[userque]

A shocking 61% of Americans want more restrictions on free speech. Here’s why they’re dead wrong
https://pacificlegal.org/a-shocking...s-on-free-speech-heres-why-theyre-dead-wrong/
November 25, 2019 I By PHILLIP BADER

In October, the Campaign for Free Speech published poll results showing a shocking shift in American attitudes toward free expression, especially among younger people.

Among those results:

61% of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51% believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today.

Millennials feel a greater sense of negativity about free speech, with 57% agreeing that the First Amendment should be rewritten, and 54% believing that possible jail time would be an appropriate consequence for “hate speech.”

Americans also support government being able to punish the media: 57% believe the government should be able to take action against newspapers or TV stations. Of those who support this, 46% support possible jail time. Additionally, 36% of Americans support a government agency reviewing alternative media such as podcasts; less than half of Americans oppose this.

Those who support such limits on free speech should probably think more carefully about the wisdom of such restrictions, for one central reason: A system of free expression allowing people to share political ideas and criticize the government is essential to individual liberty.

To understand why this is true, consider the difference between the United States and China, another country frequently in the news for a far more egregious pattern of assaults on individual liberty. Recently, China made its stance about as clear as possible, in its clash with the NBA. After Daryl Morey, general manager for the Houston Rockets, posted a tweet supporting the protests in Hong Kong, the CCTV, the predominant state broadcaster, released a statement declaring: “We believe that any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech.”

While Americans enjoy a centuries-old tradition of free speech, China has one of the largest number of imprisoned dissidents in the world. In the most recent World Press Freedom Index rankings of 180 countries, China ranked 177th, below Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

What do all those low-ranking countries share in common? They’re headed by authoritarian governments that routinely use violence and coercion to suppress and punish dissent. I’d wager that most of those Americans who support stringent restrictions on speech wouldn’t sign up to live under any of those regimes.

Criticizing the government is a core tenet of holding the state accountable and driving social change. Imagine a world where Nelson Mandela never left South Africa’s Robben Prison; where Gandhi was never able to lead the Dandi Salt March; or where Martin Luther King Jr. never walked up to that podium in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

True, those leaders paid heavy costs for speaking their minds, in the form of harassment, prison sentences, government surveillance, and worse. Yet they did not let the fear of reprisal stop them from speaking out. Their courageous actions moved us closer toward a free and equal world.

None of this, however, happens without the ability to speak out. Criticizing the government and the status quo is what keeps us free in all areas of our lives, not just speech. At its core, free speech is the ability to speak one’s mind about one’s country without fear of reprisal.

The ability to criticize and speak out against the government cannot and should not be infringed upon. This principle is the bedrock of American democracy, the cornerstone upon which every truly free country must be built. Americans who are prepared to sacrifice that principle should first consider just how willing they are to live in a world where the only speech is that which is sanctioned by the government.

 

[gwb-trading]

That's because we didn't have the internet.

We had a bunch of people, expressing their opinions. Same as today.

Others can agree, or disagree. But there is nothing wrong with people exercising their right to free speech ...

Unless you are in China, Russia, North Korea, or your house.

Did we have mobs of people exercising "free speech" back then by raising a mob across the globe to violently attack people, burn down their houses, abuse their families, disturb their neighborhoods, swat them, torment their employer, and get them fired from jobs back then..... or in other words the equivalent of what the Cancel Culture mob does online today for the slightest statement they perceive as a slight?

Expressing your free speech in a peaceful protest or expressing your opinion politely to a government official is very different than what we are seeing today with online cancel mobs.

It should be very clear that Cancel Culture has gone too far.

 

[userque]

The Great Free-Speech Reversal
Liberals once believed that private corporations have far too much power over the flow of ideas and information in today’s society. Now it’s conservatives who are worried.

More: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/first-amendment-regulation/617827/

 

[userque]

Did we have mobs of people exercising "free speech" back then by raising a mob across the globe to violently attack people, burn down their houses, abuse their families, disturb their neighborhoods, swat them, torment their employer, and get them fired from jobs back then..... or in other words the equivalent of what the Cancel Culture mob does online today for the slightest statement they perceive as a slight?

