Redefinition

Beware of redefinition.

"Freedom of speech means I should be free from being upset."

Wait. Hold up. Either you do not get the concept or you are twisting the meaning to further your aims. Neither of which are good.

I don't know where this, "freedom from being upset" right came from. When you think of it, it is good to get upset every once and a while. Suppose you learn your drinking water is toxic because your local government made this sweet deal with a lead refinery or something silly like that.

Now that "corporations are people too," the corporation is going to say, "we have a right from you upsetting us," and shut your concerns down. You are upsetting them, and upsetting all of the employees who work at the refinery, after all. The government may say "you are upsetting us by getting in the way of the tax money this refinery makes" and declare you don't have the right to say anything.

If you told your neighbors their water was toxic too, you would be upsetting them after all.

And you don't have the right to "upset anyone" anymore.

Even if it is for their own good.

After all, weren't you the one arguing for the right for yourself to never be "upset" by speech you did not agree with? Or was that only when you didn't agree with what someone else said and you just wanted to silence them? You never really thought this whole "freedom from being upset" thing would come back to bite you in the behind, did you?

History has proven these sorts of things never end well. It is ultimately a short-sighted cause to make you feel good in the moment, and then everyone forgets about this "new rule" and someone later comes along and exploits the hell out of things.

Being upset is the foundation for change. It is also the foundation of satire and comedy, so if you don't want anyone to be upset you are making the world a less joyous place to be in. Somebody or some thing has to be the butt of the joke, after all, fairly or unfairly. And anyone can redefine racism or sexism to include anything, so don't go there. If someone says something stupid, guess what? They are an intolerant, stupid person and leave it at that. Before this era we kinda knew there were crackpots and idiots in the world, and we did a pretty good job at ignoring them.

By trying to  silence them you are drawing people to them, and I feel many of these people support them just out of spite.

Ultimately I feel this is all about the feelings of losing control. We can't control the flow of free ideas, or even the expression of them, so we have to start shutting down everything we don't agree with, Faux outrage. Flash mobs. Angry tirades. Cause de jours. We seek to control the uncontrollable flow of free information by mob rule.

When the flow of free information is a good thing. It is a democratizing force. The truth holds an absolute power all its own. Free information frees us from oppression and ignorance, and yes, this even applies to the information we may not necessarily agree with.

Sometimes the truth is hard to accept. Here is one for you:

People can and will pass away.

Did that upset you? It does me. It is a normal thing, and yes, people are free to say it. I accept that. But you know, maybe, I don't have that right. Maybe I did a horrible thing there by upsetting you.

We should ban any mention of anyone dying in the media.

I can see it now, today, a famous person "left" the planet and as a result all performances were cancelled. We do not expect him or her to comment further. It is not know if or when this celebrity shall return. Not much more is known, please stay tuned. The artist's label and management is attacking online trolls spreading viscous rumors of what this chronic "removed from reality" condition means, because, well, you know, they don't want to be upset by the facts. Or lose profits.

We don't want to be upset at the certainty of our own mortality, after all. It's for the better. Less people are upset, and that is a good thing.

And then soon after, there would be mobs on both sides of this issue beating each other up over who has the right to silence who. I just feel there is this inverse rule out that that states:

"The more you try to please people, the less happy they are."