What are your thoughts on freedom of speech, /his/? Where does

There shouldn't be freedom of speech at all. People should only be allowed to ever say two lines their entire life, like in those Whose Line sketches.

Freedom of speech should and does differ from culture to culture.

>>2958586
Do you get to choose the lines?

American free speech jurisprudence can and should be forced onto every other human culture.

>>2958593
Eh, i think that if other cultures want to be cucked thats their prerogotive.

>>2958592
No, in fact what you just said is one of your lines.

>>2958601
fuck
whats my other one
and who determines whose line they are anyways?

>>2958579
>unless you're harassing
What are the lines for 'harassing'?

>>2958579
free speech should end when it begins to infringe on the rights of others. this a tough distinction these days however, as feelings are often interpreted as rights. despite this, US still has the best laws regarding.

File: 1417834158338.png (2MB, 2404x954px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2404x954px

>>2958593

>>2958579
Freedom of speech was a mistake. Too many faggots.

>>2958723
A whole TWENTY Jappo anime cartoons? Lock this evil scumbag up and throw away the key.

How can something be free if it's restricted?

>>2958579

I personally believe that all forms of speech should be protected and kept "free" UNLESS it's being used specifically to incite violence.

In other words, you shouldn't be able to put up a billboard that says "HANG BLACKS"

But you should be allowed to put up a billboard that says "BLACKS SUCK"

My reasoning for this isn't so much that I want to see hate speech - but is based more on the fact that even the most elementary form of control over this aspect of our lives will eventually bloom into a full on power grab and be exploited by the powerful to silence/suppress others. This is why I personally love the United States and absolutely find Europe to be pathetic. Yes, the Holocaust was awful. Yes, we shouldn't make fun of it or joke about it. But if some lunatic wants to go around saying it never happened, then he should have that right. This precedent has been set in Europe and now you get arrested for calling someone a nigger or a dirty muslim on Twitter. I really hope this cancerous ideology does not spread to the US where our speech is still protected, as it should be.

I think a lot of people are confused on what freedom of speech actually is. They confuse the right to free speech with the right to an audience, and will complain about their freedom of speech being infringed if they act like a cunt and are told to fuck off because of it.

>>2958824
The good thing about America is that a lot of people are intensively protective about the constitution, to a degree that seems positively obessive to Euros and other degenerate foreigners.

I agree with this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5twSqDZRdiA

Freedom of Speech is the most fundamental right of any free society. A society cannot be democratic in essence when people lack free speech, because being able to speak freely on matters of opinion is a prerequisite to the democratic process.

The snowflake generation has mistakenly viewed freedom of speech as a public good, but this is not and never was the case. Freedom of speech is an individual right. In other words, even if free speech may offend large amounts of people it cannot be restricted on the basis that such offense constitutes something negative in the public sphere, because being an individual right the individual's right to exercise it is fundamental to the law, and overrules any other considerations (not to mention that often governments don't have clear power to restrict things for the 'public good' anyway).

The only regulations allowable on free speech are when it is not speech per se, as for example when it is incitement to violence or harassment or libel. The difference is that speech is exercised thoughtfully for its arguments and ideas, not for crime by proxy or unjustifiable slander (lies that cause severe hardship on innocent parties).

>>2958849
HURR HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH

>>2958849
That long predates "snowflake generation", see comstock laws.

>>2958579
>Personally, I am of the opinion that unless you're harassing someone, anything goes.

Lol then I can dogwhistle so hard dogs will evovle human speech capabilities just to tell me to STFU and nothing can happen to me.

File: 1476403380574.gif (2MB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x192px

>>2958832
This.

>>2958870
So are you gonna start the thought police to make sure people get arrested for what they *really* mean?

>>2958862
>any criticism of democrats is hate speech

>>2958880
Because it's like that saying about porn "you know it when you see it". Same with threads that you KNOW are bait threads because they follow the same gist.

