A man walks into an office for an interview.
He picks up the picture of the interviewer’s daughter and comments “She is hot, will I see her if I work here?”
The interviewer responds “You can leave now, we won’t be hiring you”.
Both men exercised their rights.
It is not about suppression, people can say anything they want. It is about taking responsibility for the things you say.
In your example 1 person was an idiot and the other more reasonable, and no speech was suppressed.
Read some Mao Zedong on People’s War from 1967 (aka Maos Little Red Book) and come back later to tell me that Political Correctness and any associated hate speech nonsense are not power tools designed to suppress speech and by extension behavior as deemed ‘wrong’ by any random totalitarian asshat.
Hopefully you are not really aware and are just making uninformed assumptions about Political Correctness. PC is a tool commonly used because its very easy and doesn’t require much real work, you just shut down the other persons speech and magically win all arguments by demonizing your interlocutor for being ‘bad’ somehow. The ‘somehow’ doesn’t matter as the tool is so powerful you can dynamically taboo anything the other person says, again it doesn’t take alot of work. In practice history reliably shows that Political Correctness is gross and ultimately evil.
If you are advocating for common decency then I completely agree with you and your example is correct where a person who approaches the world that way ought to be coached out of those behaviors.
@Salt_Foambreaker
Free Speech is also about freedom from consequences. Especially when that speech is of a political nature. You dont have to look very far in todays politics worldwide to see consequences for speech in western civilizations that dont have Free Speech.
Examples:
In Britain for instance: Post anything negative about migrants and crime statistics. Your getting visited by the police.
In France: Marine Le Pen is ordered to under go a psych evaluation for her speech in a twitter post.
On any Social Media Platform:
The banning of conservative accounts while not banning people for posting death threats towards those conservative accounts.
Free Speech in the US when I grew up was about having hateful groups say what they wish without consequences. Listening to white supremicist/kkk rallies and then being aloud to make up ones own mind on whether their ideas had merit or not. For the record, as a child even I could figure out how hateful and wrong those ideas were. Never the less, they were aloud to speak their minds without going to jail. not going to jail for your speech was considered a positive when I was a child.
Free Speech is freedom from consequences. Political change cant happen peacefully when opposing views are banned, jailed, and even people getting killed for their opposing views. What happens when peaceful change cant take place, bloody civil war. And that bad.
That is absolutely true. For civil law. For actual crimes, there is a clear definition and the best any “interpretation” does is evil intent or accidental. As I said, the context is mostly used to define the extend of the sanction in criminal law.
It’s my main gripe with all these speech related “laws” in general. Inciteful speech is very clearly visible. HateSpeech is not and if everyone can claim HateSpeech for literally everything and get’s social acceptance for that, then the law has failed in my opinion.
My example was to illustrate how very much needed definitions are legally. When you have a theft, the case is clear because you have a definition to work with. When you have a scam, the case is clear because you have a definition to work with. Same for almost everything. Our legal systems wouldn’t work without proper definitions and that’s why speech is problematic to regulate. Ideally, no regulation should ever be necessary, but we aren’t there yet.
Inciteful speech is, usually clear too. When someone asks to have other people harmed, then that’s inciteful. HateSpeech can not be defined this way and that’s why it’s bad (imho).
As you elaborated before, people are still suspectible to the worst kinds of speech. I would say most words won’t cause violence though and the few that do are already regulated. Hence, I really don’t see the need for such a law. I also don’t think censorship does anything. As I said before, 50 years of censorship for a specific group did nothing. They didn’t cease to exist.
Public discourse and education on these things - call me naive, but I think that would have helped better.
In any way, I got an answer I can live with. It’s nice to see that you stepped down from the vile stuff you used before though - turns out I very much agree with you on a lot of things. Not on everything, but then again: that’s life.
Free gigX!
Thank you, Falcon.
The expectation that everyone should adhere to a generic set of behavioral principles is a higher form of intolerance.
Freedom of Speech is directly proportional to ones ability to present a clear and concise agenda that works for all people, such as health care pay equality in the work place. Freedom of Speech does involve gathering large groups of people into an arena where they pay to get in and then not hear what they were told they were would hearing. Rather instead what they are listening to is hate speech against their cause where the speaker and the speakers minions try to scam the person out of their money while harassing them into joining the cause out of a fear of reprisal.
An agenda that represents all, does not trick people into believing the agenda where the only way to get out of the arena is to either pay or join.
Freedom of speech never was about Agendas. It was about sorting out ideas with merit from those without. Always.
The entire foundation of civilization is based on shared behavior.
What’s next, a link to Mein Kampf?
Why?
This are the clear words a not brainwashed individual wants to hear…
If some completly dump people can’t stand this THEY should leave and not telling us normal people that we “can’t say it like this”…
Some posts stand alone 
And are still the truth…
so my comment on the whole nonissue is it is a game there can never ever in any way and stop crying I can already hear the tissue box opening you cant reach thru the screen and u can ignore in chat were then is the real life (stop crying and play the f@#$%^& game) threat or harassment. why is it so hard , honestly if you can be threatened or harassed in a game you are beyond help in the first place ooohhhh boohoo they hurt my feel badds lets be serious its a game at first I thought this whole thing was a joke but then I started reading had to stop a few times to throwup and try to wrap my head around this sad state of affairs it makes me ashamed to play eve knowing anyone could want this post to be started I find this whole thing to be such a load crap I play eve because I thought it was a game without this cry babies pc junk so I suppose we will be able to buy no more tears skin now
you are so NOT 2018…
Today we must wrap EVERYTHING in cotton wool so that the special snowflakes are not bruised by words…
They are so easy bruised…even the slightest word will let them cry in vain…
that’s 2018…that’s today…that’s us…
you are very correct I started working at (getting a w2) at 13 moved to my own place by 15 and in the last 40 or so years this whole post about real life in a game is one of very few times I have actually been offended I still kinda mostly believe being offended is just some fake ■■■■ so week snowflakes hehe great name by the way can have a reason to cry and as I was correctly given a spanking for being a tattle tale I was told ‘’ sticks and stone may break your bones but words can never hurt you ‘’ that is the greatests fact you will ever read.
It’s funny how you think shooting spaceships in a spaceship shooting game is not OK but verbaly abusing other players should not be policed. I don’t think anyone will miss you.
Please enlighten me is this 1832, 1917, 2003, or year 2018 ???
It’s 2018 and you still don’t understand what this is all about
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana .