Which is more important, protecting free speech or protecting the feelings of sensitive people?

I will give you an example of appears to be hurtful truth at least in the eyes of AM, I was given a sin bin time out for calling a religion a cult,

I was also slapped on the wrist for asking this particular cult member how his cult was handling sworn allegations against it of the systematic covering up of child sex abuse cases within his particular cult, given under oath to a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse.
Now both my use of the word cult and my mentioning the fact that his cult was found to have very serious flaws in the way it handles child sex abuse deemed my comment to be offencive.

Ah... no. In addition to repeatedly using hate speech, you followed him around and posted responses unrelated to the topic at hand, all related to the person's religion.

It was kind of like:
Question: What is your favorite weather phenomenon? 
Person A: I like rainbows.
You: Your cult is full of sex offenders. 


Mmm... ok... most groups have bad people in them, and the guy's religion certainly had its fair share as well, but that had nothing to do with the guy liking rainbows or whatever the topic at the time may have been. Ergo, you followed him around just to start crap, which is not only lame, but is also considered stalking and harassment. Imagine if you did that on the street to someone. lol Followed them from store to store randomly shouting at them that their religion was bad. Odds are, you'd have a restraining order slapped on you faster than you could blink, and if it continued, the lovely men in white coats wouldn't be far behind. It's not acceptable behavior in real life, nor is it here. Please don't misrepresent the facts. You can disagree with me all day long about whether it's ok to call it a cult or not. So be it. We'll just have to disagree on that, but if you're going to publicly say what I've done, kindly state the facts, please.

I resent the fact that you claim I am not stating facts, I would appreciate it if you actually gave public links to where you claim I am stalking anyone or anything that I have said that is not factual!  How can you possible accuse someone of stalking who answers a comment in a public forum as stalking someone. Regarding your 2cents, she is a disgrace as a moderator, on this or any other site, a moderator who goes round publicly stating that she tells her friends to ignore comments by people she does not agree with, that is truly pathetic. As for men in white coats I think the folks who believe in talking snakes, men who live inside big fish and walking zombies have a lot more to worry about than I have. Again I ask you to show all any statement I have made that is NOT FACTUAL, as seen by the definition of a CULT. Another point you brought up was that I was bringing up subjects unrelated to the topic, in that case the topic was global warming, and mentioned one post of mine in which a certain person stated more or less that all was well with the world and then produced scripture and extracts from his cult's literature to reinforce his claims, then because I advised him to get his head out of his cults literature and do some independent research you accuse me of changing the subject (remember it was not I who asked the original question, nor was it I who introduced religious tracts into the conversation) yet you feel that I am wrong in replying. It would appear to me that it is you and your 2cents who are indeed misrepresenting facts.
This little gem comes from your over valued moderator and is a my reply to her when she deleted one of my comments because it showed disrespect for a member, how on earth can you say that not showing respect for literature that someone believes in is showing disrespect for to the individual?
"You say that 'respect to be shown to all users here,' why do you feel that 'others may have zero respect for their religion' or their bible notes' or 'it is bad enough ploughing through the bible crap you post without adding the jw crap,' is showing disrespect for any user here? It shows utter contempt for their religion not the individual. Did you show/feel respect for the Muslim's right to go on a jihad on 9/11 in accordance with their holy book, do you feel/show respect for a cult that would see a child die for lack of a blood transfusion, do you feel/show respect for a religion that mutilates both male and female babies? If you answer yes to any of the above then you have a great deal to learn about respect, if you answer no then you feel exactly the same way I do'.

Edited for Ps.
Ps. It just occurred to me that not only was your 
'It was kind of like:
Question: What is your favorite weather phenomenon? 
Person A: I like rainbows.
You: Your cult is full of sex offenders. 
a misrepresentation of facts it bears no relation to reality. This post was edited by myonemaster at December 29, 2017 8:53 PM MST

When content violates the TOS, it gets removed, so there obviously would not be a link to show anyone. However, I'm certain I sent you a copy of the text and/ or a screenshot when I spoke to you about it. The incident you referred to, where you challenged someone's religion based on sexual misconduct, was not a question about the church, nor was it about sexual misconduct. It was a totally different unrelated question, which that member happened to answer with scripture, and then you responded to them with allegations about sexual misconduct within the church. 1) Your response had nothing to do with the question. 2) Your response had nothing to do with his answer. It was off topic. 