>>2958896
If it is obvious then it is easy to define objectively, just say "seen that /pol/ meme before".

Lefties always do this, you go "um, sweety, no, just no, ;/..." or something passive aggressive leaving people to guess what you are feeling. Worse than autism in a way, at least you know the autist has some logical thought process behind their bizarre ideas whereas you have to be psychoanalyzed.

>>2958862
Hate speech is free speech. Read it again.

>>2958862
I think you should read the post you are replying to again.

Freedom of speech should be allowed only to those who deserve it either by serving the state or some other way.

>>2958579
>autist has some logical thought
very few people younger than 22 use logic, the brain hasnt developed or filled out the frontal lobes properly yet a processs which takes several years to finish. Ever wonder why so few adults post, why so many posts are shitty and childish unreasoned crap? Thats anatomy for ya.

>>2958586
I have a similar viewpoint. I believe all speech should be restricted to Rocket League quick chats. Calculated.

>>2958832
This. A lot of free speech advocate get mad when people are told to shut the fuck up as if it is infringing on their free speech but it really isn't. Of course one can appeal to their better angels but to call fascists is stupid and undermines the argument

>>2959026
>Ever wonder why so few adults post, why so many posts are shitty and childish unreasoned crap
No, faggot. That is because most people on this website are not bothered enough to write long, logical and inteligent answer. The rest are either too autistic or are trying to be edgelords.

File: Filthy_Plebians.png (407KB, 427x458px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 427x458px

>>2958579
Elves don't deserve rights, it's called HUMAN rights for a reason.

>>2958824
>arrested for calling someone a nigger
I'll take 'things that never happened' for €100, Hans.

>>2958579
Freedom of speech starts when you open your mouth and ends when you close it. All speech of any sort should be free, no matter how hateful or obscene.

The idea that certain speech is considered incitement to violence is absurd. It's up to the listener to decide what he'll do, not the speaker. Someone who is "incited" to kill a black guy or whatever because he heard "hate speech" was probably already going to kill that guy. Nobody is magically converted from a good law-abiding citizen to a killer because of someone else's speech.

>>2959680
>Nobody is magically converted from a good law-abiding citizen to a killer because of someone else's speech.
You seem woefully misinformed of the enormous and long history of lynch mobs. Remember the webm of the Nicaraguan girl being beaten and burned alive? Word got out she ran over a pedestrian and there was a call for her head.

In the current year i think that if something is truely incorrect then the best thing to do is publicly humiliate those ideas for everyone to see. All you do when you ban things is create echo chambers online.

>>2959680
>lie and tell police someone has a bomb
>police shoot him
:^)

>>2958579
People like freedom of speech until they want freedom from consequence.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to verbally abuse people. It does not give you the right to incite riots or rebellions, nor does i give you the right to commit fraud. And while you won't get arrested for vocalizing an unpopular opinion, it might just in fact make you unpopular, which is other people's freedom of speech.

I'm not American.

My impression is that American liberals don't understand why free speech is important, so they do some mental gymnastics so that they can silence their opposition. So, we end up with arguments where they pretend free speech is solely about the government, or that freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences ("you can say whatever you want, that's your free speech, that doesn't mean I can't destroy your life for disliking what you said") or that they don't want to give a platform (mostly when they force others to not host controversial speakers, the right of not giving a platform is when YOU deny your platform, not when you force others under threat to do so) or an audience (when they threaten the audience) or doing childish stunts such as making a lot of noise so that the person can't be heard.

Free speech is important because we don't know the truth. But by hearing different voices and letting others be heard, we can get closer to the truth.
American liberals are under the illusion that they know the truth on everything. So, for them, free speech is only the American 1st Amendment and if you can silence others without breaking the 1st Amendment, do so, because they are obviously wrong and are in the way of progress.

>>2958832
>>2959039

This is bullshit.
Free speech advocates don't demand that leftists should be their audience or that their speech shouldn't be criticized. They demand the freedom the right to speak to people who want to listen to them.

