JWeinCom said:
People should use any legal means at their disposal to silence them. Other countries take it a step further, and utilize the law to do so directly. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but would have to study more about how it works in European nations that employ such laws. I know it wasn't addressed towards me, but I figured someone ought to answer it...
Yes, I absolutely can stay on topic and am doing so as best I can. If you think I am not, feel free to pose a direct question, and I will answer it. If you discuss America being founded about freedom of speech you are talking about the first amendment. Because that is what protects freedom of speech. The interpretation of that Amendment is what determines the boundaries of our freedom of speech. If you're talking about what freedom of speech means or should mean in America, you are talking about the first amendment. You cannot discuss one without the other. Your school is wrong. There's nothing special about Americans. We react the same as anyone else to speech we don't like, on both sides of the spectrum. The difference is that it is illegal to criminalize speech about matters of public concern due to the first amendment. That's all. And even that's not an accurate portrayal of American history. For many years seditious libel, encouraging rebellion against the government, was illegal. Speaking against the draft was illegal. During the cold war people were blacklisted and ostracized for support of socialism. Teaching evolution was banned. There were laws against atheists holding public office, and there are still plenty of places in America where you will be ostracized for openly being an atheist. In some states, a non-violent sexual advance by a person of the same gender is still legal grounds for provocation to violence. In 13 US States (all red) it is illegal to defame beef (or other food products). People were lynched to silence them. American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right. So, maybe you should learn a bit about the history of free speech in America before talking about the good ol' days where a man could speak his mind without fear. Cause that never existed. I wouldn't talk about freedom of speech in Sweden cause I know fuck all about that, and I stay in my lane. But, if you wish, fine. Let's discuss whether cancel culture is a good thing, independent of any law. Allow me to respond to your comment. First off, it's not censorship as defined by law... but since you want to ignore the law since it disagrees with your personal values, if it condemned all calls for censorship, then that would not make it one sided. If it ignores calls for censorship when it's from one side, then it's one sided. Similarly if it only posts positive stories about Trump, that's one sided. Unless you'd like to take the position he's done nothing worthy of criticism. Moreover, the site did not reach to Google for comment and relied solely on the position of one side of the story, reporting it as fact. It is one-sided in the most literal sense of the word. So, back to my question about cancel culture. Which you said is the biggest threat to America or something like that. Do you believe that it is wrong to call for someone's private employer to fire them based on speech that you disagree with? If so, then please, your opinion on this, "If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" Do you support Donald Trump's right to call for athletes to be fired for speech he does not approve of? Yes or no question man. Typing 2 to 3 letters should not be hard. |
I certainly agree with your line "American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right."
I'm aware of those examples. And it was wrong. McCarthyism was a deep historical injustice. The religious right has often been deeply intolerant and totalitarian in the past.
That's why it's worrying that so many on left today seem to deny that cancel culture even is a thing.
About Trump tweeting, calling NFL players to be fired because they disrespect the flag. It's not entirely comparable. Let me explain.
The problem with cancel culture is that you tend to attack a person in the hardest way possible, disproportionately. Often in indirect ways.
A prime example being a college professors perhaps tweets something or writes something that offends some people, but the punishment is that he loses his job. Even though he never did anything wrong at his job.
With the NFL players it's about their performance at their job. If there was a rule that said you cannot kneel, and yet some players kneeled, it wouldn't be wrong to call for some consequences, reasonable reprimands. Now firing them for it would be too severe and disproportionate, and second, I don't think there even exists a clear rule that players must stand up for the flag and national anthem.
So I do not support Trump's call to fire them.
But more typical for cancel culture would be if Trump urged people, his supporters and masses of activists to attack the NFL players in indirect ways in order to punish them.
Let's say there were activists who would contact the private sponsors of NFL players and demand they drop their sponsorship contracts with kneeling players, or that they would pressure celebrities, parties and PR events that these players mingled with, and demand that they disinvite the NFL players in question. Or that the mob would pressure and shame all the other NFL players who don't kneel and force them and shame them to dissociate themselves from the kneeling players. That's the form of really nasty cancel culture.
So I do not support what Trump is doing, but it's not a good example of modern cancel culture.
