What limitations do you think there should be on free speech?

>>1467800
People shouldn't be allowed to say what I don't like.

Guess which political party I belong to.

>>1467800
>limitations
>free speech
Does not compute

>>1467800
about what the U.S. has right now, with pretty much anything being allowed that isn't calling for someone's murder

>>1467800
none

>>1467800
As long as there is no deliberate attempt to incite violence or illegal acts people should be allowed to say whatever.

File: 1463644581540.jpg (108KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1080x1080px

>>1467800
Once we have perfect brain scanning technology we won't need limitations on free speech.

1. If you have incorrect thoughts you can be reeducated.
2. If anyone commits a crime we can retrace their thoughts to identify which speech caused their crime and punish the speaker.

>>1467832

is that a man

Clear and Present Danger.

Only public indecency. If you want more restrictions that that, kys or move to europe.

>>1467800
None

You cannot use your speech to commit a crime. For example, threats of bodily harm. However, speech itself should never be criminalized, only when it is an accessory to some other crime.

>>1467905
Judging by the wrists/hands I'm gonna say yes.

Do I really have to be the first guy to bring up "you can't yell fire in the theater" meme so we can argue about that?

>>1468033
see >>1467997 >>1467829

>limits on free speech
Oxymoron.

You should at least be able to serve a C&D against someone repeating a lie that's demonstrably false.

>>1468020
That's pretty silly reasoning. The US Constitution has a supremacy clause. The first amendment including your freedom of speech trumps any federal or state legislation. How is it Constitutional and how does it make sense that you would allow that free speech to be limited by whatever legislation the possibly infinite Congresses decide to pass?

>>1468038
Who determines what's "demonstrably false"?
Whoever it is, congratulations, you just handed them the reins of power.

>>1468038
Nothing is demonstrably false

That should be apparent if you've spent any time on this pseudo-intellectual board

You can't sexually solicit minors. You can't reprint and sell someone else's work without permission. You can't play music loudly enough to disturb the peace.

>>1468038
Wow, next you'll try to say you don't fuck horses. Shut up and go back to fucking horses, horsefucker.

>>1468046
The Marxist intellectuals obviously :-)

>>1467812
Democrat

>>1468055
Whoa that guy fucks horses?

>>1468038
Opinion discarded, horse fucker.

Why is this thread still here?

>>1468046
>>1468049
You know libel laws are already on the books right? That's actually one of Trump's campaign issues, he want's to make it easier to sue for libel.

>>1467812
Republican

>>1468035
How does yelling "fire" in a theater present a clear and present danger?

How does it incite violence?

How does it incite legal acts?

I am not following, please explain if you have the time.

>>1468065
Do you have a point?

Basically what the US has now, with the exception that obscenity laws should be thrown out. The miller test is buillshit.

Maybe also making private possession of CP legal since studies have shown that actually reduces abuse rates, but distribution and production should remain illegal for obvious reasons.

>>1468069
Are you serious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster

> The entire crowd then began surging and pushing toward the sole two doors which had been opened. This caused many people to get trampled while some suffered more serious injuries. Eleven concertgoers were unable to escape the throng of people pushing toward them and were killed by asphyxiation. There were a total of twenty-six other injuries.

>>1468054
>You can't sexually solicit minors

???????????????????????????????

>>1468069
People panic causing a danger when you scream about fire in a crowded and tiny place

Kek, you can't walk into a bank and say "Gimme all the money" and then when the cops show up you tell them you were just expressing yourself/it was just a prank bro

>>1468065
So? I oppose those laws and I oppose his stance on it, horsefucker.

>>1468069
It incites panic which can result in deaths from trampling.

When speech becomes an action, like inciting mob mentality in this way, or advocating for somebody's murder; then we enter grey waters.

>>1468085
1) The building didn't have sufficient emergency exits

2) How was he supposed to know that uttering of that phrase would cause that reaction?

>>1468082
That it already exists.

>>1468093
>>1468095
>people panic

It's not his fault they're little bitches who overreact

>>1468069
>how does yelling fire in a theater present a clear and present danger?

Did you not pay attention in civics? Clear and Present Danger is the name of the doctrine used by the Justice Department to determine cases in which speech isn't protected by the Constitution.

And the example given was exactly "yelling fire in a crowded theater."

You can incite a panic and create a situation of clear and present danger.

>>1468094
>4chan
>not agreeing with /pol/ on everything
Please remove yourself from my echobox

>>1468096
>The victim didn't wear enough bulletproof vests
>How was he supposed to know that a bullet through the chest kills people?

>>1468065
Libel laws are much more limited in scope than what anon is proposing.

