What I object to is the powerful subjugating the weak. You hold a different view. I never said there we no limits. In fact I said that was open for discussion, but apparently limits on what can be said and what can be done aren't in your thinking.
No, you objected to a wide range of actions that can be taken against people for objectionable speech, being fired from a job was only one of those. This is an extremely authoritarian position to take. If you want to hold that viewpoint that's fine, but don't attempt to say that forcing people to behave the way you want isn't authoritarian.
I never said that such a right was absolute, I said that people were well within their rights to fire people for hate speech. It is a sign of the weakness of your argument that you need to distort what I said.
I said that people shouldn't be fired for having political bumper stickers. You hold that they should. Oh you never said that, but you wouldn't want to restrict the freedom of the oppressor.
That is not even remotely close to what you said. Allow me to quote you:
That people are materially punished for expressing their thoughts however distasteful exists. Condemnation? Sure Punishment? I disagree. Should I be able to harm you as an expression of my freedom?
You said people should not be able to be punished for any expression they make, however distasteful and you later clarified that this did not just apply to the government, but to individuals. This would require a massive restriction in the freedom of expression for countless people as well as an issue with freedom of association, freedom of who to do business with, etc.
This is textbook authoritarianism.
You may be trying to walk this initial statement back because you realize how indefensible it is. If that's the case, let me know.
I never said there's shouldn't be laws or regulations. I do object to foolish use of power. I never argued that government is not necessary. I have said that government is a necessity which needs to be restrained and watched. The people matter more than the government. "Conservatives aren't actually against government". Well they might or might not be, but I don't presume to speak for them. "An incredibly authoritarian view". BS. I'm sure you would have said that to those who presented the King with the Magna Carta. After all they were restricting the freedom of the king. How dare they.
This argument is utterly nonsensical and has nothing to do with either my posts or the thread. Additionally, your example of the Magna Carta is actually helping MY point. You wish to use the power of the "king" to restrict the ability of private individuals to deal with their own affairs as they see fit. After all if the government isn't enforcing this 'no firing for hate speech' idea it is purposeless and toothless.
That's all irrelevant anyway though. The question at hand was whether or not people could have harmful action taken against them by others due to "hate speech". While we all appear to agree that it is inappropriate for the government to punish people for making hate speech you also think that individuals should be prohibited from taking action against those who say things that they deem to be unacceptable.
That is authoritarianism, plain and simple.
Facebook
Twitter