Halubaris Maphotika Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 https://archive.is/lJkk8 Bob Chipman raises interesting points but another set of interesting ones are by Vivian afterwords. It raises a very weird question. Is there no need for Freedom of Speech anymore? Does it pose no real benefit to anyone except those of ill-intent? I have talked to a lot of Progressives recently who have all either told me straight up, or implied they do not value Freedom of Speech anymore and feel it needs to be abolished. Discuss please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateIRS Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 My stance is if you don't like free speech, shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Flyer - Sakura Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 https://archive.is/lJkk8 Bob Chipman raises interesting points but another set of interesting ones are by Vivian afterwords. It raises a very weird question. Is there no need for Freedom of Speech anymore? Does it pose no real benefit to anyone except those of ill-intent? I have talked to a lot of Progressives recently who have all either told me straight up, or implied they do not value Freedom of Speech anymore and feel it needs to be abolished. Discuss please.There is still need for free speech.If we didn't have it, then people would get into trouble for speaking their mind, even if a lot of stuff they say is indeed true. (Do they want to be like North Korea, where even one small slip lands you in concentration camps?) Certainly, there will be people who use their freedom of speech to write heated/controversial opinions on certain people/politics or whatever the hell you want (and that is protected by our rights), and indeed that is so. There are certainly limits to what one can say in public w/out risking defamation suits and the like, but as a whole, it should not be abolished.If someone writes slander about you in a local paper, then yeah it's crossing the line. Same goes for calling people out at work; you lose your job or some other thing. Bottom-line, if you don't like what someone says (and it's not directly affecting you), just shut up and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Felt like it's less about the concept itself being outdated, and more about how people perceive it right now being outdated, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateIRS Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Felt like it's less about the concept itself being outdated, and more about how people perceive it right now being outdated, in my opinion. What does that imply, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Felt like it's less about the concept itself being outdated, and more about how people perceive it right now being outdated, in my opinion. This. Freedom of Speech does not give you free range to say what ever it is you feel like. Freedom of Speech is a protection from government censorship. Period. It starts and stops with the government. If you want to go on a rant about black people by using the N-Word on your Facebook go right a head, the government can't stop you, thats what free speech is. Society however is more than capable of ostracizing you for being racist. That can take the forum of being banned from Facebook or losing your job. Those are private entities, not to mention terms of services/employment agreements often list those things as punishable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardsman Sly Marbo Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Freedom of Speech is strange in that although it starts and stops with the government, speaking your mind can sometimes lead to ill consequences, wether it be ostracism, being threatened or other things. It's like giving the keys of a 18-wheeler to a 4-year old and telling them to be sensible, someone is bound to say something that'll piss someone off, and you gotta deal with the reprecussions of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halubaris Maphotika Posted October 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/27/why-online-anonymity-frightens-progressives/ Milo hits the nail on the coffin. I agree 100% with this assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Anonymity is certainly a good thing, but the way it is used WILL cause it to be lost. When you can make death and rape threats to people something is wrong. When you can post phone numbers or address of people something is very wrong. When you can call in a SWAT team on someone something is extremely wrong. When you can post on the internet that your going to shoot up a school, be supported in that, and than be praised that you did it something is terrifyingly wrong. All those things can happen because of the anonymity of the internet, and (in the case of SWATting) because of the culture that exists around it. That having a mash means that you can terrorize someone you don't like and get away with it. Also, to further drive home that last example https://twitter.com/desertfox899/status/649675206009556992 The things those people are saying disgust me and you better believe that part of the reason they are willing to say what they are saying is because they are "unaccountable for their words and deeds.” You want to defend online anonymity, fine, it does do good work. It allows for political dissension in places