STOP HITTING PEOPLE FOR HAVING BAD OPINIONS Freedom of speech is a hot topic these days, with some acting like the "thought police" or "offence police" trying to control what people say. But the idea of free speech is often misunderstood. The term is a slightly inaccurate , as it's not about being able to say whatever you want, nobody can physically stop words coming out of your mouth. The real issue is what happens after you speak: should certain words lead to legal trouble, violence, or censorship? If you're truly progressive and not just slapping that label on yourself because you think it will sound impressive, you shouldn't be okay with violence as a response to words, unless those words directly call for or support violence, especially state violence. State violence, like wars or police brutality, causes real harm and death, so words pushing for it overstep progressive free speech principles. Those endorsing state violence with words gets complete leeway and almost entirely a free pass as state legitimacy and authority makes it legally acceptable. It can't and should never be considered a ethically condemnable ethical action to be violent towards the person who has made that initial morally vile statement endorsing or condoning state violence. Nor does this mean that a violent response should be always be condoned. Many, maybe even most things aren't always black-and-white and either totally fine or totally wrong. If someone says something non-violent or not inciting violence, you can respond with words but never with fists. A response to violence isn't words so a response to non-violent words shouldn't ever be violence. It's never proportional to respond to non-violent opinions with violence. A daft opinion such as flat earth belief is a stupid opinion, but not a violent one, therefore it's never justified to be violent towards a person claiming the Earth is flat. If you want to dignify the claim that the Earth is flat with a refutation, that's anyone choice. Ideas and words that are weird or differ from what most people think should not face violent or legal prosecution. If anyone is at physical risk of violence because of words directly instructing or approving physical harm to others then the person who the person who has made these comments should face the consequences. The state itself has a bloody history that is far worse than any individual or group so handing the state the power to decide what's moral is questionable. The state can't be trusted to fairly judge right and wrong with the amount of legal and authorised violence it has carried out since the beginning of the 20th Century. Letting the state take charge of morality is like handing the keys of a ship to a captain who's sunk every vessel they've steered. It undermines any concept of justice and the state acting as the arbiter of morality will always be hypocritical. When it comes to offensive opinions that don't call for violence, violence isn’t justified either. Everyone gets offended sometimes, and everyone's said something offensive at some point. In a free society, you'll hear things you don’t like, and some things you like, it's part of the unspoken social contract. If you're offended by something, like a rubbish new series on Netflix, you don't get to demand the state step in. Nowhere does the right to 'not be offended' exist. Asking for laws to punish offensive speech means you’re signing up for authoritarian illiberal control. What's offensive is subjective anyway, so it's a flimsy reason to criminalise speech or justify violence. If someone's being a douchebag, let them, they'll just make themselves look foolish. You don't have to be nice to them, but you don't get to hit them either. Even if someone insults your mum, they're the one who looks silly. You don't need to stoop to their level or try to shut them up. They can continue as they like so everyone can see how unpleasant they are. Historical claims, like denying the Holocaust or arguing about supernatural stuff, should be open to debate. A real democracy protects minority views, even if they're unpopular. If you disagree, argue back or ignore it, don't demand censorship or violence. Banning an opinion just makes it seem like you can't prove it wrong, which can give the inaccurate opinion more credibility than it deserves. In short, if you think you have the right to punish or silence someone for saying something you don't like, you're leaning towards authoritarianism, unless they're actively calling for physical harm. #FreeSpeech #DontPunchTheOpinion #FreedomOfExpression #OffencePolice #SpeechAndViolence #ThoughtPoliceOnPatrol #FreeSpeechDebate #ArgueDontUppercut #FreedumbOfSpeech