Poll of the Day > Is victim-blaming protected under free speech?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why?
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Why?

Because we don't want Mead and Skynyrd getting arrested?
---

Depends on the context. The only thing the First Amendment does is protect you from getting thrown in jail or killed by the government over what you have to say when it comes to opinions and beliefs. Serious threats can be considered assault or intent to maim/kill/etc; and can get someone investigated and detained, but there's no real sentencing that could delivered without additional evidence or testimony.

Ultimately, it comes down to what rules an establishment has. Freedom of speech doesn't allow me to not get kicked out of Wal-Mart for preaching bible verses over a megaphone at 3am.

Yes

You're allowed to be an asshat
---

Yes, being wrong is protected.
---

Lokarin posted...

Yes, being wrong is protected.

How is victim blaming wrong? There's a lot of context there. Person walks outside with minimal clothing and gets frostbite, are we supposed to blame weather? Bystanders?

What if somebody skates without a helmet and gets a serious injury at a skatepark?

Or the classic "no lifeguard on duty, guests assume all liability"?

GanglyKhan posted...

Lokarin posted...

Yes, being wrong is protected.

How is victim blaming wrong? There's a lot of context there. Person walks outside with minimal clothing and gets frostbite, are we supposed to blame weather? Bystanders?

What if somebody skates without a helmet and gets a serious injury at a skatepark?

Or the classic "no lifeguard on duty, guests assume all liability"?

it's not that, I just automatically am assuming the TC is talking about Alex Jones
---

Lokarin posted...

it's not that, I just automatically am assuming the TC is talking about Alex Jones

Oh, that's a fair statement in that case lmao Dude is crazy

Lokarin posted...

it's not that, I just automatically am assuming the TC is talking about Alex Jones

I doubt he would be, since Alex Jones doesn't so much victim-blame as he outright denies that certain events happened. The Sandy Hook Shitheels -- the same group who tried to sue gunmakers for making guns -- were trying to take him to court over statements he made.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

Lokarin posted...

Yes, being wrong is protected.

How is victim blaming wrong? There's a lot of context there. Person walks outside with minimal clothing and gets frostbite, are we supposed to blame weather? Bystanders?

What if somebody skates without a helmet and gets a serious injury at a skatepark?

Or the classic "no lifeguard on duty, guests assume all liability"?

That's not victim blaming.
---

It is, victim blaming isn't an incitement to violence or defamation.
---

Hop103 posted...

It is, victim blaming isn't an incitement to violence or defamation.

Victim blaming is really just saying "I think they did things that increased the likelihood of their own victimization, so they bear at least some of the responsibility for what happened to them."

But a lot of people take that a step farther, and effectively add "...so I have no sympathy for them because they deserved it", or "...and because they were responsible for their own behavior, that makes the person who victimized them less responsible", which is where people start to call bullshit.

And since this is the Internet, everyone immediately leaps to the most extreme assumptions about motive and then overreact in dramatic fashion, so "victim blaming" obviously makes you worse than Hitler.


---

SunWuKung420 posted...

That's not victim blaming.

Then what is? It's a poor look to dispute what someone has to say without providing any supporting argument.

GanglyKhan posted...

How is victim blaming wrong? There's a lot of context there. Person walks outside with minimal clothing and gets frostbite, are we supposed to blame weather? Bystanders?

What if somebody skates without a helmet and gets a serious injury at a skatepark?

Or the classic "no lifeguard on duty, guests assume all liability"?

People only mean victim blaming when it has to do with women and "dressing provocatively".
---

Zeus posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Why?

Because we don't want Mead and Skynyrd getting arrested?

Lmao @Mead this clown thinks he's a victim

@Zeus please describe how you are a victim in copious detail so I can understand your post
---

SkynyrdRocker posted...


I like that you tossed a flame right in there while denying your bad behavior.
---

*gives Zeus a swirly*

Zeus posted...

I like that you tossed a flame right in there while denying your bad behavior.

Flaming is victim blaming?
---

Zeus does not live in the real world anymore
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

I like that you tossed a flame right in there while denying your bad behavior.

Flaming is victim blaming?

No, but it is an example of the kind of harassment he's been engaging in while he and Mead victim-blame me.

