zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
The number of people trying to defend what is, at best, extremely childish behavior is fascinating to me. Would you really go up to your city counselor in real life and tell them you wish death on them and their family, and pretend it's OK because it's an obscure reference to 90s rap (mind you the rap song WAS an actual death threat)? Do you think you'd be met with laughter? Do you actually consider that socially acceptable behavior?

If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.

>>tw04+ka
Freedom of speech entails allowing for speech you dislike and find abhorrent. Just be honest and say you are against freedom of speech, and you are in favor of compelled speech. SV types have this weird politeness shtick.

>>mise_e+rg
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You can't say whatever assholish thing you want and then claim freedom of speech as a shield when it inevitably pisses people off.

This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.

>>CydeWe+5h
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences

Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”.

Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.

>>dhdidi+Mi
What an odd response. I don't read it that way at all. It just seems to make the very obvious point that being in the legal right doesn't mean anyone is going to want to be associated with you.