Those who're complaining about admins "censoring" their 1A rights forget they're not acting normal, freedom of speech doesn't include being an asshole.
This is not just for Algarn, but for anyone who thinks (especially in the US) that "freedom of speech doesn't include being an asshole."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The entire point of this amendment is to protect ALL forms of speech, and that
includes derogatory words such as "my old friend
got", "friend", etc. No, the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified to protect these specific words so people could be bigoted assholes. It was so that if someone's opinions were that of the minority, they would be free from governmental persecution when expressing those beliefs (e.g. if you were a Chinese Democratic protester in 1989, you would probably want your government to uphold this right). No matter how you may want to try and spin it, the US Constitution's First Amendment protects ALL SPEECH EQUALLY, regardless of whether it is cheerful or hurtful. This is so that the free society of the US can openly critique their government without fear of being silenced.
Yes. That does mean people will say bad words and do it because they have the right to do so. It's a part of life, grow up and deal with it. I would rather have some asshole say rude shit than be legally shot in Tiananmen Square for protesting the evils of communism. Even if hate speech is banned in your country, people will still use it, sorry that you can't escape the evils of this world.
Now, I'm going to guess that your best argument against the 1A and free speech is that "hate speech is NOT free speech and is therefore not protected." Well, if my last few sentences above haven't convinced you, then sadly, I cannot fight your delusion for you.
Let's say that you believe that video games such as Grand Theft Auto promote violence and sexist ideologies against women considering the game allows you to "objectify" women and additionally kill
them (google Anita Sarkeesian). Therefore, the people who produced the game are bigoted and are encouraging misogyny because their entertainment platform allows players to partake in such horrendous actions in a joyful,
rewarding manner. If we consider this video game to be of an artistic nature and the dialogue contained in it a part of speech, we can therefore label the game and its contents as "hate speech." If
these opinions were vastly favored among the majority and hate speech was not protected, you could expect a ban on the game and legal repercussions on the development team.
I beg the question: who gets to define what is and is not hate speech? Of course well all know the givens. Is GTA hate speech? My point is all of these things are subjective, and if hate speech were not considered part of free speech in general, the tyrannical majority would silence the minority.
Also: cRPG chat isn't protected legally by the US Constitution, so if you want to practice civil disobedience by spamming racial epithets in chat, you can expect a ban. My personal opinion is that you should be able to type whatever the hell you want considering there is a mute button, but people who have names that are offensive should be forced to change them. Free chat, but restrict names is my ideal compromise.