"How can you possible accuse someone of stalking who answers a comment in a public forum as stalking someone." Well, the same way someone can be accused of stalking on a public street, I suppose. If you're hoping to engage in conversation, it's one thing, but if you follow someone from question to question posting off-topic hateful remarks, it's hard to see it as anything other than harassment. But, there's a pretty big thing you're overlooking there. This is not a public forum. It's a privately-owned website. Here's a pretty epic blog that talks about that:  Free Speech in Online Communities: The Delusion of Entitlement

If you refer to someone's post as "crap," it's an insult. That violates the TOS. If you're browsing the religious questions and then attacking the religions of those who use scripture to answer a question, it's off-topic, and in some cases, hate speech, also a violation. Ergo, we've established at least three separate violations of this website's policies. A private site, with rules you've chosen to abide by as terms of using it. If you don't like the rules, then you're probably not on the right site for your needs. The site is not operated as a podium to spew hate from, so if you feel disrespected by the mere presence of scripture and people of various religions, this is not the right site for your needs. If I, as an atheist, can engage in peaceful and respectful discussions with people of all religions, I suspect you can too. You can stay and interact in a respectful manner, see yourself out, or I'll help you find the door. If your aim is to try to stay here and attack other members or spread hate speech, the decision will be made for you.

I'm not defending the  is saying.  So don't twist it. I'm surprised you are tolerating him this long.

But I read this


"If you refer to someone's post as "crap," it's an insult. That violates the TOS. If you're browsing the religious questions and then attacking the religions of those who use scripture to answer a question, it's off-topic, and in some cases, hate speech, "

Give us a break lady.  Get a grip and come back to Earth and say hello to reality will ya?  To say that is an example of an attack and then the even sillier example of "hate speech" is the biggest pile of pamby-pamaby nonsense read on here in months.Absurd.  The mind boggles how glasshearted someone has to be to call it attack to say someone's post is crap or that attacking any idea ( religions) is hate speech.  Good grief! This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 30, 2017 2:42 AM MST

Glis, you're missing half the conversation. I'm not reposting everything that was said. It was removed from the site for a reason.

Hate speech: speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)

That's not my definition. That came from Webster. Insulting a religion is not hate speech. Saying you disagree with a religion is not hate speech. Saying some people in a specific religion are pedophiles is not hate speech. But, if you're going to follow someone around and repeatedly say "You're a cult member." That's hate speech. Let's look at the other phrase posted "It is bad enough ploughing through the bible crap you post without adding the jw crap"  Can you look at that and honestly tell me that you don't think that phrase was intended to intimidate or insult the person it was directed at based on their religion? I don't think you can. And, if you can't, then it does qualify as hate speech. 

PFFFT....
No your example isn't real hate speech.  Maybe according to some dumb @$$ SJW  it would be.   Yet that's the problem with that toxic culture, it continually waters these kinds of terms  down in order to encompass EVERYTHING into it's narrative till the point is reached that everyone is the victim.   Ridiculous..
You're example may be insulting, but it's not hate speech.
It's hate speech when you trying to use your words to intimidate and deny rights to others.
Saying a religious or ethnic group should be killed or enslaved.  THAT'S hate speech.  Calling believers of say Mormonism or Scientology brainwashed cult members and idiots? Not hate speech.   No one has a right to be protected from being offended and that's what this postmodernist watering down of definitions is trying to do.  

Your example? Not hate speech by any rational or logical measure.

As a matter of fact religion shouldn't even be included as part of hate speech since religion is 100% choice and nothing more than an idea.   This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 30, 2017 4:13 AM MST

Hate speech: speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability) I would agree with that definition but you have still to show how my having a go at a person's beliefs is intending to insult, offend, or intimidate a person, I get offended when I see the acts carried out against humanity by some dyed if the wool religious idiots, they are an offence to the human race, a species that I happen to belong to and they are without any shadow of doubt intended, I would not give a religitard the pleasure of saying that I feel intimidated by their threats of eternal damnation but their intent to intimidate is clear for all to see, yet I do not go running to mommy with claims of persecution. It is time that some folks grew up and faced reality.

You are misrepresenting the truth again when you make it appear that I am stalking someone, if you look through my replies to people here you will see that I am more than happy to converse with others and if you had not deleted the threads you would also see that the subject of sexual abuse within his cult was not a bolt out of the blue to him, we have discussed this many times and I have not even had him admit that it happens, he thinks it is all one conspiracy against his cult. Yes you did indeed send me the text and as you seem unwilling to show it here, please allow me to enlighten other with,

It looks like we're back where we were some time ago in regard to the comments you're leaving people. You've been jumping on threads and leaving unrelated discussions for no other reason than to debate religion, even if it isn't the topic at hand. i.e. Somehow, the topic about why Sunday is the Sabbath became a debate about whether there is a god or not. That has no place there, and it's trolling/ stalking.