>>1468085
I hate humanity, we are such a cancerous species. It said the ages for two of those victims were 15 fucking years old

How awful, because fucking idiots couldnt wait patiently to watch a concert

>>1468097
That is irrelevant to what we were discussing

>>1468097
Not even that guy but that's not really relevant to the question OP asked. It's about your personal belief. I assumd this thread is for us to argue our ideologies, not argue whether or not they already have been applied in law.

If you want to go further and say some words about how effective/ineffective it is/was, then that is different, and would indeed be relevant to the discussion.

Maybe I'm just sperging.

>>1468105
Yes, that's why Trump wants to expand the reach of libel laws, what don't you understand?

>>1468102
When you shoot a bullet at someone, you can reasonably suspect that it will pierce their skin and injure them

When you speak loudly, you do not expect a bunch of low iq proles to freak out and start trampling each other

>>1468106
>Life should be eternal
>I hate humanity

Grow a spine you pussy

>>1467812
Libertarian

>>1468114
>When you shoot a bullet at someone, you can reasonably suspect that it will pierce their skin and injure them
Not if you're 4 and don't know how a gun works

>When you speak loudly, you do not expect a bunch of low iq proles to freak out and start trampling each other
If you've been told that inciting panic leads to shit happening, then there's a reasonable expectation that shit happens when you incite panic.

>>1468116
>children killed by very easily avoidable deaths doesnt bother me xD

Mental defective

>>1468114
Yeah, that's why the phrase is "fire in a crowded theater", not "JASON GET THE FUCK OVER HERE in a park"

>When you point a metal object towards a guy you don't expect him to die

>>1468120
Define "incite panic"

Also, what is the threshold of "panic"?

>>1468127
>15
>child
LOL, maybe if they had a mental handicap

>>1468120
How is shouting "fire" equivalent to inciting panic. There's not even any context to what type of fire it is so why would any group of people assume its one type over another?

Are you implying a 4 year old should be prosecuted for shouting "fire" in a crowded room?

>>1468113
How it's relevant to your personal beliefs on free speech limitation, you haven't expressed the wins/losses of current or future policy, just stated it exists. It's like if I asked you "should there be limits on gun ownership" and you just kept repeating that there already are and some gay Muslim president wants to expand those laws.

It's still not answering the fucking question of how you personally feel about it or how the current situation or how some politician's viewpoint is viable/unviable.

>>1468132
Thats considered to be a child everywhere in the developed world

>>1468130
Inducing panic is when a person causes the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;
Threatening to commit any offense of violence;
Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

>>1468142
Define "developed world"

>>1468132
t. American

>>1468148
Post-industrialised secular liberal democracies

>>1468133
The law isn't literally written down as "no yelling fire in crowded theaters" you actual autist. It's a phrase that helpfully explains the law against falsely inciting dangerous panic. For example yelling "I've got a bomb" in a busy airport is illegal even if you were "just pretending xD"

>>1468156
So about 15% of the world sets the standard for everyone else in the population?

>>1468101
Please remove yourself from that horse's anus.

>>1468156
???
Pretty sure 15 is old enough diddle everywhere but like 3 countries.

>>1467817

Then how is "black lives matter" allowed?

>>1468175
The same way that White supremacists are allowed

>>1468175
They tried #KillAllWhiteys first but apparently it wasn't allowed

>>1467800
Well, it's 4chan, we'll all be relatively liberal about speech since we all sift through tons of shitposts that say "nigger," "faggot," or just outright call jews evil, just so we can see less than 10 good posts a day.

What is there to even argue about between us? Everyone here obviously doesn't mind people being offensive in public speech or they'd fuck off to reddit by now.

Women shouldn't be allowed to have it, and I'm dead serious about that.

>>1468175
>>1468185
the official stance of BLM leaders is not to promote violence, regardless of what some outliers do. It's not even comparable to something like the KKK or ISIS where the message is outwardly violent or overtly promoting a race war.

If you disagree with the BLM shit (I do) that is one thing but if you are just gonna be an ignorant sensationalist faggot about it then you are no better than the SJWs. Fight fire with fire, house burns down you retarded faggot.

why on earth should there be any?

>>1467812
Independent

It's not free speech if it's limited.

>>1467812
Not mine, that's for sure.

>>1468049
>>1468046
Did you know that in Nazi Germany, they had bodies that had the power to legally declare certain statements true and competing statements false? They were called "courts".

>>1468263
I don't think you understand law

>>1468263
The problem isn't in having courts, it's in banning all speech that goes against the courts.

>>1467800
You should be able to say whatever you want as long as it does not promote / call for violence in a serious way (i.e. someone saying "gas the kikes race war now" on 4chan is different from someone literally instructing people to kill someone)
You should only be able to sue someone for slander if what they said was both provably false and provably damaging to the person slandered, both of which are hard to gauge anyways.

Basically free speech should be unlimited to the point where it provably causes damages something/someone in the real world

>>1468268
I probably don't, but doesn't convicting someone of a crime mean for the court to decide that the statement that they committed it is true and the defendant's alibi is false? The decision of the judge hinges on the truth or falsehood of the claims of the defense and prosecution, and it is his job to determine it.

>>1467812

Tumblr

>>1467812
The Strawman Party

>>1467812
t. Donald J. Trump.

>>1468098

>I'm so tough, I don't even need mummy to kiss my boo boos any more

>>1467800
I don't think people should be able to spout unwarranted slander or make threats of violence

>>1468838
>is on 4chins

Things that aren't in the interest of the state

File: head lol.jpg (81KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 419x480px

>>1467812
>>1467817
>>1467829
>>1467832
>>1467997
>>1468007
>>1468020
>>1468033
>>1468038
>>1468046
>>1468054
>>1468084
>>1468100
>>1468143
>>1468198
>>1468206
>>1468277
>>1468838
>>1468848
>He believes that ANY limitations on the vibrations of your throat in a just society is just.

>>1468891
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

let's start off by legalising holocaust denial

Absolutely none.

However threats don't come under Free Speech.

Publicly announce you hate blacks? Sure
Publicly announce death to all blacks? That's a threat and action is needed.

>>1468927
Depends on your wording, I guess?

"I wish all black would die" - expressing your hate for them

"I'm gonna kill all blacks" - Showing murderous intent

But, even so there is a lot of grey area. I mean people talk a lot of shit, but that doesn't mean they would actually go through with it.

>>1467800
You can say what you want so long as you're not being a major shit cunt.

File: 1396191441267.jpg (66KB, 600x530px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x530px

Threatening to kill someone should merit a reaction, however, the problem these days isn't really the State.

It's that people themselves really don't believe in free speech, and the mob mentality is strong. It really doesn't matter if you have free speech on paper if you lose your job, get your reputation destroyed, or get killed by someone because of your opinions.

>>1468927
>Publicly announce you hate blacks? Sure
>Publicly announce death to all blacks? That's a threat and action is needed.
That statute is manipulated heavily by leftists, the former statement will be INTERPRETED just the same as the latter statement in their mind, which warrants the same punishment as the latter statement, I learned this through several discussions with leftists on the topic of free speech, they believe that if you state. "I hate niggers," then this is a threat to them and warrants a legal reaction, and they will certainly carry that out if they have the power to do so.
>He allows his laws to be subject to that level of bogus interpretation and subjectivity.
Better to have no limits whatsoever instead.

You have the right to your opinion.
You do not have the right to say false information with the intent to hurt someone, whether to attempt to incite violence on them, to attempt to make them seek self afflicted harm, to harm their reputation, or to personally gain from lying.

Basically I think you should be able to say whatever you believe, lying should be illegal.

File: 1462308512358.png (567KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 900x900px

There should be no limitations on the profession of beliefs.

No calling for physical harm or sedition should be allowed, either.

File: This guy.gif (989KB, 400x261px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 400x261px

>>1468993
>lying should be illegal.

>>1468966
There are problems to having no limits, either. Let's say that someone states his clear intentions to harm someone if they don't do what he tells them to. At what point should he be able to be stopped? If there are no limits to free speech whatsoever, then he can threaten the victim(or his family) however he likes and he can only be stopped once the victim decides that the chance of violence is the lesser of two evils. This is clearly a situation where something should be able to be done before violence actually happens.

>>1468993
>lying should be illegal
t. Darius

File: image.jpg (128KB, 940x645px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 940x645px

There should be no limits on free speech, because then it would no longer be considered free speech and would be putting constraint on the individual in favor of society or some greater good. Even threats of violence would not be carried out because it is not in people's rational self-interest to do so.

>>1469012
...have you actually MET any people? Acting in "rational self-interest" is something people fail to do ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

>>1469002
The man may say anything to the other man, but once that man approaches him or his loved ones in a violent or threatening way, the man being approached or the family or the family of the person being approached or the companion, comrade, or a member of the community. Has the duty to violently subdue or kill that man.

>>1469002
>>1469023
In other words, acts, not words, should be the cause of legal or violent action, and any legal and violent action taken against another person because of his uttering of words is inherently unjust. If a person threatens to kill my family, it is up to me whether I take him seriously or not and decide to keep a closer watch on my family, it is up to my judgement, my interpretation, not the governments. The government can only interpret acts, not words.

