Here we just ban books. In the democracy of
Iraq they are banning words. Some here
have espoused similar briefs
Here we just ban books. In the democracy of
I have little doubt that some would be ok with that change in the US.
How very Florida of them.
quite hypocritical response considering all the words that are banned and or changed for example
Midget is dwarf
Secretary is administrative assistant
Crippled is disabled
Retarded is special
Women are birthing people
Biological male is cisgender
Negro is African American
Stewardess is flight attendant
You might not agree with the term they chose but to attack them for banning a word, well that is down right unamerican based on recent cultural examples
Huh? First, none of those words are banned. Someone can still stay them even if it’s considered offensive.
Also, most of what you said were made less offensive, not more.
Correct nothing is banned, but there might be consequences for your actions.
“This Week in Unnecessary Censorship” tells you everything you need to know.
I think your post is special.
Hey now you’re going to make him feel uncomfortable using “special” like that. I’ll help him settle in a bit better
Banned, socially unacceptable, offensive…what’s the difference
You can say or use the word homosexual in Iraq but there will now be legal consequences. Don’t kid yourself in the US the consequences for using the “wrong” words have shown to be career ending. For certain words you could be charged with a hate crime. So, on the surface, how is it so different.
As far as your moral justification that the changes make things better, that’s exactly how they feel.
I see all of the censorship in all its forms as ridiculous
Legally? It’s a massive difference. Is this a serious question?
Yes, that’s different than here. Very different.
Not by law. And also highly unlikely for the list of words you included.
In any case, losing a job isn’t comparable to losing your freedom.
Not on your list and also not for just saying it. That’s just not true. Using that word on top of doing something else violent, sure.
See above. You’re wrong. What you’re saying isn’t true.
There is no censorship. That’s made up. You can legally use any word you want.
This screams I just want to say offensive stuff and I’m mad that I can’t. Do you really think it’s ok to call black people negroes?
I see you dig deep for that highly intellectual response.
It’s not a massive difference that’s deluding yourself
The article mentioned a fine, not imprisonment, I would rather be fined than lose my career.
You are correct, for now the Supreme Court has upheld hate speech as free speech, but that means someone was actually charged with a crime for saying it and it had to all the way to the Supreme Court to be resolved….so,it happened
Believe what you want
As far as the personal dig at the end, I tend not to say offensive things to people, but I think free speech is precious and it’s prevailing attitudes about censorship that bug me. Especially those that won’t call it censorship because it’s not illegal.
Going to jail and MAYBE losing your job isn’t a massive difference?
It actually said it’s not decided. And you better believe you would lose your job there for saying the wrong thing. Be serious.
Ok, so you don’t have a point here.
Also, none of the words you used have ever been considered hate speech.
Sorry for the dig.
But free speech continues to exist and hasn’t been infringed. Free speech does not mean free from consequences.
Who enforces the censorship you speak of? Do you know anyone that has been fired for using any of those words? I’ve heard all of those words but haven’t heard of anyone losing a job over it.
Anyway, should businesses not have freedom to stop employing people if they think their employee is saying offensive stuff? Does your idea of free speech only go one way?
And I’ll ask again, do you think it’s ok to call black people negroes?
That’s it right there, it’s not censorship it’s consequences for your own actions. Pure and simple. Actions have consequences.
The difference is when a government is the arbiter. Free speech exists for all. Those that say what they want and those that react to it. Thank goodness we have that.
When a government steps in, it’s a different ballgame. That’s not free speech.
So the government was arbiter of fee speech in the 30’s through the 60s when they used the hays code to censor movies. There was no law dictating movie content, the movie industry self censored, deciding what the public could and could not see.
So censorship or not?
Sure, so what? That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Our government hasn’t always encouraged freedom. I’d like to think we do better today.
So you made my point, private entities can censor even when not sanctioned or codified by law.
So I view censorship by government or non government entities in the same light
So it goes back to the main issue, there is plenty of censorship that goes on in this society of ours past and present, who are we to judge someone else’s.
I think Iraqs choice is misguided but so are many choices here in this country
Over and out