AND

It looks like we're back where we were some time ago in regard to the comments you're leaving people. You've been jumping on threads and leaving unrelated discussions for no other reason than to debate religion, even if it isn't the topic at hand. i.e. Somehow, the topic about why Sunday is the Sabbath became a debate about whether there is a god or not. That has no place there, and it's trolling/ stalking.

You're also referring to religions as cults and making demeaning remarks about people instead of discussing the topic. 

I understand M2C mentioned this to you the other day, and you continued even after her message to you. The site is littered with your remarks like this. Here's one example: "If you actually think the earth to be 'healthy and habitable despite pollution and over crowding in some parts' then it really is time that you got your mind back from the tower where it has been held prisoner and actually did some independent research."

I don't have time to remove everything right now, but I am going to put your account on a 48-hour break, and I'll start pulling the comments I see tomorrow. You're welcomed to return after 48 hours if you can change the way you interact with others here.

Best,

JA

You're also referring to religions as cults and making demeaning remarks about people instead of discussing the topic. 

I understand M2C mentioned this to you the other day, and you continued even after her message to you. The site is littered with your remarks like this. Here's one example: "If you actually think the earth to be 'healthy and habitable despite pollution and over crowding in some parts' then it really is time that you got your mind back from the tower where it has been held prisoner and actually did some independent research."

I don't have time to remove everything right now, but I am going to put your account on a 48-hour break, and I'll start pulling the comments I see tomorrow. You're welcomed to return after 48 hours if you can change the way you interact with others here.

Best,

JA 

Can you show me how that can be considered a demeaning remark toward anyone, if anything it is a demeaning remark (and factual) against the brainwashing that the poor man has endured.
How can you possibly say that my comments regarding why 'Somehow, the topic about why Sunday is the Sabbath became a debate about whether there is a god or not' is off topic? Each religion has different 'holy' days and as each religion has a different deity, can you honestly say that establishing whether or not there even is a god is not relevant to to the question in hand? Had you read my first reply before you know who jumped in you will see that I was spot on topic with 'First you need to decide which day (by name) your sky fairy started work to decide which day was the seventh day and as far as I know the day is not named anywhere'.
'If you refer to someone's post as "crap," it's an insult. That violates the TOS. 'it is bad enough ploughing through the bible crap you post without adding the jw crap' if you actually read that, I am not saying his post is crap, I am saying what he quotes from is crap. So how is calling a book crap against the TOS?
If you wish to escort me to the door and then delete my comments here and in other posts, then as you pointed, out you are in charge and there is nothing I can do about it but again I feel that you have not shown any hate speech or attacks from me directed at any member, I have only 'attracted' what they believe and the ones who pull their strings and if their religion is not strong enough to stand up to facts, then perhaps it is a religion not worth having.

Which religion is in question here of being a cult BTW?

Glis by definition they are all cults,

I'm not going to debate semantics with you. It would literally go on forever with me saying what I think something means and you saying you think it means something different. And, if your argument on hate speech is that I can't "prove" your intent, that more or less settles that. 

I find it doubtful you actually read the link I posted about Free Speech in Online Communities/ the Delusion of Entitlement. If you don't read the whole thing, maybe start at "You Are an Invited Guest." What the author points out is that each community has its own guidelines and expectations for behavior. And, like I said, you can argue all day long that my expectations are wrong. That's cool. But, when I sat down with this site's first users and the early moderation team, we set expectations for this community based on the environment we wanted to create. And, when Answerbag closed and we had an influx, we looked at the policies and talked to the members again and decided to keep the policies the same. When EP closed and we got another influx, we reviewed the policies and talked to the members again, and actually ended up tightening some of the rules to make sure it was absolutely crystal clear what we were trying to do here and what expectations for conduct we had. 

Now, I have gone even further to clarify with you, specifically, what we do and do not allow here. You can disagree with the policies all you want, but the expectations of using the site are very clear. I have no doubt that you understand what the expectations are. For me to sit here and debate what the policies I wrote meant is rather asinine. I know what our policies mean. I wrote them. I don't need help interpreting them. I don't need help understanding what the intent behind them is. I'm not going to spend an hour tearing apart the semantics of language. You know what the expectations are, and even the intent behind them. If you're not on board with the level of civility expected, that's fine. There are dozens of other sites you can go to where it's perfectly ok to do what you're trying to do. I wouldn't want to be a member on any of them, but different strokes for different folks. I'm glad there are lots of other communities for people to participate in- it means everyone can find the right fit for them. And, if retaining the "right" to insult, stalk, and harass people (by my definitions) is important to certain members, I sure hope they find one of those other sites on their own. I don't want it here, and I never will.