>>1469028
>>1469023
So, then. Someone threatens you, and there's nothing anyone is allowed to do about that. Next day, he comes with a gun and shoots you dead. He gets punished for killing you, but that doesn't make you any less dead. One person has died a completely preventable death because threats are not illegal. This death was completely preventable if threatening people was illegal.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any sense in making the law like this.

>>1469036
>Someone threatens you, and there's nothing anyone is allowed to do about that. Next day, he comes with a gun and shoots you dead.
That is why it is everyone's duty to posess a means of protecting themselves free of government, whether that entails the owning of firearms, melee weapons, tasers, pepper spray, or the hiring of a private security firm, or the building of fortified barricades in extreme cases.

>One person has died a completely preventable death
Yes, it was preventable, if you had the means of protecting yourself, if you report that a man on the street said he was going to kill you, the police won't act as body guards for your house, if a person you know has said that, you are placing legal consequences on somebody for your own interpretation of events, which is unjust. That person might have said it to you as a joke.

>>1469036
>>1469063
>or as an expression of exasperation.
>Be mom
>Find out your daughter is smoking weed and having parties against your will.
>Sigh and say "Ohhh, I'm gonna kill her!"
>Get arrested according to your philosophy.
>Because of this law/limitation that you recommend.

Also remember that the "fire in a theater" supreme court statute was made in response to an anti-war advocate during WW1 who was arrested, remember that.

>>1469063
>Yes, it was preventable, if you had the means of protecting yourself, if you report that a man on the street said he was going to kill you, the police won't act as body guards for your house, if a person you know has said that, you are placing legal consequences on somebody for your own interpretation of events, which is unjust. That person might have said it to you as a joke.

So are you supposed to live in a bunker or something? Maybe wear bulletproof vest? Having a firearm(or other means of defending yourself) does not mean you can shoot someone before they shoot you. Obviously someone won't be convicted based on one persons interpretation of events - there's this principle called "innocent until proven guilty" so if it's just your word against theirs, they'll walk free. But maybe the police could pick him up and have a talk with him, and then you'll at least have something for when you defend yourself and suddenly you're on trial for murder because it's your word against a dead body. And if someone jokingly threatens to kill someone who doesn't see that as a joke, well, there's probably something wrong with them.

>>1468891
>He believes that any limitations on the thrusting of penises in a just society is just
>i can't have sex with just anyone

>>1469012
>Adolf Hitler, radical right shown with two members of the radical left
>Falling for the SOCIALISM meme
Jeez man, what a shite umbrella term socialism is.

>>1469111
>So are you supposed to live in a bunker or something? Maybe wear bulletproof vest?
If you believe that it is needed, it's your choice.
>Having a firearm(or other means of defending yourself) does not mean you can shoot someone before they shoot you.
Yes it does, it someone is moving to attack you in a threatening or violent way, yes, that entails shooting them before they shoot you.
>Obviously someone won't be convicted based on one persons interpretation of events
Congratulations, you just arrested someone unjustly based on the interpretations of one person, and that person who got that man arrested (albeit, he was let off with no conviction.) is not punished in any way. Good job. That is, if it isn't a tit for tat, he-said-she-said battle of interpretations. "I was joking!" "No you weren't! You were serious!" "No, I was Joking!" "No you weren't!" etc, etc.
>there's this principle called "innocent until proven guilty" so if it's just your word against theirs, they'll walk free.
But first, that "Innocent" person has to be thrust into a small holding cell with a gang of criminals, unable to return to his job and make money for himself or his family, rudely shoved into a police car kept behind a cage, thrown into another cage, possibly wait for several months in this same cage before a Judge has the time to deign to see your case, sure, very innocent.
>But maybe the police could pick him up and have a talk with him, and then you'll at least have something for when you defend yourself and suddenly you're on trial for murder because it's your word against a dead body.
The police would obviously look into this situation, if it was an unknown man in your house dead due to gunshot wounds with signs of forced entry and no previous contacts between you and that person, you probably shot an intruder, if it's in public, you have witnesses.

>>1469111
>And if someone jokingly threatens to kill someone who doesn't see that as a joke, well, there's probably something wrong with them.
>Hurr durr der'e sumting wong wit u.
So I guess almost everybody who's ever used that phrase has "something wrong with them," right? Including siblings, parents, and friends of the target of the statement?

>>1469120
Rape is a physical act. Talking is a verbal one. False equivalency.

>>1469140
>Yes it does, it someone is moving to attack you in a threatening or violent way, yes, that entails shooting them before they shoot you.

