"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I've always thought that was an untenable position to take. How do you imagine ideas promulgate? Through being communicated, of course. If you disapprove of the idea, allowing it freedom to spread seems counter-productive, to put it mildly. Actively defending its dissemination is positively self-destructive.
 

So you respond to the idea, pointing out why it's bad and why your idea is better. Persuade them, win them over.

But to simply censor? Nah, that doesn't kill the idea, it just pushes it underground -- and it will eventually resurface far stronger than if it was allowed to be exposed as stupid in the 1st place because when whispered underground in a little echo chamber there's no one to examine it.
 

Eh just because you have the right to say almost whatever you want doesn't mean your also entitled to be free of all consequences or reactions to that speech.

I work for the government. My code of conduct upon being hired States that I must conduct myself in a civil manner at all times even on social media. If I got on Reddit and talk about how I hate Jews and that somehow gets reported to my job, I'm definitely getting fired. Maybe some workplaces wont care but I'd say most would.

Now that being said I am totally against all the targeted harrassment that people go through online. For every story the media picks up on of a "karen" getting their comeuppance they don't mention the innocent people that are often targeted by online mobs.

Look at the famous case of when Reddit users accused an innocent man of being the Boston Bomber. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/reddit-falsely-accuses-sunil-tripathi-of-boston-bombing-2013-7%3famp

Social media "celebrities" routinely sick their followers on innocent people, like when Keemstar, a guy with almost 3 million twitter followers, accused an innocent twitch streamer of being a pedophile, because he thought their pictures were similar.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2016/01/11/youtuber-tracks-down-runescape-paedophile-online-but-its-the-wrong-guy-5615544/amp/

Stuff like this rarely makes it to the media but of course you'll see the video on some idiot who coughed on people on the front page of every major news website.
 

But does that racist person have to lose her job over the incident?

Well, yeah, if not being overtly racist is a condition of their employment that they agreed to.

As for this:

The question is one of proportional response. If somebody just holds and expresses an offensive opinion, but other than that does not act on that opinion in a way that would be illegal, then wouldn't the proportional response be to tell him off?

"Telling someone off" is not proportional to someone calling for your death. And even if it is "just" a racial slur, the intent is to make the victim feel unsafe and unwelcome because of the color of their skin (etc). Saying "NO U!" is less than nothing. It is not a difficult concept to understand, unless you are coming from a position of immense privilege or a profound lack of empathy.
 

@Azuriel: I understand your concept. It’s “you offend me, I burn your house down”. I just don’t think your concept is justified or moral. If somebody calls for your death, call for his death. Don’t directly kill him.
 

It would be different if the left actually practiced what they preach. The CHAZ(or CHOP) zone that was established in Seattle is a prime example of how misguided and dangerous Utopian concepts can become when law enforcement is removed. They even had competing agendas that no one could agree on(the reason CHAZ was renamed CHOP). Two deaths and dozens of bullets later, the mayor finally decided to take action and shut the area down. It was a major failure, and the left will carry that black eye for a long time to come. It is refreshing to see this happen, and it gives me hope that borderline lefties will see the errors of the preached upon dogmas and become more centrist in their views.

@Tobold

A motorist driving on the freeway suddenly encounters a group of angry protesters and is forced to stop when several of them jump in front of the vehicle and stop its forward motion. What do you think the occupants of the vehicle are feeling at that moment as the crowd surrounds the vehicle and attempts to open the doors and begins beating on the vehicle with sticks, skateboards and other improvised items that could be used as weapons? What would your proportional response be in such a case? Would you exit the vehicle and attempt singing a verse of Kum Ba Yah to appease them, or what?
 

@NoGuff : Why? What do you propose? Shooting them? Other than trying to get the hell out, I don’t think the motorist has any options. Calling the police is always a legit option. Crazy ideas of what exactly constitutes self-defense isn’t.
 

I never insinuated violence was the only viable option. It was a thought experiment in regards to your notion of "proportional response". Maybe the motorists could talk their way out of the situation, or they could have attempted to call the police in the hope they would even show up, but very real events such as this have occurred recently in which the motorist(s) chose to respond very badly when the "fight or flight" adrenaline kicked in and actually ran people over while attempting to flee. The question then becomes, who was at fault? The protesters for surrounding the vehicle while acting very aggressive and violently? Or the motorists for trying to flee the situations?
 

That would be for a court to decide.