A Link to the Past
Banned
Sorry, I was getting a little annoyed that I had to reeducate people who keep saying that she is coming under fire for "supporting free speech" rather than for supporting problematic speech, so I figure I'd be annoying and make sure that people couldn't yet again ignore that clarification of the details of the story!
That said, this is not a case of a person supporting something she finds abhorrent. She specifically has personal reasons to support it, namely that she thinks it is important for people to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, etc. every once in a while.
EDIT: Allow me to restate something that needn't be restated.
I did not compare calling someone a fag to supporting free speech. In fact, I brought it up in response to a statement of "gosh I sure do hope that she doesn't throw a hissy fit at work if someone says something offensive to them." You inserted yourself into this discussion, took my comment out of context, and determined that I was equating the two when the comment was not related to what she said at all. After you had (purposefully?) misunderstood the point of what I'd said, I explained that "supporting free speech" can have negative connotations, and that it's problematic to try and make the situation that she came under fire for supporting free speech. Like I said, "supporting free speech" in the right context can be a person supporting another person's right to call a person a fag. And that was my point. There is not an objective goodness to the support of free speech.
That said, this is not a case of a person supporting something she finds abhorrent. She specifically has personal reasons to support it, namely that she thinks it is important for people to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, etc. every once in a while.
EDIT: Allow me to restate something that needn't be restated.
I did not compare calling someone a fag to supporting free speech. In fact, I brought it up in response to a statement of "gosh I sure do hope that she doesn't throw a hissy fit at work if someone says something offensive to them." You inserted yourself into this discussion, took my comment out of context, and determined that I was equating the two when the comment was not related to what she said at all. After you had (purposefully?) misunderstood the point of what I'd said, I explained that "supporting free speech" can have negative connotations, and that it's problematic to try and make the situation that she came under fire for supporting free speech. Like I said, "supporting free speech" in the right context can be a person supporting another person's right to call a person a fag. And that was my point. There is not an objective goodness to the support of free speech.