where speaking out can get you killed. However to act like it isn't being used for disgusting purposes and that people are causing harm because they have a mask to hide behind just makes you seem ignorant to the reality of how the internet works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halubaris Maphotika Posted October 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Anonymity is certainly a good thing, but the way it is used WILL cause it to be lost. When you can make death and rape threats to people something is wrong.When you can post phone numbers or address of people something is very wrong.When you can call in a SWAT team on someone something is extremely wrong.When you can post on the internet that your going to shoot up a school, be supported in that, and than be praised that you did it something is terrifyingly wrong. All those things can happen because of the anonymity of the internet, and (in the case of SWATting) because of the culture that exists around it. That having a mash means that you can terrorize someone you don't like and get away with it. Also, to further drive home that last examplehttps://twitter.com/desertfox899/status/649675206009556992 The things those people are saying disgust me and you better believe that part of the reason they are willing to say what they are saying is because they are "unaccountable for their words and deeds.” You want to defend online anonymity, fine, it does do good work. It allows for political dissension in places where speaking out can get you killed. However to act like it isn't being used for disgusting purposes and that people are causing harm because they have a mask to hide behind just makes you seem ignorant to the reality of how the internet works.Making death and rape threats is wrong, but should not be criminalized, only actions.Posting phone numbers and addresses is a grey area between speech and action, the problem is that most of these things are publicly found anyways, but it still doesn't make it right.Swatting is an action that is not supported by Freedom of Speech.Regardless, the threat should be taken seriously and dealt with as an attempt and judged on stuff. I don't care whether it is wrong to praise them or not, they have a right to say it. Calling Swatting a culture is a bit of a stretch. It is simply the pass time of trolls who value doing those heinous things to people. There is no culture around it, just malice. Freedom of speech protects words, not deeds. Wil Wheaton can shout from the rooftops all he wants, deeds are not supported and never will be. Only words. Also, using R9K as an example is a very poor way of getting a point across. First off, it is 4chan, second off it is R9K. R9K is designed to force users to post something original, regardless of the severity of it, otherwise you are muted for a time and your post does not go through. In order to keep things going, the threads become more and more erratic and sometimes offensive. SOURCE: I use R9K. I hate to deviate from Milo's point, but I do not support Free Speech on its good qualities alone, but on its bad. Free Speech is a Yin/Yang of human communication, you cannot have the good without the bad, they must coexist, and the bad reminds us of how we take the good things we have for granted. It is necessary. In my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Making death and rape threats is wrong, but should not be criminalized, only actions. Why shouldn't it? Any threat like that should be taken seriously and by doing nothing your only giving the impression that they can keep doing it. Calling Swatting a culture is a bit of a stretch. It is simply the pass time of trolls who value doing those heinous things to people. There is no culture around it, just malice. That isn't what I meant. The culture I was talking about was that of anonymity, that you can say or do something and because your just another nameless, faceless person you won't be punished for it. Swatting is one of the most extreme examples of this. Freedom of speech protects words, not deeds. Wil Wheaton can shout from the rooftops all he wants, deeds are not supported and never will be. Only words. You act like all words are too. If you break up with someone, get drunk, and start going on how your going to kill them, people are 100% going to take that seriously and you are going to get in trouble for it. You don't need to do anything, the threat will be perceived as real, even if your only saying it in a drunk moment of anger. It is SSSSOOOOOOOO much worse to see someone make a threat, do nothing because you didn't think it was serious, and then end up with them than going through with it then take every threat seriously. The simple fact is they had no reason making those kinds of statements to begin with. Even when you don't mean it, your reason for making them is still to cause harm so why should that kind of behavior be tolerated? Words have incredible power and the harm they can cause should not be underestimated. I hate to deviate from Milo's point, but I do not support Free Speech on its good qualities alone, but on its bad. Free Speech is a Yin/Yang of human communication, you cannot have the good without the bad, they must coexist, and the bad reminds us of how we take the good things we have for granted. It is necessary. In my opinion of course. That makes no sense. If something