Yeah, nah. Real life isn't call of duty, you don't get 20 second warning before someone pulls the trigger and kills you.

>>1469154
>Man walks up to you with a gun holstered.
>You have a gun holstered
>Comes up to you with a malicious expression, hand on the holster.
>"Hey asshole, I'm going to kill you"
>Shoots you in public before you get a chance to respond.
>You die.
How would your law prevent this?

>>1469169
How would any law? And what does that have to do with anything?

File: carlcuck.png (230KB, 313x321px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 313x321px

>>1468175
>questions #BlackLivesMatter
Clearly you're a racist bigot, I'm telling my friends on tumblr about you

File: 1468611058042.jpg (12KB, 326x255px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 326x255px

>>1468891

>he believes everyone's words are equal

>>1469154

I think he is implying you would have enough SA to know a threat. He isn't thinking from the lowest common denominator. Just my interpretation

>>1468891
>he believes in equal human rights

Go back to 2012

>>1468891
Why isn't it just?

File: 1465262564143.jpg (249KB, 1174x1174px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1174x1174px

>>1468179

>makes valid point
>no replies

Never change 4chan

File: 1464867036114.jpg (99KB, 550x734px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 550x734px

>>1469012

You don't get out much do you?

File: golden not face.png (162KB, 423x516px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 423x516px

>>1469174
The "fire in a movie-theater" law

>>1469419
>>1469433
>He believes in hierarchies within a society that restrict basic freedoms like speech.
>He doesn't just eliminate the impure elements in his society so that everybody can be secure in their status.
CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

>>1469476
xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>1469175
MY SIDES

>>1467812
Guessing from the replies, the exact opposite of whoever is reading the comment.

File: 8c3.jpg (45KB, 640x496px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x496px

>>1469476

>thinks there's no such thing as dangerous speech
>wants to remove impure elements, without encroaching freedoms

>what is hypocrisy

>>1470859
>dangerous speech
>DANGEROUS
>SPEECH

I believe that our society must undergo a purge of those elements of society not conductive of it, this would obviously entail mass deportation or possibly death, but I believe it's the only thing that can ever ensure a fair and decent society where the government does not have to step in to make up for the pettiness of the citizenry, punishing good and upright citizens while doing it.

if you're an active user of 4chan and advocate for banning free speech, you should go suckstart a shotgun desu

>>1467800
directly threatening or calling for violence. Nothing more.

>>1470920
I'm definitely not for banning free speech, but seeing all the shit-talk on here, I guess understand where those guys are coming from.

>>1470939
i don't.

they should grow some thicker fucking skin, or learn to throw some shittalk back, not try to make the mean words go away :(((

>>1470876
How do you imagine anyone that is possible without extreme hypocrisy?

Who will identify the element that need to be purged and what criteria will they use? How will you deport people en mass while maintaining a "fair and decent society"? Do they each get a trial? Whats the charge? How are you going to do any of this without the government getting involved? How will you do any of this without "punishing good and upright citizens"?

You sound like every armchair fascist ever. "Society would be great if I just killed everyone who disagreed with me on how it should be structured".

>>1470964
>You sound like every armchair fascist ever
wew lad, all i see is a pot callin a kettle black.

>>1470972
Please explain exactly how he sounds like a fascist to you.

>>1470945
>they should grow some thicker fucking skin, or learn to throw some shittalk back, not try to make the mean words go away :(((
I don't think people should be banned from saying mean things, but saying stupid things deserves, at the least, ridicule. This "it's my opinion and you have to respect that" bullshit is gay.

>>1469012
this

both the far left and far right are identical in that they are authoritarian collectivists who are opposed to individual liberty, limited government and freedom

classical liberalism (i.e. libertarianism) is the only rational choice in the matter of free speech

File: 1405115248360.jpg (42KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x533px

>>1470972

>old mate calls you out for your blatant hypocrisy

Basically responds with:

>I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?

>>1470972
Are you going to answer my question, faggot? >>1470991

>>1471020
The horseshoe theory is real.

File: 1449554611414_b.jpg (12KB, 236x283px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x283px

>>1470876

>I believe

You didn't need to go any further after that but let's continue for fun.

>that our society must undergo a purge of those elements of society not conductive of it, this would obviously entail mass deportation or possibly death,

But somehow keep freedom (Nigga, you bat-shit crazy)

>but I believe it's the only thing that can ever ensure a fair and decent society

How about just respecting others opinions while doing your best to be a good role model for your version of a good citizen?

>>1471058
>respecting others opinions
Because not everyone's opinions, like femenists', deserve to be respected

File: UPsVsr5.jpg (92KB, 600x764px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x764px

>>1471945

So how many times did a girl embarrass you to have such anger towards a whole sex? Did your mum make fun of you about your little wiener or something?

