The Toxicity Act / William 2

Bill Identifier: 20251213-1

Summary: Allows people to be "mean"

Raw Contents:

This is the second William paper. 

What does it mean to be toxic? Oxford languages defines the adjective toxic as “harmful or dangerous to health or life when taken into the body; poisonous.” Personally, I’d define toxicity as disdain toward another force. Toxicity, at its core, is free speech! 

So why can’t you express it? Why can’t you express free speech? Toxicity isn’t hate-it’s disdain! Hate and toxicity are two completely different things. For example, let’s look at John and Henry. John posts on r/SecretFemboys saying; “ALL HAIL THE MAN I CANT MENTION OR ILL GET FLAGGED”. However, Henry posts on the same subreddit talking to a moderator who made fun of his polka-dot spotted skirt. Henry replies; “Shut up”. They both get banned. John deserved the ban, but Henry didn’t. How does this make sense? 

What I propose: a new article (section 1). The right to Toxicity. People deserve to be mean, not hateful. 

The Editing of Rule 1
Edited Rule 1: no citizen may spit hate speech, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-semitism, nor spew hate toward any group. 

Article XVIII (18): The right to be toxic.
all citizens, as long as not being hateful, and just spewing an opinion, not hate speech, may be as mean or nice as they’d see fit-and be able to be reprimanded by their colleagues, but not moderators. If this citizen does break a rule however, they still break a rule. 
Article XIX (19): The right to toxicity against citizens of power
citizens of power, such as moderators, presidents, council members, or any of the sort as seen fit as the president, may not reprimand a citizen for speaking out against themselves or their colleagues. 

Status: Passed

History