can be made purely good, you have no reason to keep from trying to get it to that point. A person can appreciate the good in life without some kind of bad being attached. Life is hard enough and filled enough crap that you don't need to manufacture extra just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/27/why-online-anonymity-frightens-progressives/ Milo hits the nail on the coffin. I agree 100% with this assessment. That's one of the most biased and unapologetically biased editorials I have ever seen. Hyperbolic to no end. Apparently, spewing hate is constructive to debate, yet hyperbolic rhetoric isn't. Of course, neither are, but presenting the former as entirely okay is ridiculous. To be honest, most of the ridicule towards Pao went directly for the obvious "Chairman Pao" joke. I don't entirely agree that none of the discourse towards Pao was racist, and I certainly don't like the implication that Reddit manages to make a coherent argument at all times. Also, the conclusion there simply doesn't make sense. At all. I don't think boycotts make sense, but I think people are allowed to avoid whatever companies they like. If the CEO of Mozilla had an anti-gay marriage stance and makes it public, it only makes sense to expect some sort of public reaction to that. If he wanted to go online and make a Reddit account, and talk about his anti-gay marriage stance there, totally up to him. There may not be the same backlash, but, hey, if he gets downvoted to hell, that isn't persecution of the innocent. That's just disagreement. More importantly, either way, he does not become legally persecuted. Good. He can say what he likes, frankly. He wasn't going to get persecuted online, because the assumption that there is want for disagreement to have consequences is facetious. When has hate speech and threats = disagreement? I think the gay marriage debate is contentious enough that there's no need to be talking about hate speech there. But if someone goes "I'm going to murder all the kids in this school", that should clearly have consequences. I speak from experience from having my school under police lockdown due to a 4chan bomb threat. Equal parts hilarious, absurd, and actually a bit terrifying. This guy was definitely cherry-picking points. If Wheaton reblogs a statement about the CEO of Mozilla stepping down, the conclusion that he actively encourages CEOs with controversial opinions to be booted is an odd conclusion to come to. If you read the statement, it's actually about how they value equality as a company value. That seems like something worth celebrating. I have no strong opinions about the CEO, but I appreciate the sentiment of the statement. His overall conclusion, that disagreement does not require consequence, makes sense. But, then again, none of the people he was naming were arguing against that. I hate to deviate from Milo's point, but I do not support Free Speech on its good qualities alone, but on its bad. Free Speech is a Yin/Yang of human communication, you cannot have the good without the bad, they must coexist, and the bad reminds us of how we take the good things we have for granted. It is necessary. In my opinion of course. This is a wishy-washy statement. The yin/yang of human communication, and coexistence, and how the bad reminds you not to take the good for granted sounds like it could have come out of one of the Gospels of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King K. Azo Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 I do not think free speech is outdated. I should be able to present my point of view, even if it is unpopular or against what the majority says without being criminally charged for it. Notice I said criminally. I can't use 'freedom of speech' to protect myself from someone disagreeing with me, unless they are saying I don't have a right to say it. However, the WAY you present it is what matters. For example, if I don't like someone's fanart, I'll just tell them I don't, maybe offer some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, and move on. That does NOT give me the right to harass them, or nearly drive them to suicide (yes, I just came from the Steven Universe thread, sue me). One thing is, at least in my area, people are trying to limit my freedom of speech so I can't disagree with women or the college can't have certain speakers come to the college. That's... No, that's not right. None of them are hate generators, nor am I harassing people. But because people don't agree with me, and perhaps because I make people uncomfortable and make them think, I can't speak? And this is okay? I don't think freedom of speech is outdated. But do people abuse it? Of course. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halubaris Maphotika Posted October 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Why shouldn't it? Any threat like that should be taken seriously and by doing nothing your only giving the impression that they can keep doing it. That isn't what I meant. The culture I was talking about was that of anonymity, that you can say or do something and because your just another nameless, faceless person you won't be punished for it. Swatting is one of the most extreme examples of this. You act like all words are too. If you break up with someone, get drunk, and start going on how your going to kill them, people are 100% going to take that seriously and you are going to get in trouble for it. You don't need to do anything, the threat will be perceived as real, even if your only saying it in a drunk moment of anger. It is SSSSOOOOOOOO much worse to see someone make a threat, do nothing because you didn't think it was serious, and then end up with them than going through with it then take every threat seriously. The simple fact is they had no reason making those kinds of statements to begin with. Even when you don't mean it, your reason for making them is still to cause harm so why should that kind of behavior be tolerated? Words have incredible power and the harm they can cause should not be underestimated. That makes no sense. If something can be made purely good, you have no reason to keep from trying to get it to that point. A person can appreciate the good in life without some kind of bad being attached. Life is hard enough and filled enough crap that you don't need to manufacture extra just because.It shouldn't be because, when criminalized, it simply encourages sensitivity and it just goes downhill from there. You will get two kinds of people in the drunk scenario, people who take it seriously, and people who go "He's drunk as Hell, nothing to worry about." As an RA at my College Dorms, the amount of time I get the "He's drunk he doesn't mean it." excuse is excessive. The funny thing is, they are usually right. We had residents who would show up a day later regretting everything they have said under the influence. I disagree that words have such an amount of power, nor do I think nobody should do anything about them. The public isn't going to sit there all of time and disregard the man's threats. That man will be demonized based on his comments and will face intense scrutiny and suspicion. The police should take a man in for interrogation to see if he would remotely move in on those insults. However, I do not believe the man should receive fines and/or jail time because of this. Except in a realistic world that scenario is practically nonexistent. There is no scenario in which words won't be tolerated by authority figures and everybody is allowed to speak their mind. How one feels about things said to them is incredibly subjective. Eventually you will have people simply reacting to disagreement and criminalizing that too. You either have Freedom of Speech, or none of it, but it is always the result of criminalizing certain speech where eventually what is illegal becomes more and more broad. That's one of the most biased and unapologetically biased editorials I have ever seen. Hyperbolic to no end. Apparently, spewing hate is constructive to debate, yet hyperbolic rhetoric isn't. Of course, neither are, but presenting the former as entirely okay is ridiculous. To be honest, most of the ridicule towards Pao went directly for the obvious "Chairman Pao" joke. I don't entirely agree that none of the discourse towards Pao was racist, and I certainly don't like the implication that Reddit manages to make a coherent argument at all times. Also, the conclusion there simply doesn't make sense. At all. I don't think boycotts make sense, but I think people are allowed to avoid whatever companies they like. If the CEO of Mozilla had an anti-gay marriage stance and makes it public, it only makes sense to expect some sort of public reaction to that. If he wanted to go online and make a Reddit account, and talk about his anti-gay marriage stance there, totally up to him. There may not be the same backlash, but, hey, if he gets downvoted to hell, that isn't persecution of the innocent. That's just disagreement. More importantly, either way, he does not become legally persecuted. Good. He can say what he likes, frankly. He wasn't going to get persecuted online, because the assumption that there is want for disagreement to have consequences is facetious. When has hate speech and threats = disagreement? I think the gay marriage debate is contentious enough that there's no need to be talking about hate speech there. But if someone goes "I'm going to murder all the kids in this school", that should clearly have consequences. I speak from experience from having my school under police lockdown due to a 4chan bomb threat. Equal parts hilarious, absurd, and actually a bit terrifying. This guy was definitely cherry-picking points. If Wheaton reblogs a statement about the CEO of Mozilla stepping down, the conclusion that he actively encourages CEOs with controversial opinions to be booted is an odd conclusion to come to. If you read the statement, it's actually about how they value equality as a company value. That seems like something worth celebrating. I have no strong opinions about the CEO, but I appreciate the sentiment of the statement. His overall conclusion, that disagreement does not require consequence, makes sense. But, then again, none of the people he was naming were arguing against that. This is a wishy-washy statement. The yin/yang of human communication, and coexistence, and how the bad reminds you not to take the good for granted sounds like it could have come out of one of the Gospels of the Bible.How does it not make sense? Progressives hate anonymity. Numerous Progressive journalists have talked about how anonymity should be eliminated. It does scare them, and Milo understands this. How the Hell was this biased? Because he worked for Breitbart? Because