>>1473603
not him but perhaps its because no one can actually hold an opinion that is unfavorable towards a sex without people like you pulling the muh virginity "arguments".

you do know that people can say things that you don't agree with without there being a layer of latent patheticness right?

None in private. Some in public. A lot when you're just a mouthpiece representing something else.

>>1467800
Absolutely none

>>1467812
The one I don't like

File: 1468299127822.png (360KB, 601x595px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 601x595px

>>1473622
>Some in public

FUCKING FASCIST LEAVE

>>1473747
Cute. Enjoy your "freedom" regulated by violence instead of law. Just because they allow you to say things doesn't mean there won't be repercussions.

>>1473919
>speech regulated in public
>not freedom held by violence, ie government interventionism

I think you have brain problems

When speech leads to unwarranted deaths/violence/hate, it should be limited.

For hate speech, simply don't let those be published in media. You're still free to spout it on your own, but not distribute it via general public. For inciting of violence/death, prosecute them for attempted murder/battery.

Free speech doesn't exist, it's necessarily limited to avoid a huge variety of abuse and crime in real life.
The complete freedom of expression could only conceivably exist on the Internet.

>>1467800
Calls to action and lies that damage the economies of others and that's it.

>>1473983
Fuck you

>free speech thread
>people still believe that it's illegal to yell FIRE in a crowded building

That's a myth, goofs

>>1467800
>Teen said she was raped
>Gave description of alleged rapist
>Mob lynches a guy that looks like te description
>Girl later admits she made the whole thing up, there was no rape, no rapist, etc
Happened recently here, and happens quite a bit considering down here in the third world mobs of people will easily do shit if you know how to push their buttons.

>>1467800
None.
And those that agree on this:
>As long as there is no deliberate attempt to incite violence or illegal acts people
Have no idea of how people abuse the meaning of "deliberate attempt".

People get banned/censured all the time just because someone got so butthurt they decided it was a "deliberate attempt" at hurting their feelings.

FREE SPEECH as NO RESTRICTIONS.

>>1474138
So in the post directly above yours, her actions directly caused a crime. Does that mean she is entirely safe from being prosecuted despite making false allegations?

>>1474144
I'm a big believer in free speech, so I don't think she should be. It's not her fault that the people in her community are retards who will believe anything and get violent over it. Unless she was like, "He raped me, won't you all find him and take vengeance for me?", which realistically would make her party to conspiracy to murder, then she should be off the hook.

>>1474144
Execute the murderers, they willfully chose to commit a crime.

Either you have free speech or you don't.

>>1474159
The whole "won't you find him and kill him please?" is kinda tenuous, in poor communities here you could accuse someone of something terrible and know that just the accusation is enough to rile people up (we have an homicide rate much higher than the developed world too). But it's not like you can really prove the intent.

People tell me what to say, what to think and what to play.

>>1474167
>Execute
You can get as little as 6 years here, and the maximum penalty is 20 (30 years of there are aggravating circumstances)

>How do you want your justice system senpai?

>>1467800
Don't incite violence, or yell fire in a crowded theater for kicks.

>>1469445
>>1468179
What exactly is valid here?
White supremacists barely exist, and groups like "Neo-Nazis" mostly keep to themselves because they know the law is not on their side.

Meanwhile BLM groups cause disturbances everywhere they go. They harass everyone that doesn't support them (Even saying #AllLifeMatters triggers them) They shut down streets, they openly advocate the murder of police officers, they spout hatred against whites all around Facebook and Twitter and they're one of the most protected race movements out there today. They can get away with anything just by playing the victim card.

There was no valid point here.

>>1474214
lol get a load of this literal cuckold fetishist daydreaming about his side losing a race war
>facebook and twitter

>>1474224
I'm latino/hispanic. Father from Portugal, mother from Mexico.
I have friends from South Africa and they all hate BLM. American blacks are fucking idiots and these idiots are getting more power by the day.

>>1474175
Only a moron would view the world in such black and white.

You can have freedom of expression and speech and still understand the necessity for law to prohibit dangerous uses of speech that are counter productive to society.

Inciting a crowd to violence, creating a panic in a confined enviroment, or slandering/falsely accusing another with the purpose of wrongfully damaging their reputation are not incidents which can be protected from legal action.

This all or nothing mentality is fucking poison n

>>1467800
The laws surrounding slander, libel and invasion of privacy need to be made much stronger. People are flipping out saying that Trump wants to restrict the first amendment, when what he's actually saying is that what happened to Gawker should be the rule, not the exception

>>1474214
That's what everyone in America does you retard. Even the Westboro baptist church who go around insulting dead soldiers can play the free speech card and get away with it.

