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").
It only violates the others speech if they were to do something more than Boo, like stopping that person from speaking with force. You seem to think that it's a violation of that other person's freedom of speech should they try and disrupt or express their disagreement that strongly, because that person is entitled to only certain kind of disagreement and no disruption, should he be disrupted or distracted that constitutes a violation of speech, stop disturbing, you're violating...
You cannot silence someone by being louder than them exactly like you cannot stop someone from writing by writing everywhere and anywhere that they suck. In both instances they can continue unabridged by your commotion, unless they are terminally devoid of confidence abd lack any conviction that they live entirely by suggestion and only for the approval of others, then you can try to argue that they have been violated, these poor feeble minded retards.
When noise is generated to silence it ought to be pretty quiet. O yeah, it's idiocy 101 over here, people are censoring BY booing, in robot terms: "when noise is generated". It's called freedom of expression, the conundrum is that freedom of expression is perched on what is acceptable to you and others as you try and suggest:
A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.
Yeah, freedom of expression for general disagreement, not strong hatred.
"if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
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).
There's absolutely no either or. They both are protected, the booing doesn't violate the actual speech, exactly like the speech wouldn't violate anything it disrupts or it has hate for, if someone wants to boo no body has the right to stop them, and should someone try to boo louder to stop them great, even if they do stop, it has not violated them and it couldn't, unless they were retarded.
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.
Hello @baah,
I edited my comment again after having read all of your exchanges wit @logiczombie.
so... I am leaving without my former question.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
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?
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'm suggesting that harassment is functionally-indistinguishable from censorship.
If you disagree, please present your preferred definitions of "harassment" and "censorship".
Specifically for differences of opinion.
If your rep is -9 then it is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) to participate in any form of discussion with the broader steem community. I've even tried to direct-link to their comments and the link does not work.
It's de facto censorship.
AND, I'M EVEN AFRAID TO MENTION THEIR NAMES BECAUSE I FEAR BEING TARGETED/HARRASED/DOWNVOTED BY UNREASONABLE PEOPLE, SO THERE IS CLEARLY A "CHILLING-EFFECT" WHICH IS, I WOULD ARGUE, PART OF THE INTENT OF THE DOWNVOTERS.
If nobody can hear you over the incessant air-horns, then you are de facto censored.
Do you think that people who disagree should (EITHER) express their disagreement with reasonable words (OR) simply avoid each other (use the "mute" function)?
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue).
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Do you personally think it's possible to harass someone with downvotes?
From your own quote,
Downvoting someone because you disagree with their opinion is discriminatory.
Reducing someone's rep below zero has the effect of nullifying or impairing a person's voice (free-speech).
When these behaviors become repetitive, they are defined as bullying.
Downvoting someone into negative rep clearly SUPPRESSES them from expressing themselves (all of their posts are automatically hidden, which is another way of saying "suppressed").
How? How can someone "still express themselves" over the sound of an air-horn blast?
It's an analogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Analogy
Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion", from ana- "upon, according to" [also "against", "anew"] + logos "ratio" [also "word, speech, reckoning"]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, in which at least one of the premises, or the conclusion, is general rather than particular in nature. The term analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often (though not always) a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.
Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, as well as decision making, argumentation, perception, generalization, memory, creativity, invention, prediction, emotion, explanation, conceptualization and communication.
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.
Was he physically assaulted?
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.