Mead posted...

Zeus does not live in the real world anymore

An accusation that might mean more if not for your zany beliefs.
---

Please elaborate on my zany beliefs
---

Revelation34 posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

How is victim blaming wrong? There's a lot of context there. Person walks outside with minimal clothing and gets frostbite, are we supposed to blame weather? Bystanders?

What if somebody skates without a helmet and gets a serious injury at a skatepark?

Or the classic "no lifeguard on duty, guests assume all liability"?

People only mean victim blaming when it has to do with women and "dressing provocatively".

none of those are crimes. victim blaming refers to someone being responsible for someone doing a criminal/malicious act to them, not being a victim of an accident.

For an accident, you are blamed because it just happened, you didn't intend it. People against victim blaming someone for something that someone else chose to do (i.e. it was not an accident, someone else fully had the ability to choose to do something or not do it, and THEY chose to do what they did). It's a false equivalency

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Victim blaming is really just saying "I think they did things that increased the likelihood of their own victimization, so they bear at least some of the responsibility for what happened to them."

But a lot of people take that a step farther, and effectively add "...so I have no sympathy for them because they deserved it", or "...and because they were responsible for their own behavior, that makes the person who victimized them less responsible", which is where people start to call bullshit.

And since this is the Internet, everyone immediately leaps to the most extreme assumptions about motive and then overreact in dramatic fashion, so "victim blaming" obviously makes you worse than Hitler.

But how does that make it indefensible by the first amendment? I don't think any laws mandate you be sympathetic, or be pleasant to anybody.
---

The First Amendment protects your existing right of free speech and ancillary rights, precisely how the Second Amendment protects your existing right to keep and bear arms. The protection these amendments provide is to protect your pre-existing rights from infringement by the state.
If you don't like something, you don't have to listen. With everybody planting their face in SocJus Networking all day, if you unplugged, you would be able to go days without interacting with another person.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

But how does that make it indefensible by the first amendment? I don't think any laws mandate you be sympathetic, or be pleasant to anybody.

It's the part about "taking it a step further." When Alex Jones said that the victims of Sandy Hook were lying about the whole thing to "create a false narrative" he also implied that his viewers should call them out for their perceived lying. This created a situation where those that had lost children to the shooting then had to deal with being harassed nonstop, to the point that they received death threats and confrontations in real life, just because of having been associated with the whole thing. Hence why there is now a defamation lawsuit levied against him.

In the end it isn't so much the concept of victim blaming that is a problem so much as the repercussions that it causes and what kind of individual would spout such things. Those that intrinsically would go out of their way to blame the victim would also end up spouting things that would open them up to lawsuit otherwise. While it is pretty absurd to think that the entire concept of victim blaming could ever be a lawful offense but there is argument that one cannot really victim blame without invariably stepping over a few lines.
---

ellis123 posted...

When Alex Jones said that the victims of Sandy Hook were lying about the whole thing to "create a false narrative" he also implied that his viewers should call them out for their perceived lying.

You can't be arrested for implying people should do something that isn't actually illegal.

ellis123 posted...

This created a situation where those that had lost children to the shooting then had to deal with being harassed nonstop

He didn't even imply that. People who choose to act criminally are responsible for their crimes, they made a (bad) decision freely.

ellis123 posted...

Hence why there is now a defamation lawsuit levied against him.

You can't claim defamation unless you believe he doesn't believe his claims, you also can't claim defamation against satire. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

ellis123 posted...

In the end it isn't so much the concept of victim blaming that is a problem so much as the repercussions that it causes and what kind of individual would spout such things. Those that intrinsically would go out of their way to blame the victim would also end up spouting things that would open them up to lawsuit otherwise. While it is pretty absurd to think that the entire concept of victim blaming could ever be a lawful offense but there is argument that one cannot really victim blame without invariably stepping over a few lines.

"It's not so much what you say is criminal, rather you are responsible for people you never met and should be arrested for their crimes."

Does that not sound absurd to you?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You can't claim defamation unless you believe he doesn't believe his claims, you also can't claim defamation against satire. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

If somebody believes in their claims and it damages somebody's reputation it should still be defamation.
---

Unfortunately, yes. People are free to be wrong.
---