Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think your whole point is misguided. We live in a society where your right to have a viewpoint that is not popular is protected. When we plow down the barriers that protect people's privacy, making their personal lives fodder for public debate, we are no longer a free society.
What happened to this man is new. And it is controversial.
Charles Lindbergh was a supporter of Hitler. But a century ago, his position was not used against him. He even considered a run for President of the United States, and his position was not used against him.
Our society is changing, and the boundaries between private and public lives is changing. The definition of free speech is changing. And a discussion of what these changes are, and what the implications of these changes are, and whether that's a direction we want to go as a society, is an appropriate discussion.
No, my point is accurate, which is why you have not refuted it.
Again you are raising an irrelevant point, that pretends we have free from consequence free speech.
Human beings have never constructed a society where that fantasy even remotely applies.
You are ignoring that there are already and have always been certain viewpoints that if expressed out loud would have negative consequences for a person.
So what happened to the rich white dude isn't new at all.
I listed several examples of political viewpoints(and there are many more examples) that if it were found out that a CEO of a major American company shared that viewpoint would get that person fired and no one would be discussing free speech. We wouldn't even bat an eye at that CEO's removal.
Why are you either ignorant of this plain reality or pretending not to know?
No one said he couldn't have those idiotic, bigoted ideas. He could legally burn a pile of Elton John and Lady Gaga records while snapping DVDs of Milk in half. God bless America! The land of the free, home of the brave!
They just said you can't have those idiotic, bigoted ideas and run the company.
No one is advocating the thought police. But there ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR SPEECH. From defamation to being socially ostracized...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, but I can still call you an ******* and complain about it" I believe is the full quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And there goes freedom.
Are you saying that people should support Eich's company by using Firefox even if they find his views abhorrent? Why? Freedom works both ways doesn't it?
Why not? Why should he be hindered from being a business owner, because his opinions may not line up with yours or anyone elses? Should he only be allowed to have a low wage job such as sweeping floors, or working the McDonald's drive through? Furthermore, ostracizing the guy is only going to create more dissension, and hatred toward a particular group. Do you really think this is the way to get someone's views to evolve and to come to your side? I'll tell ya what, it sure wouldn't work for me.
He can have whatever views he wants. And people who don't like his views, are free to say they don't like his views, and so choose not to use his company's free product.
Are you saying that people should support Eich's company by using Firefox even if they find his views abhorrent? Why? Freedom works both ways doesn't it?
Don't know why you quoted me because I've been saying that all along but nope. People are free to not use the product, lobby to get him out of his slot, put pressure in Mozilla corp, and call him a big stupid jerk. That's because I'm for freedom of expression and the first amendment unlike the bizzaro PC police.
He can have whatever views he wants. And people who don't like his views, are free to say they don't like his views, and so choose not to use his company's free product.
That is fine. They don't have to. But I draw the line when there is a witch hunt against someone who donated his own money in his own time, and was not discriminative to his employees. I draw the line when it comes to ostracizing him to the point where he may be ruined financially forever, when he has caused no physical harm to others, used his views to commit acts of violence, and not to mention he started the damn company! So, now we have a witch hunt that forced him out, and do you really think that is going to cause him to evolve, or change his views? More than likely the man is going to be more bitter than ever! Where does it end?
No, my point is accurate, which is why you have not refuted it.
Again you are raising an irrelevant point, that pretends we have free from consequence free speech.
Human beings have never constructed a society where that fantasy even remotely applies.
You are ignoring that there are already and have always been certain viewpoints that if expressed out loud would have negative consequences for a person.
So what happened to the rich white dude isn't new at all.
I listed several examples of political viewpoints(and there are many more examples) that if it were found out that a CEO of a major American company shared that viewpoint would get that person fired and no one would be discussing free speech. We wouldn't even bat an eye at that CEO's removal.
Why are you either ignorant of this plain reality or pretending not to know?
I don't need to refute your point. Your point doesn't refute my point. Nor does it render it irrelevant.
There is no pretense that we have "free from consequence free speech." The discussion is about what the consequences should be to different expressions of free speech.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm wondering when a donation became an out-loud proclamation?
And I don't care if the victim is rich or poor, or what color, or what gender. But evidently you do, since you keep bringing it up. Why does that matter.
And you've listed examples, and I've stated that I would still be defending free speech.
Are you saying that people should support Eich's company by using Firefox even if they find his views abhorrent? Why? Freedom works both ways doesn't it?
I'm saying that people should respect other people and their right to even abhorrent opinions. And that an organized movement to target a single individual for his abhorrent opinion, to punish that individual, is vindictive, and also, by design, intimidation. Two things I don't believe belong in the arena of ideas and opinions.
Don't know why you quoted me because I've been saying that all along but nope. People are free to not use the product, lobby to get him out of his slot, put pressure in Mozilla corp, and call him a big stupid jerk. That's because I'm for freedom of expression and the first amendment unlike the bizzaro PC police.
I quoted your post as well, to give context for DC's response to your post.
I agree with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
