Simple question

...does the right to 'free speech' protect (under its' elastic umbrella) the 'right to offend' ?

If you don't live in a shithole country, yes.

Offense is taken, not given, so you can render any speech offensive at will.

the only speech that would ever need to be protected by a law is speech that would offend someone.

The first point i agree with but could there exist a form of speech that is universally malicious?

It's a difficult question to answer. While the freedom of speech should be unilateral/all-encompassing, you have the flipside where you're breeding a generation of wannabe school shooters with anti-race remarks like we have on /pol/

But they're necessary sacrifices, imo.

If something was universally malicious no one would say it in the first place. The person stating it would not call his own speech malicious.

>le pedant meme

In theory, yes. In practice, however, I don't think there's every been a time when people from all across the political spectrum didn't seek to restrict speech for exactly that reason.

>universal view on speech
>it's by definition not universal if there would be an exception
somehow this is not a valid point

I was thinking are the 'gangster rappers' who glorify killing people and selling drugs, often making music about a lifestyle they never lived only fantasize about suffering from the same obsessional dilemma that the 'alt right' folk of /pol/ have when posting about race and hitler and other 'edgy' topics?

Free speech is /entirely/ the right to offend.

You don't need to protect popular speech.

If you like living in a free country, you absolutely have to protect unpopular speech, in principle.

Law fag here.

Free speech does protect the right to offend. It does not protect fighting words, threats or false alarms (fire in a movie theatre)

Just a bit of banter lad

I don't think so, because "hate speed ban" always ends showing bias.

Hate and rudeness should be fought by giving proper education and by not giving a fuck. It's something people must do for themselves, without impositions.

>banter on a history board
that's honestly pretty stupid. It makes sense on /pol/, no one respects politics as a domain of study because of its sheer level of emotional investment in beliefs, so shitposting type behavior like "banter" is acceptable. But it shouldn't leave /int/ or /pol/

lmao dork

There's no hate speech ban. Not in USA at least.

ofc. it also protects the right of people to whine about be offended and calling on you to stop being an asshole. you'd comply but that is on your own moral choice. every time you say 'nigger' they have as much right to call you 'racist'. it goes both ways.

>...does the right to 'free speech' protect (under its' elastic umbrella) the 'right to offend' ?
It can, since it's completely arbitrary

It shouldn't though. People need to grow a thicker skin. There is a point where it becomes harassment however.

why can't you retard understand that "free speech" only means that you can say whatever you want against the government, not that you can bully people

>I have to legal right to do it therefore doing it is morally right

is there a term for this popular line of thinking?

What's the point in something being immoral if it's legal? Morality is a spook, no meme intended.