Just shows how dangerous these situations become.
There are bad actors in literally everything because people suck. That doesnāt mean that social media protest is inherently bullying or at fault for some people being immoral. That is human nature and itās not avoidable. Sadly.
Libel, sincere/credible death threats, etc are already not protected speech.
1 Like
I feel like you keep drawing the argument back to social media harassment rather than the actual issue. Which is protecting freedom of speech/expression, not just for individuals but also larger organisations who have their freedoms compromised because they fear the repercussions. What kind of freedom is that.
the problem is that blizz made political statements themselves.
you canāt punish someone for doing something, and then do the same thing yourself.
The companies already have protections against harassment. Doing anything further would be the government restricting the freedom of speech and assembly rights of people like Miley Cyrus. Both sides get to say whatever they want on social media, thatās freedom of speech.
Businesses should also have social consequences to their negative actions. Other peopleās freedom of speech shouldnāt be compromised because sometimes company heads are made to feel guilty about their actions. It doesnāt matter if they donāt like it.
Those companies are free to ignore the protestors, take out statements against them, or side with them either because they want money or because the protestors convinced them.
Protest is the peopleās check on corporate power. Corporate power left unchecked has repeatedly throughout history been used to violate human rights.
1 Like
Iād love to agree with you - BUT - your argument makes sense only when you specify to which country your basing your statement on.
Maybe in Sweden, and across EU. Other countries in the world, may have a different take.
TBH this discussion goes so much deeper but I donāt wanna take this argument further because this forum is not the correct place for it. Iām surprised blizz is even allowing this discussion to continue, but like I said, compromising standards for fear of repercussions.
Speak for yourself. Acting as arrogant as you are hardly makes you any more knowledgeable than anyone else here. You are of course, welcome to prove how wrong everyone is at any point.
So you want people allowed to say āvote Trumpā or whatever in their tournament speeches at E-sports events?
I have to disagree. Political statements in general have no place on official sports channels.
Whether itās technically compromising freedom of speech or not, Blizzard is intentionally silencing people in the name of a literal communist government.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
2 Likes
The difference between murder and speech, is that murder takes your life. You canāt just get up after youāre dead and go somewhere else.
People have a right to associate with who they please. Nobody has the right to force their presence from you, take your money, and prevent you from escaping them. They also have a right to control their image and make rules for their property that allow them to feel safe and secure.
Your right to speech doesnāt trump those things. You can speak elsewhere. You can speak to other people.
This idea that other peopleās freedoms of religion and association should be able to violated and that anyone should be allowed to force themselves into another personās life without their ability to find relief isnāt about freedom of speech.
Itās about trying to get out of consequences for your decisions.
1 Like
For crying out loud. Freedom of Speech does NOT mean freedom from repercussions. No matter how free your speech is, you are still responsible for what you say. Bliz didnāt try to silence anyone. They simply enforced a rule that said (in essence) āDonāt preach your politics on our dimeā. The speech was free and the repercussions were predictable. And, in fact, it was the repercussions that made the speech meaningful.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
1 Like
KK K members and Na zis have been given allowance to have demonstrations in black and Jewish communities
Itās still protected in the US
1 Like
Blitz would have been punished either way.
Your example is faulty.
Not to mention the Government has no authority to tell you what you can or cannot ban on your own discord. Only what the Discordās TOS say and as far as I know, politics arenāt in there.
Blizzard also doesnāt make it an obligation for other countries, whether they disagree with us or not, to participate in specific events that have political backgrounds such as pride month.
Rape, Murder, and slavery prevent people from living their lives. They actively impede on your health. Having to say something on Instagram instead of Facebook does not.
Those things are not comparable.
When you attempt to say something on anotherās private property there are competiting rights.
(The right to control your property, Freedom of Association (also a 1st amendment right), freedom of religion, etc) vs Freedom of Speech.
By allowing people to say whatever they want on public property, and allow private property owners to control speech on their own property, that is a balance that ensures that you get to say what you want to say, and that others are free to cease associating with you.
As for Blitzchung, he signed a contract agreeing to forfeit money if he broke a rule. I donāt have a problem with one time fees that were agreed to by both parties prior to the dispute.
Edit
I donāt think Blizzard morally should have enforced it in this incident but donāt have a problem with them in general.
1 Like
nothing political about pride month tho
but what you fail to see here is that there is no neutral position where a power imbalance is going on
1 Like
No. But say Instagram banning you from their platform, so you use Facebook instead. Thatās an example of you having to use a different platform because one company decided they didnāt want to associate with you anymore and removed you from their property.
Yes. They are. Iām sorry but Blitzchung being fired by Blizzard is not the same thing as the CEO inviting himself and murdering him. They arenāt remotely close in levels of harm. The more harmful something is life and society in you country, the more aggressively government is obligated to defend it. And the more severe punishment should be for breaking it.
They are choosing not to associate with you. It isnāt their users property, itās their own. And they donāt want you on their property. There are exceptions for things that have proven extremely detrimental to society, but in general you get to control who is on your property.
They donāt have to do anything illegal. You get to choose with whom you associate with for the most part. Itās not illegal for someone to say all black people deserve to die. But their black employer doesnāt have to keep associating with them.
It can, it causes worse problems when people arenāt free to associate with whom they please.
Government only forces association in very limited ways, and those were because they had already caused catastrophic harm for society. If a company doesnāt allow you to make a complaint on their property, you make the same complaint on a different one. Or you make it on their property anyway and accept the consequences that come from your decision. In fact, those consequences quite often amplify your voice louder than if you had incurred none at all. Blitzchungās statement for example only gained traction once he was punished.
The thread we were originally in was about the legality. I was pushing back against the notion it should be illegal.
I recognize their actions were immoral, and was one of the more frequent posters on here about how immoral it was. Multiple people disparaged my character over my vociferous support and twisted my words, but I remained firm that it was immoral. I provided a ton of links backing up Blitzchung including providing proof that China was not in fact the majority of their customer base.
The reason that I focused on the legal in our conversation is simply because that was the topic of discussion in the thread we were in.
1 Like