And before anyone pulls the "You can say what you want but we can respond however we want" card, that can be used against you and if it was, you wouldn't like it at all now would you? Also you can't respond however you want. There are laws against that you know.
Wait... what? I... I don't understand what you're saying here. So, I'm going to attempt to break this down piece by piece...
that can be used against you and if it was, you wouldn't like it at all now would you?
I mean... sure? But... just because someone can say things that I don't like doesn't mean I wouldn't support their freedom of speech. And... yeah, I still stand by the idea of "I can say what I want, and you can say what you want back", because... I never said that no one can criticize me? So this argument being used against me doesn't make any sense?
The "You can say what you want but we can respond however we want" argument exists in response to the people who say things like "I can say whatever racist/sexist/etc things I want and you can't tell me otherwise! Freedom of speech!!" -- because the point of freedom of speech is that, yes, you
can say those things, but then, other people can still tell you that you're being racist/sexist/etc. Freedom of speech is a two-way street -- your freedom of speech is just as valid as that of the people responding to you, and freedom of speech does not make you immune to criticisms or consequences of your words/actions.
Basically, it's an argument to be used against people who think that they can censor people who are telling them not to say certain things, as if their own freedom of speech is more important than that of the people criticizing them. And, I'm... really not sure how that argument can be "used against me" in a way that I "wouldn't like". I mean, using that argument against me right now would be like saying "I can still reply to your post and claim that you're wrong", and... yeah, you
can, but, that doesn't mean I wouldn't support your freedom of speech, no matter how much I disagreed with you.
Also you can't respond however you want. There are laws against that you know.
And... what exactly is that referring to? Hate speech laws? Because, if that's the case, wouldn't those same laws apply to the
both parties, and not just the person responding? In which case, the argument doesn't really change. It's still saying that the freedom of speech of both parties is still equally important, which...
it is.
At any rate, here's the rest of my thoughts on freedom of speech:
Firstly, like I said before, freedom of speech means that you cannot be
censored -- it does
not mean that you cannot be criticized or face consequences for what you said. Because, again, everyone else has the freedom to respond without being censored.
That being said, though... I have no problem with people trying to discourage others from using certain words, or even trying to push "political correctness" in general. If someone wants to say "You shouldn't use the word 'retarded' to mean 'stupid', because that's offensive to people who are legitimately retarded", then... I am totally ok with them saying that. And telling people not to use a certain word isn't
censorship, because it's not the same as trying to pass a law to ban the word or something like that. It's just... telling people that you think it's offensive. And then, the people who hear you say that can decide for themselves whether or not they agree with you and whether or not they want to stop using that word that way. If they
disagree, then, they do have the right to continue to use the word 'retarded' to mean 'stupid'.
Personally, there are a lot of "politically correct" principles that I actually agree with and that I follow. For example, I do believe that the word "retarded" shouldn't be used as a synonym for "stupid", I don't believe that "gay" should be used as an insult, and I don't believe that the names of mental illnesses should be casually used as adjectives (ex: "I drank too much coffee and now I'm so ADHD", "My next-door neighbor is nice to me one day and then mean the next, she's so bipolar!"). That said, just because
I think that these are good practices, doesn't mean I wouldn't support the freedom of speech of people who
don't follow these practices.
I for one am not super-vocal about any of the things I just listed, and I don't exactly spend a ton of time trying to call out other people on not following these guidelines or explaining why I think those people are wrong. But, even if I
was vocal about it and
did spend a lot of time discouraging people from using these words in that way, I
still wouldn't be supporting censorship. Supporting censorship would be trying to get people banned just for saying "lol that's so gay", or at least trying to get their posts deleted. But I wouldn't be doing that -- I would be telling people that I don't think they should use that word in that way and explaining why I feel that way, so that maybe they'll agree with me
(and I don't even spend a ton of time doing that anyway, because that sounds exhausting and it's not important enough to go on a crusade about). I can disagree with what someone says and still defend their right to say it, and that
includes disagreeing with the use of specific words that people use.
So, in summary, the idea of "political correctness" and saying that certain words shouldn't be used because they're offensive (or for any other reason)
is not an attack on freedom of speech. Because saying "you shouldn't use this word" doesn't translate to "I'm going to make sure it's illegal to use this word"
(and if someone does say that then it's a bit of a different story, which I'll touch on later) -- instead, it more accurately translates to "I don't think people should be using this word and I hope it becomes socially unacceptable to use it", which is all the "political correctness" movement is really doing. It's people trying to convince other people not to use certain words anymore. But you still have the right to continue using those words if you disagree with the movement -- it's just that, people might criticize you for using those words if they
do agree with that movement. And they're well within their rights to do that, as well. Doesn't mean you're being censored, though -- because they can't actually stop you from saying it no matter how much they tell you that you shouldn't say it.
As for the thing about making it illegal to use certain words... I don't have very strong feelings about the topic of hate speech laws. I feel like I get the gist of where both sides are coming from, but I feel like I don't know quite enough to really have strong feelings either way, so... yeah, I'm not really going to comment heavily on that.
But, seeing as how these kinds of topics generally seem to be very closely linked to the whole "you can't say that because I think it's offensive" thing and whether or not it's ok to make such a claim, well... yeah, I do have an opinion on
that to share with you.