It is free speech, you seem to think that the public speaker is entitled to only certain kind of expression/ response from the audience.
Bottom line is that freedom of expression ain't for everyone, especially those f#&k that would dare shout.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is the first time I've actually spoken to someone who openly advocates for SJW tactics.
Booing is not speech. A cow can Moo, but that is not speech.
(IFF) you are advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) you are advocating for SJW tactics.
(IFF) you are NOT advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) please simply explain what you ARE advocating for.
A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.
However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").
To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).
A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.
Do you also believe "disturbing the peace" (midnight road construction as performance art for example) is sacrosanct free speech?
Air-horning someone in person is the equivalent of black-marking over all of their written words.
Sure the words are still technically on the page, but nobody can read them.
Well stated.
That's an excellent distinction between Civil-Protest and HARASSMENT/CENSORSHIP.
If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?
I agree. We must let those we hate express their views with their words (which is how you most effectively communicate your thoughts and intentions and beliefs).
If you don't like what someone says, use the "mute" button or walk away.
And or blog about how much you hate them and why (which will likely only draw more attention (notoriety) to the person you are hating). I mean, for example, Ben Shapiro wasn't widely known until he got CENSORED (shouted down) by the SJWs.
Extended booing (and air-horns) effectively CENSORS the person speaking (using actual words).
By saying you want to protect "both", you're essentially endorsing CENSORSHIP/HARASSMENT.
Are you familiar with the saying, "your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face"? *
A primary function of Freedom Of Speech is to protect the people's right to criticize their government.
Now imagine, that a government (or one of its individual agents) broadcast loud booing OVER the soundtrack of any media it found critical.
This would be de facto censorship, not free speech.
The point of this hypothetical is to place the government in the position of the SJW.
(IFF) it's ok for an SJW to air-horn Ben Shapiro in person (THEN) it's ok for a government (or corporation) to air-horn anti-government speakers.
Interesting side-note. There has been some research into speech-jamming technology which could be used to silence speakers at large rallies (like Martin Luther King jr. for example) and it has the added bonus of making the speaker look like an idiot (potentially destroying their credibility).