Derek89 said:
I honestly don't see how he went about it is such a big deal. The internet is filled, and some might even claim that it is meant for uncensored humour and mischievous expressions excused by a lack of producing direct consequences (as in 1st line direct, not that someone reacted to something and then that person did something and attributes it to the object of his/her reaction). I suppose this is completely subjective, but I believe that personal beliefs and the beliefs of a company should be 2 separate things that don't inherently represent each other. I'm not sure why many people don't see it that way, but I've thought we're always in search of someone "responsible" to take the blame and therefore we look at their "enablers". The beliefs you lusted are attrocious, yes. But I'd like an absolutist free speech. Anything can be thought and said (provided in the correct channels, ofc. Won't someone think of the children xD). As long as those speeches don't try to engage in direct action as in "kill all cops", "kill all jews" and the examples you gave, I think it should be permitted. But the beliefs of this man aren't like this, and I might bet that most trolls that say those things don't actually believe it and they say it just to, well, troll us. Being sexist, sexist, etc, shouldn't come at someone else's expenses, I agree. But I don't agree in that the expense comes along with the speech. It's up to the receiver of the message to give weight to it. Therefore the famous phrase "don't feed the troll". But, of course, there are exceptions where it can get too extreme, but none expressed by a political party (as far as I'm aware of). As for your last paragraphs; for fear of retaliation, of damage. People have been fired from saying the "wrong things" on their personal social media profile or writting the"wrong article" like the journalist that dared to say that Hillary Clinton might be sick at the Huffington Post. People go anonymous when sharing ideologies, ideas, when their integrity and their life is at risk. Most extreme cases of people choosing to go public and receiving retaliaton, are murders in civil wars and dictatorships. |
Therein lies the problem. You can't have the cake and eat it. The world has never been such a place. Absolute free speech means someone has the right to challenge what you have said and disagree with you. Absolute free speech means you can bully someone, but you can get bullied back. Absolute free speech however shouldn't and never has trumped (I managed to fit a pun in) responsibility, negligence, bullying, harassment, hate speech and the like.
Palmer made a decision to join a group that have some real skewed views on the lgbt community, Muslims, women, Jews, minorities etc, people who have done dodgy financial deals etc. He knew full well this won't sit right with many people including consumers etc. He actively chose to take the risk and involve himself with such people, groups and actively participate beyond funding them.
Also, hypocrisy & leading people on arent great characteristics. To say I don't like these people and these people, but I won't tell them because faking being nice to them will get me paid isn't about free speech but trust and principles. The man has no principles.
Not only has he now come out saying he hasn't said the things he has said, but he is denying he posted them, only for the reporter to call him out and post screen shots of the email.
