I had to speed run through this entire discussion so excuse me if I miss something. Before I begin let me state:
I am completely and utterly against the restrictions of freedoms and please, can we please return to civility in the discussion
Sometimes I wish (in regards to the US) the writers of the constitution were more clear in what they meant. Perhaps they could have specified on what constitutes a well regulated militia, or perhaps what constitutes free speech. What they did create was the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution and removes What it believes is against it.
With that in mind, the definition of the constitution is constantly in flux. Yet, the basic principles still apply, you can say pretty much whatever you want. But, as will every aspect of the constitution there are restrictions... you have freedom of thought, but you can’t plan to murder someone. Is saying you hate (enter race or religion) enough to be arrested, no it shouldn’t, but saying every person of said group should burn in hell... you should probably be investigated. But, this conversation isn’t about that, we have moved into censorship.
Censorship and “cancel culture) (not on a state or federal level) is freedom of speech, it has happened throughout American history. Was Martin Luther king a member of cancel culture? Yes, he absolutely was. He boycotted things that he deemed as harmful. He definitely didn’t censor people though, but demanding someone to be censored or fired because of their actions is fine, obviously certain considerations should be made. If he said something twenty years ago... I mean come on? Does he really deserved to be fired? Free speech is guaranteed, but it doesn’t mean your speech means there won’t be ramifications for it. You just won’t be persecuted by the government.
To go to federal censor ship... if someone yells that she is going to blow the building up. She shouldn’t get off free because of freedom of speech, she just threatened to murder dozens of people. Then that, what counts as a threat? The simple answer to the question is this, if your speech can harm someone physically then yes you should be persecuted. But everyone has different ideas as to what harms them emotionally. If we took that into consideration every aspect of the freedom of speech will be gone.
Let me spit some facts:
As of early 2000s, so this info is out of date but still interesting (data gained from pew research):
33% of liberals believe that dangerous books should be censored
56% Conservatives and more moderate Democrats believe that dangerous books should be banned
All of the examples I have seen so far show that we should fear the left and more progressive groups because they want to censor us (Communists, Socialists and Nazi’s to some extent) yet, at least in the US, more people on the right believe in censorship. Perhaps we are looking the wrong way, and have missed the knife in the dark.
Source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewres ... g/%3Famp=1
Also I am sorry, I don’t even use Twitter and I think perhaps you should pay more attention to cultural trends if you are having trouble seeing that certain symbols are now taboo.
We don’t know what paradise is like, but probably it’s blue magenta, flecked with pink. But even if it’s green and red-checked we should make the most of it. -Boron saying