Harrasment, doxing, threats, intimidation; there's all sorts of perfectly legal ways (or illegal-but-never-prosecuted ways, which count as "legal") to make people decide it's simply not worth saying certain things.
Intimidation is the act of using threats - direct and indirect - humiliation, embarrassment & co. to make other people too fearful to perform actions which they would otherwise be free to engage in.
For that, speech is usually more than enough, especially if performed by a large ingroup against a small outgroup.
Oh, ok. But, I thought they were referring to the term freedom of speech as in the first amendment (not includes obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action) because they've given an example of cyberbullying
"I'll doxx you if you don't shut up"? Or, more generally, a constant barrage of things like "kill yourself" or "you're a [insert slur here]", which doesn't rise to a First Amendment violation but definitely has the effect of silencing people?
That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works.
How?
edit: you've just picked another (tautological) form of speech for which you're not explaining how it suppresses the freedom of others to speak. The question-begging word "bullying" here is the hint. The "bully" would refer to it as commentary, not bullying.
Can Donald Trump be bullied? Can a racist mass shooter? "Bullying" is a value judgement.
Comments
I've never seen anyone say this before. Could you elaborate how? Like speaking over someone so they may not speak?
Harrasment, doxing, threats, intimidation; there's all sorts of perfectly legal ways (or illegal-but-never-prosecuted ways, which count as "legal") to make people decide it's simply not worth saying certain things.
Intimidation is the act of using threats - direct and indirect - humiliation, embarrassment & co. to make other people too fearful to perform actions which they would otherwise be free to engage in.
For that, speech is usually more than enough, especially if performed by a large ingroup against a small outgroup.
That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works.
That's one of the reasons the whole hate speech topic became an issue.
I can't seem to make the connection here.
If everyone is free to speak their minds, how can it be used to silence others?
Even more improbable in the context of cyberbullying. Tyler the Creator's cyberbullying tweet appears to be more relevant than this take.
Obvious example: “I’ll kill you if you don’t shut up.”
Oh, ok. But, I thought they were referring to the term freedom of speech as in the first amendment (not includes obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action) because they've given an example of cyberbullying
"I'll doxx you if you don't shut up"? Or, more generally, a constant barrage of things like "kill yourself" or "you're a [insert slur here]", which doesn't rise to a First Amendment violation but definitely has the effect of silencing people?
Imagine dozens of people calling every comment you make wrong, unprofessional or dumb.
There aren't many people for whom this would have no effect on the nature and quantity of their comments.
How?
edit: you've just picked another (tautological) form of speech for which you're not explaining how it suppresses the freedom of others to speak. The question-begging word "bullying" here is the hint. The "bully" would refer to it as commentary, not bullying.
Can Donald Trump be bullied? Can a racist mass shooter? "Bullying" is a value judgement.
https://www.wtps.org/cms/lib8/NJ01912980/Centricity/Domain/7...
I think people who kill themselves are pretty much finally suppressed in their freedom of speech.