Tag: Free Speech

/t/post/58706472018/heartlinda-discussion-down-with-molestia-free

I didn’t want to reblog sheeparts’ post again, so I sent something to his ask box. But he probably won’t answer, seeing as I might have spammed him with so many responses.

Yes, free speech does also give the “Down with Molestia” campaign the right to call for the removal of “Ask Princess Molestia.” But the same question must be asked about DM as about APM: Even though DM has the right, should they?

I’m leaning toward an answer of “no” since John Joseco is still protected by free speech (and it seems sheeparts agrees on this).

However, I would encourage people to continue speaking out against APM’s rape jokes and their defenders. Using this as a catalyst for awareness of rape and sexual abuse is also a good idea. I think this is a better way to approach it. I’ve seen some fan art, and I think that making it is great.

I guess you could say this: I defend the blog, but not what is in the blog.

/t/post/58704416542/discussion-down-with-molestia-free-speech

sheeparts:

heartlinda:

I’ve seen many responses to the “free speech” argument for “Ask Princess Molestia” to the tune of, “It trivializes rape and harms rape victims.” I get that. It’s offensive and harmful.

However, that has no bearing on free speech. Free speech protects even offensive speech, as long as it does not…

Free speech also covers our criticism of the blog and our calls to have it taken down. It’s a really, really broad concept.

Of course. I’m sure some would want WBC to stop as well, but neither of these should be forced. If you manage to convince John Joseco to take down the blog, that’s great.

I’ve seen many responses to the “free speech” argument for “Ask Princess Molestia” to the tune of, “It trivializes rape and harms rape victims.” I get that. It’s offensive and harmful.

However, that has no bearing on free speech. Free speech protects even offensive speech, as long as it does not directly incite violence. Free speech means people have the right to be rude, bigoted, racist, sexist, and even rape-apologetic.

The next question is: Should they be? Of course not! But this is a different matter altogether.

To illustrate this distinction, take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church. You might have heard of it. It’s a church in Kansas, United States that regularly protests against gay people with the slogan “God hates fags” and even goes so far as to say that terrorist attacks on the United States (including 9/11!) are God’s punishment for tolerating homosexuals.

It’s clear that WBC’s speech is hateful and bigoted. It has the potential to harm victims of anti-LGBT violence. But as much as I disagree with WBC and its activities, I would not try to stop them since they are protected by free speech.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” —S.G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire, illustrating Voltaire’s view on free speech

duedlyinfatuation:

ps freedom of speech has nothing to do with independent people or privately owned forums it literally only refers to the government not being able to restrict your speech within reason

unless the government itself is silencing you, your right to free speech is not being restricted. 

the first amendment doesn’t protect you from people telling you to shut the fuck up

True, but it does protect that person from actually having to shut up.