Expressing your free speech in a peaceful protest or expressing your opinion politely to a government official is very different than what we are seeing today with online cancel mobs.

It should be very clear that Cancel Culture has gone too far.

There is no one group call "Cancel Culture."

1. There are groups of people acting towards a common goal: whether boycotting Goya, or stopping a comedian. These are not necessarily the same people.

2. Everyone speaking out is not an illegal mob.

3. Everyone speaking out is not burning down houses, abusing families, swatting, etc. You are simply profiling and labeling all who speak out in concert as criminals. You make no distinction between peaceful protests and criminal acts. You do what China, Russia, and North Korea does.

Peaceful protests will disturb neighborhoods and traffic patterns. Yeah ... that's a protest.

Employers may feel tormented if there are peaceful protests about them, near their property. Yeah ... that's a protest.

5. Protestors don't have the ability to hire and fire workers.

6. There is no law requiring that protests be "polite" and that they be restricted to being against the government. You have read The Constitution, no?

Let me dumb it down:

You get to say what you want.
I get to say what I want.
Others get to agree or disagree.
Private corporations get to agree or disagree.
Individual or organized law breakers should be identified and prosecuted.

But no one should ban speech simply because @gwb-trading has labeled it as "cancel culture."

_bookmark
gwb_bookmark

 

[gwb-trading]

There is no one group call "Cancel Culture."

1. There are groups of people acting towards a common goal: whether boycotting Goya, or stopping a comedian. These are not necessarily the same people.

2. Everyone speaking out is not an illegal mob.

3. Everyone speaking out is not burning down houses, abusing families, swatting, etc. You are simply profiling and labeling all who speak out in concert as criminals. You make no distinction between peaceful protests and criminal acts. You do what China, Russia, and North Korea does.

Peaceful protests will disturb neighborhoods and traffic patterns. Yeah ... that's a protest.

Employers may feel tormented if there are peaceful protests about them, near their property. Yeah ... that's a protest.

5. Protestors don't have the ability to hire and fire workers.

6. There is no law requiring that protests be "polite" and that they be restricted to being against the government. You have read The Constitution, no?

Let me dumb it down:

You get to say what you want.
I get to say what I want.
Others get to agree or disagree.
Private corporations get to agree or disagree.
Individual or organized law breakers should be identified and prosecuted.

But no one should ban speech simply because @gwb-trading has labeled it as "cancel culture."

_bookmark
gwb_bookmark

Let me state once again... there is a complete difference between free speech and cancel culture.

I support peaceful protests and free speech --- I do not support Cancel Culture... which at this point has spun out of control.

 

[userque]

Let me state once again... there is a complete difference between free speech and cancel culture.

I support peaceful protests and free speech --- I do not support Cancel Culture... which at this point has spun out of control.

The people speaking out against Chappelle are exercising free speech, correct?
So what makes their free speech "cancel culture?"

So you only support a specific type of free speech?

That's not what "supporting free speech" looks like.

 

[userque]

@gwb-trading supports free speech as long as it's not about stuff he doesn't agree with.

 

[gwb-trading]

@gwb-trading supports free speech as long as it's not about stuff he doesn't agree with.

Where have I ever come out against free speech. Please cite an example.

Stating that entertainers such as comedians and musicians should be able to perform their routines even with explicit material without fears of being cancelled is hardly a stance against free speech. Stating that authors should be free to write what the desire without fear of being cancelled is hardly a stance against free speech. Controversial figures should be allowed to present at universities and exercise their free speech without being cancelled is hardly a stance against free speech.

Fundamentally there is a big difference between free speech and Cancel Culture.

 

[gwb-trading]

The people speaking out against Chappelle are exercising free speech, correct?
So what makes their free speech "cancel culture?"

So you only support a specific type of free speech?

That's not what "supporting free speech" looks like.

Trying to get Netflix to fire Dave Chappelle and take down his comedy specials is hardly free speech. It is cancel culture. Dave Chappelle being allowed to perform a comedy routine is free speech.