Punishing censorship on social media: what do you think?

[ImmortalFlame]

Even in France it's like this.
It's Napoleonic juridical tradition.
You have the Anglo-Saxon system where judges decide what is freedom of speech and what is not.
In France and in Italy their hands are tied.
Read Montesquieu, L'esprit des lois.

Article 15 Statute of workers:
Art. 15 statuto dei lavoratori - Atti discriminatori

Anti-discrimination laws do not pertain to public figures whose public reputation can have an impact on their employers.

You are misunderstanding these laws.

 

[Estro Felino]

Anti-discrimination laws do not pertain to public figures whose public reputation can have an impact on their employers.

You are misunderstanding these laws.

It's irrelevant.
If you dismiss me because of my political convictions, you are discriminating against me.
You cannot fire me.
Or you can fire me and compensate me.

 

[Kenny]

I disagree. Depends on what your definition of love is, I guess.

Burt you didn't respond to my point about the "thought" part of the "thought crime." Thoughts are said in our heads. Words are said out loud.

If you can't speak out loud, you prevent people from expressing thoughts and challenging wrong thoughts... thought control. If you can speak into the thoughts of man and another person is prevented of doing so... thought control.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's irrelevant.
If you dismiss me because of my political convictions, you are discriminating against me.

That's not why these people in the examples got dismissed. Roseanne Barr was not fired because of her political convictions. Her political opinions were well known before her new TV deal and during the making of the TV show.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Words can instigate actions, have you not heard of that? It's a crazy idea I know. Still, denying this obvious fact let's one get away with murder.
"I didn't shoot him your Honour, I only told him to." Good luck with leaving the court a free person with that line.

That's the point. You go after those who actually act. Not the ones who just talk.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's the point. You go after those who actually act. Not the ones who just talk.

Okay.

So if I got a group of people together who I had influence over and told them, without any kind of evidence, that you were a child abuser, and then convinced them to protest outside your house, but told them to "do so peacefully", but the protesters then broke into your home and hurt you and your family, would you consider me not even remotely responsible for that happening?

 

[Secret Chief]

That's the point. You go after those who actually act. Not the ones who just talk.

No. The point is: Both. The killers and those who inspire the killers. I struggle to believe that your posts are really so naive.

 

[Secret Chief]

Okay.

So if I got a group of people together who I had influence over and told them, without any kind of evidence, that you were a child abuser, and then convinced them to protest outside your house, but told them to "do so peacefully", but the protesters then broke into your home and hurt you and your family, would you consider me not even be remotely responsible for that happening?

Nope, you had nothing to do with it. Nothing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay.

So if I got a group of people together who I had influence over and told them, without any kind of evidence, that you were a child abuser, and then convinced them to protest outside your house, but told them to "do so peacefully", but the protesters then broke into your home and hurt you and your family, would you consider me not even be remotely responsible for that happening?

I consider those who act are responsible. Talking itself does nothing because it's just talk.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No. The point is: Both. The killers and those who inspire the killers. I struggle to believe that your posts are really so naive.

A person can inspire all they want. The guilty ones are those who act.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I consider those who act are responsible. Talking itself does nothing because it's just talk.

That's not an answer to my question.

Am I a AT ALL RESPONSIBLE for that happening?

And I want you to think very carefully, because any answer other than "Yes" is an insanity signifier.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not an answer to my question.

Am I a AT ALL RESPONSIBLE for that happening?

And I want you to think very carefully, because any answer other than "Yes" is an insanity signifier.

No. It's still speech.

Why?

Because people are responsible for their own actions and choices.

Putting it all on another person who has done nothing but talk is misplaced.

Speech alone will never harm anyone, anywhere, anytime no matter what the content.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. It's still speech.

Why?

Because people are responsible for their own actions and choices.

Putting it all on another person who has done nothing but talk is misplaced.

Speech alone will never harm anyone, anywhere, anytime no matter what the content.

This is one of the worst takes ever.

Seriously, you cannot possibly be this deluded.

You genuinely believe there is no connection whatsoever with people saying things and people committing violence. That is literally an insanity signifier.

I could literally be a religious leader with a following of people who believed in me as a figurehead of God, and if I told those people to chase you down in the street and beat you to death you would not consider me to carry any responsibility for that happening immediately afterwards.

I am dumbfounded...

 

[Secret Chief]

A person can inspire all they want. The guilty ones are those who act.

Goebbels wasn't guilty then.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Goebbels wasn't guilty then.

Nor Osama Bin Laden.

Pretty sure Hitler never personally killed anyone either.

Want to start a list?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Bro, I didn't do anything wrong, bro. I just said some things and signed some papers. Words don't kill people, bro, and paper didn't put people in the gulags. So weird that people blame me for that stuff, bro."
- genuine quote from Joe "Broseph" Stalin, a totally innocent man

 

[Twilight Hue]

Goebbels wasn't guilty then.

Technically no, unless he physically participated.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Technically no, unless he physically participated.

Oh god! You're actually doing it! You ARE the meme!

 

[Estro Felino]

I consider those who act are responsible. Talking itself does nothing because it's just talk.

If some stranger tells me "Take this drug" on Twitter, I won't do it.
Also because I am not a handicapped.
I have a free will, I have a strong willpower and I won't let others influence me.

 

[Secret Chief]

Technically no, unless he physically participated.

Speaks volumes.