None, and any arguments to the contrary can be boiled down to "people are not responsible for their own actions because of a word" and is antithetical to the concept of governance over the self. If you acted on a bad word, you're responsible. Everything is a choice in that arena.

>>1474480
WBC is 30 people who hurt feelings and make money from lawsuits, they don't kill people or advocate killing people

>>1467800

>freedom limitation

FUCK ANARCHY

YOU CANNOT FORCE ME TO NOT SELL MYSELF INTO SLAVERY

I AM THE LIVING MAN PROTECTED BY NATURAL LAW

AS ITS THRALL I REFUTE THEE SAGE

File: 1464756694054.jpg (642KB, 2138x2148px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 2138x2148px

No limitations.
I,as a fascist, respect all kinds of opinions.Even if they are degenarate and coming from the mouth of an anarchist.

Diversity is strenght, as some people say.
>pic semi-related

>>1467800
This is a hot button issue, I truly believe people should be able to say whatever they want to say, but then I think ISIS recruiters should not be able to work in Europe or the United States, despite the fact that talking about how great ISIS is should be protected by free speech

In the end, I think we should allow people to say whatever they want unless they are literally telling other people to kill people, but even then it's iffy because on the internet we say a lot of shit we don't mean

>>1474214
>#AllLifeMatters
The problem with AllLifeMatters is that no one is actually an AllLifeMatters activist and the only people who say that just do it to irk BLM.

>>1468164
Yes because I shit in a toilet and have a computer and live a much more comfortable and superior life than anyone in bumfucktucknipdipistan or oogabooganda

>>1468133
>being this dense

>>1468955

>being safe in prison

topkek

>>1469012
>implying suicide attacks aren't a thing

You have to put some thought into it

>>1468084
Possession is okay
Distribution is not

So, where do you get it?

>>1474962
I read a legal journal article pretty recently that, with cell phones, teens are producing it themselves now and putting the photos online or sending them between each other. Then some teenage boy or girl (since everything under 18 is prohibited) gets charged with multiple counts of production and distribution, and their life is pretty much fucked.

The author argued that this type of thing shouldn't be illegal, nor should possession of photos which were produced consensually. She pointed out that back when these laws were passed, the photos couldn't be produced without abuse of minors and couldn't be distributed without commercial networks, but cell phones and the Internet have changed all that.

>>1474725
Anyone who thinks all lives matter doesn't need yo be am activist, because viewing all lives as smattering equally is in the current zeitgeist, so activism would be moot on a point that most already agree upon.

>>1473983
>For hate speech, simply don't let those be published in media. You're still free to spout it on your own, but not distribute it via general public.

Are you aware of "the marketplace of ideas"? What good are free speech and opinions if you can't share them publicly? Would someone just be saying bigoted things to only their family, or even only to the wall of their house?

>>1474993
There's a clear difference between hardcore CP and teenagers filming themselves having sex. Not prosecuting teens for possession of personal sex vids and legalizing cp are two very different things.

>>1475094
That was basically the author's idea, she proposed a different age for something to qualify as CP given current social and technological realities. She also favored ending the ban on possession of the formerly prohibited material because the reason for the ban given by legislators and courts (that its production and subsequent distribution is necessarily harmful) is no longer true. If two teens have sex and put the video up on porn hub or something, they're not suffering abuse in its creation.

There would still be a hard ban on possession/ distribution/ production below a certain age since children don't engage in sexting (and if they do, they don't understand what they're doing).

>>1467800
Absolutely none.

File: 1443067960708.jpg (59KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x281px

Your freedom stops where the freedom of others starts.

You can say whatever you want, but the problem is when you're saying things that can be harmful to someone else.

You can say "3rd wave feminism is bullshit and pointless" that's a point of view.
Saying that all 3rd wave feminists should be raped is not, because your calling for someone to make a crime.

Saying "lgbt community shouldn't be allowed to marry cause it's not "right" and as god wanted things to be" is okay, it's your point of view.
Saying that being gay is an abomination is not, because you're insulting a whole community.

Saying "terrorists should be killed before they kill us" is not being stupid and it's legit point of view
Saying that we should kill all muslim before they kill us is not acceptable since you're calling for a genocide.

And here's the big problem with freedom of speech. There's idiots that will say "b-but that's not real freedom of speech" thus
>Your freedom stops where the freedom of others starts.