he used History? I don't see much bias, and Milo is as bias a journalist as it comes. I definitely understand that it can be a bit terrifying to be under police lock down. As an RA, one of the residents threatened my life because he got evicted when I caught him breaking the rules. I had to be escorted by police to my classes and watched at all times when I left my room. I agree people have the right to boycott, no matter how ridiculous, but have we know right to call it ridiculous and say. Hate speech is disagreement, and it is still hate speech. It is both, frankly. First off, that whole excuse Donald was forced to make was ridiculous. They didn't want him as a CEO because of his political opinions. You reblog his resignation statement, and it is only because of how the letter was worded? I doubt it. Arthur Chu has notoriously supported speech filtering against disagreement, this is straight fact. In fact he admits it with pride. I don't know how you can't see their obvious disillusionment with Free Speech, but speech is always subjective, and anybody can receive different conclusions from it. It's not wishy-washy. I do feel both are equally necessary. You will never be able to achieve the good without the bad, because what we perceive bad will always be different. If we want to talk about inclusivity, what about the people who want to talk about disgusting things in peace? It can be therapeutic for people, and they shouldn't be allowed to say it because some people get scared on the internet? Milo and I disagree with the Progressive concept being established to us, but neither of us are saying it shouldn't be allowed to exist, we simply don't like the concept and argue against it, encouraging others to handle it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 I don't agree with eradicating anonymity either, but his arguments still manage to rub off on me the wrong way completely. That's a terrible sign. Hate speech is disagreement, but disagreement is certainly not hate speech. His conclusion is very reasonable, but all his arguments point towards the much more contentious conclusion of "Hate speech does not deserve consequence." Which is very different indeed. I don't even like the statements that people like Will Wheaton are advocating for the end of online privacy. Some of the people he mentions certainly are, but others aren't (Wheaton certainly isn't). There seems to be little relativity to his arguments. It's either very severe or not there at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 This. Freedom of Speech does not give you free range to say what ever it is you feel like. Freedom of Speech is a protection from government censorship. Period. It starts and stops with the government. If you want to go on a rant about black people by using the N-Word on your Facebook go right a head, the government can't stop you, thats what free speech is. Society however is more than capable of ostracizing you for being racist. That can take the forum of being banned from Facebook or losing your job. Those are private entities, not to mention terms of services/employment agreements often list those things as punishable.^This. I hate how some people think that they can just say w/e the hell they want with little consequences because its "free speech". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 It shouldn't be because, when criminalized, it simply encourages sensitivity and it just goes downhill from there. Thats the slippery slope fallacy. Not doing something because SOMETHING bad might come of it simply means we should never do anything. The simple fact is I should not be able to go to someone's twitter and say all kinds of horrid things and not be forced to face some kind of repercussion. That repercussion doesn't have to be criminal action (although some of the things people have said there could certainly end with that) but they need some kind. Doing nothing only encourages that kind of toxic behavior because it gives the message that what they are doing is ok. I disagree that words have such an amount of power, nor do I think nobody should do anything about them. Words have lead many a person to commit suicide because of how powerful they are. To think that someone hearing the wrong things said to them time after time won't have serious damaging effects is a very scary mentality imo. Except in a realistic world that scenario is practically nonexistent. There is no scenario in which words won't be tolerated by authority figures and everybody is allowed to speak their mind. How one feels about things said to them is incredibly subjective. Eventually you will have people simply reacting to disagreement and criminalizing that too. You either have Freedom of Speech, or none of it, but it is always the result of criminalizing certain speech where eventually what is illegal becomes more and more broad. Once again, some levels of speech are already criminalized. Classic example of shouting fire in a movie theater. Making threats to someone to the point where they fear for they're life. We already have some limits on what is ok to say. While they aren't much on a legal level on social media they are a lot more. If you go around insulting someone here, push too much and you WILL get banned. I'm probably one of the most lax mods on the forum and I'd much rather warn you then ban you, even after