Of course I have read your ToS and I have no problems with them, the problem here appears to be a matter of how to interpret them. If a member cannot reply to a comment other than in a complementary fashion then you are not going to have any thought inspiring conversations.

'For me to sit here and debate what the policies I wrote meant is rather asinine'.
TRANSLATION:
It is my ball and I will decide who gets to play, I wrote the rules and I can move the goalposts any time I feel like it, I can and will allow spamming of a religious sect's publications and I will censor anyone who dares to oppose or criticize either the texts or the publishers of said text. I can accuse anyone of misrepresenting the truth without a shred of evidence to show how they have misrepresented the truth. All words can and will be taken by my definitions and even when a member agrees with my stated definitions I can and will use my ability to see into their mind and decide their intent.

There are many ways to express a dissenting opinion while staying on topic and not attacking the person or using hate speech. If you don’t have those skills yet, I’d be willing to bet you could find some courses at your local community college or online related to speech, debate, or forensics which will teach you how to have an effective yet respectful debate. Unfortunately, until you have those skills, the policies will probably be difficult for you to understand and apply.

I didn't see the entire conversation and I'm not overly religious.
I guess in my imaginary country I would just ask that everyone be free to practice whatever faith they choose without being attacked for it and also they shouldn't push their beliefs onto others either.
Region can be a positive influence in the lives of some people and others can take it to extremes or use it to take advantage.

I don't follow it closely and I try not to judge it as if I know everything either.

I hate that there have been sex abuse scandals etc.
They need to deal with that for sure.
That's horrible.

I guess the word "Cult" is seen as very negative.
Like I said I don't follow organized religion, but I try not to attack them either.
I feel that my relationship with god is personal.

I'm not sure why the word "Cult" got you in trouble, but it would definitely annoy anyone who grew up in a certain religion and who's entire family follows that faith.

I think people should definitely talk about any issues they have with religion or abuse in a civilized way of course.
Thanks.

I agree in general with what you write here, it is just that I get very urinated off when people pump out page after page of religious tracts and endless links to their cult's literature and all without one single shed of evidence that there is one iota of truth held within it and a great deal of evidence to show that it is indeed a load of grade one pasture patties. In this case it involves someone who believes that god speaks directly to a committee of seven men based in NY who then tell him exactly what he can and cannot do and even how he must think.
Others may but I do not see how ripping someones religious beliefs apart by using nothing but facts can be seen as not showing respect to the person, it is their beliefs that I show zero respect for.

Honestly I haven't studied religion enough to be able to debate the details with anyone.
I just try to be kind if I can.
I think everyone has a right to live their life the way they choose as long as they're not hurting others.
I understand what you're saying though.
Some people really want to push their beliefs or act as if they're better because of their religion or atheism.
I just ignore it all.
There are so many other ways that we can relate.

I am kind of a spiritual person so I try to balance the world we understand through science and also the possibility that maybe man doesn't quite understand everything?
Maybe some things are beyond us and  we're just not meant to know yet.

People who push religions and people who push athiesm both sound a little too sure of themselves to me.

That's just my opinion though.
Thanks. : )

What’s the worst that could happen? Is it better to not voice your thoughts for fear of reprisal? Sticks and stones break bones but words never hurt. Real pain is being kicked in the head until you lose consciousnes. People need to toughen up imo

"Watch your thoughts. They become words. Watch your words. They become deeds. Watch your deeds. They become habits. Watch your habits. They become character. Character is everything."

The real question is why anyone would want to maliciously harm someone with words at all when it's not necessary. Words do hurt. At a young age, verbal abuse changes how a child's brain works and how he or she responds to life. We have people of all ages committing suicide over bullying.

Who wrote that first paragraph? I like that. I agree you shouldnt want to hurt people at all. Im all for protecting the weak, up to the point where weakness is encouraged. More people commit suicide now than ever before and things used to be a lot tougher in the old days. If protecting the weak is supposed to reduce suicide then isn’t working. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 29, 2017 2:33 PM MST

The quote is attributed to lots of different people. 

"Toughness" aka resilience, isn't created through attacks/ insults. It's created through supportive environments, allowing people to try at things and fail, and self-exploration- through recognizing our own faults and strengths, and realizing it's ok to have weaknesses. Telling someone they're lesser, weaker, or wrong, especially for things totally outside their control, undermines resilience. We could sit and debate psychology/ philosophy all day, and why our society is less resilient than it once was, but at the heart of it, it has nothing to do with lack of free speech, and everything to do with how we interact with each other.