But in the end, I think that's even more difficult. There's two things that we should consider : public and private talk. Calling publicly for the extermination of jews / muslisms / [insert any "minority"] won't be acceptable and shouldn't be permitted. Saying that gays are an abomination and that it shouldn't exist is calling for a systemic discrimination of a part of the society and shouldn't be permitted. But if you're discussing in private with people, saying what you think etc. is different.

If you say something on facebook it will have another impact than saying something in 4chan (specifically /pol/). And that's important, I think we need to be able to say things politically incorrect, we have to be able to say things that aren't "good" else we are fucked, but instead of saying those things publicly, keep it for the private or a place like 4chan where we should be able to say whatever we want, seriously, or not.

That's my point of view about freedom of speech.

>>1475292
Garbage.

>>1468927
>no limitations
>except this category of speech isn't protected
kek

>>1474445

Absolutely not, either you have free speech or you don't.

If you can't say x, y an z it is not free speech no matter how much you believe it is.

>>1467812
Fascist

>>1467812
Any political party

>>1469146
>lmao words will never hurt me

>>1473603
I've had cookies and orange juice. its really not all that bad.

>>1467800
You should be able to be a massive faggot as long as you don't harm anyone

File: cenk.jpg (21KB, 392x427px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 392x427px

>>1474224

>Goes on a history and philosophy board to argue about race relations.

>Doesn't talk about any history or philosophy, instead just insults people

Why even bother man, you're just wasting your life.

File: 1466112738586.jpg (37KB, 452x253px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 452x253px

>>1468033
>"you can't yell fire in the theater"
wew lad

https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

>>1475957
Fire in a crowed theater is a definitive meme, it just won't die. People are quoting Schenck, from 1919, without realizing that line of cases is dead; they should be looking to Brandenburg v. Ohio, Cohen v. California, the Skokie case or RAV v. St. Paul.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x333px

>people on this board are actually arguing in favor of restricting speech

Wew lads I thought this board was Reddit but I never knew

File: mfw.jpg (65KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x333px

>>1473615

>thinks demonising a whole sex isn't pathetic

>all Americans are stupid, inbred, pedophile hillbillies

It's okay I'm allowed to say this right? There is nothing pathetic about that sentence and doesn't make me seem like a rude, spiteful little person or nothing hey bro? And pointing out how pathetic it is using, what was suppose to be humor (obviously it wasn't found to be funny, lol) isn't okay?

>you do know that people can say things that you don't agree with without there being a layer of latent patheticness right?

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Besides that your sentence is pointless, if you want to be part of an amicable society, certain manners should be followed. Demonise rhetoric not groups.

Hope you find love someday anon because hate just breeds hate my man.

File: A-guy-on-facebook-broke-up-with-his-girl-the-day-after-she-tattooed-his-name-on-her-arm-2-days-later-he-has-a-new-gf.jpg (39KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x337px

>>1475665

You sir are crazy and should be locked-up and have the key thrown away.

Good day!

>>1476580
>summerfags

File: angryhog.jpg (53KB, 433x353px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 433x353px

>>1476592

>I've been here all week

Fuck off dickhead, I may be a casual but, I've been here long enough to know only newfags/summerfags call people newfags/summerfags.

So go away now and finish that high school paper you have due.

>>1467800
It should be illegal to badmouth important people out of respect but you can say anything else, hate speech is just pussynese for THINGS THAT MAKE ME WANT TO CRY WAAAHHHH.

File: bruh.jpg (63KB, 350x223px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 350x223px

>>1477223

>It should be illegal to badmouth important people out of respect

Important to who? If you give it to the public to decide who's important, will only hear from people like Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber. If you leave it to politicians to decide, we will only hear from politicians. If you leave to the rich to decide, guess who we will be hearing?

How about just don't badmouth anyone... out of respect?

> but you can say anything else,

You mean goodmouth them? Do you want an echo chamber?

>hate speech is just pussynese for THINGS THAT MAKE ME WANT TO CRY WAAAHHHH.

You know how I can tell you are young?

>>1467800
None short of actual threats and yelling fire in a cinema.

>>1467800
Making terrorist/bomb threats on airplanes or other high risk situations, other than that go right ahead

>>1477379
You know how I can tell you have a tumblr?

>>1467800
None. There should be things like being arrested for inciting a riot and facilities can kick you out if you do shit (like yell fire in a movie theater) but you shouldn't be arrested for that.

>>1468054
So in high school I can't ask out a girl my age?

File: ce6.jpg (65KB, 600x754px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x754px

>>1477409

>you know how o know I rustled your Jimmies

The only social media I have is facebook which I don't use and snapchat. I may still have a MySpace page lol.

>>1467800
>FREE speech
>limitations
pick one

>>1467820
/thread