you've already crossed the line but, but there are limits to how much you can try to get away with before the hammer comes down. How does it not make sense? Progressives hate anonymity. Numerous Progressive journalists have talked about how anonymity should be eliminated. It does scare them, and Milo understands this. How the Hell was this biased? Because he worked for Breitbart? Because he used History? I don't see much bias, and Milo is as bias a journalist as it comes. The word choice and the way in which the words are presented show a HEAVY bias. I agree with Rai, that article rubbed me the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halubaris Maphotika Posted October 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Thats the slippery slope fallacy. Not doing something because SOMETHING bad might come of it simply means we should never do anything. The simple fact is I should not be able to go to someone's twitter and say all kinds of horrid things and not be forced to face some kind of repercussion. That repercussion doesn't have to be criminal action (although some of the things people have said there could certainly end with that) but they need some kind. Doing nothing only encourages that kind of toxic behavior because it gives the message that what they are doing is ok. Words have lead many a person to commit suicide because of how powerful they are. To think that someone hearing the wrong things said to them time after time won't have serious damaging effects is a very scary mentality imo. Once again, some levels of speech are already criminalized. Classic example of shouting fire in a movie theater. Making threats to someone to the point where they fear for they're life. We already have some limits on what is ok to say. While they aren't much on a legal level on social media they are a lot more. If you go around insulting someone here, push too much and you WILL get banned. I'm probably one of the most lax mods on the forum and I'd much rather warn you then ban you, even after you've already crossed the line but, but there are limits to how much you can try to get away with before the hammer comes down. The word choice and the way in which the words are presented show a HEAVY bias. I agree with Rai, that article rubbed me the wrong way.Frankly, I don't see the bias, but that is just me, I don't think it needs to rub people the wrong way. It doesn't seem like he was being a jerk. Its very surprising because Milo is an jabroni in his articles, and this was pretty tame by comparison. Perhaps my idea of tame is very lax. I am not going to put my two cents on the suicide area of this debate. My opinion in that regard is not wanted and so I will just leave that out. Also, thank you for catching me on the fallacy. I can't believe I fell for the same fallacy I criticized Rai for. If you go around insulting someone here, push too much and you WILL get banned. I'm probably one of the most lax mods on the forum and I'd much rather warn you then ban you, even after you've already crossed the line but, but there are limits to how much you can try to get away with before the hammer comes down.I don't mean to be paranoid but, are you subtley warning me? Or am I just losing my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Laws are just superlatives of the contextual limitations on our freedoms of speech. Nobody speaks freely, we're all puppets to the demands and constraints of context. I don't mean to be paranoid but, are you subtley warning me? Or am I just losing my mind. It didn't seem particularly subtle to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateIRS Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 The problem with any opposition to freedom of speech is that it necessitates utilization of freedom of speech. There just isn't any legitimacy in doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 I don't mean to be paranoid but, are you subtley warning me? Or am I just losing my mind. It wasn't my intent. I was simply speaking in general. Toxicity isn't something that should be tolerated and while I much rather try to get them to stop, if someone proves they won't I will ban them. Thats the whole point I've been trying to make, your free to say what you want, but when you start to use those words to cause distress to others you've crossed a line and something should be done. While I disagree with a lot of what your saying you're civil about it and are no where near that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halubaris Maphotika Posted October 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 It wasn't my intent. I was simply speaking in general. Toxicity isn't something that should be tolerated and while I much rather try to get them to stop, if someone proves they won't I will ban them. Thats the whole point I've been trying to make, your free to say what you want, but when you start to use those words to cause distress to others you've crossed a line and something should be done. While I disagree with a lot of what your saying you're civil about it and are no where near that line.Okay, apologies for overreacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King K. Azo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Here. A wise man once said (or rapped)"Free speech doesn't mean just keep yapping". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.