Let's see some example: when Milo went to Berkeley, did he ask for leftists there to be forced to hear his speak or for the people who want to hear him there to be able to hear him?

>>2958579
at this point in time, misinforming is more deadly than harassing

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.

George Orwell

>>2959715
>it might just in fact make you unpopular

Nobody cares about that.
Take Milo Yiannopoulos, for example. He knows he will not be very popular among the left.
But take a look at this

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-duplicate-2/index.html

>>2958579
"Freedom of speech" is misleading in the sense that unless you're an ancap, most people don't belive you should be able to things like yell "fire" in a crowded theater, mislead the police with false 911 calls or go up to a pregnant mother and verbally harasser her with invincibility.
Plus you got >>2958824 about violence.

ultimately it's not about "freedom of speech" so much that it's about "What degree of censorship is reasonable to you?" I personally have no problem with censorship so long as censors things I deem worthy of censorship and frees things I deem worthy of freedom.

>>2959698
>go to jail for inciting murder

Were's the problem? Speech is free, the consequences aren't.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me.

>>2959779
>Speech is free, the consequences aren't.
That's not how it works. Do you think North Korea they have a magic machine which physically prevents you from speaking your mind? No. The consequences ARE what restricts freedom of speech. Not the physical ability to express the message.

>>2959736
>But by hearing different voices and letting others be heard, we can get closer to the truth.
Oh right, I forgot that the mass misinformation being spouted in the US was bringing us closer to the truth. Haha just gotta get down with the /bant/s, right?! Endless shitposting is the answer!

As it stands, claims can't be checked as quickly as they're made. If I'm making twice the minimum US wage and want to buy a thirty dollar scientific article, that's two hours of work to buy it and probably another two to read it. If we're at least holding ourselves to highschool essay standards, we're going to need at least three of them, which puts us at twelve hours minimally. Meanwhile it only takes a couple of seconds for Donald to go shitpost on twitter about climate change. With totally free speech, you have absolutely no way to combat the boy who cries wolf. It's completely unsuprising that one's managed to be elected. The body of primary literature we have has grown exponentially, but the rate at which people read is no faster than it ever has been. Misinformation is too huge a threat to just overlook right now. I'd love if there could just be no laws in general myself, but with great freedom comes great responsibility, and the american public et al isn't responsible for much more than a disgustingly high obesity rate.

>>2959766
>ultimately it's not about "freedom of speech" so much that it's about "What degree of censorship is reasonable to you?" I personally have no problem with censorship so long as censors things I deem worthy of censorship and frees things I deem worthy of freedom.

>paging mr. obvious

>>2959831
Are you mentally retarded?

Who decides what is missinformation and what is not?

Do we create a Ministry of Truth who decides which ideas are allowed to be spread and which are not? And are you really asking that the President of the United States should be censored?

>>2959954
>questions instead of argument
>A-any amount of censorship means I can pull the Orwell card (even though orwell was a liberal)
You use a passive trust system where certain speakers get shut down or thrown out of universities and things of the like, simple.

>>2959765
>nobody cares
Except they do, which is why people develop persecution complexes when they realize how broadly unpopular their ideas are.

And Milo is a glorified internet troll who rode Donald Trump and Steve Bannon's coat tails to the big time and built his career on edgy contrarianism and being a douche on the internet. Educated people want nothing to do with him, which is why they're angrily protesting letting him go on a professional grifter's paid speaking tour through institutions of higher learning.

Plus it was other right wingers who smacked him down for running his mouth.

>>2959987
>You use a passive trust system where certain speakers get shut down or thrown out of universities and things of the like, simple.

So, could you explain what

a) Missinformation in the media
b) Throwing out/shutting down people who disagree with progressive orthodoxy

have to do with each other?

>>2959996
>Except they do, which is why people develop persecution complexes when they realize how broadly unpopular their ideas are.

Let's see

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-duplicate-2/index.html

What is the problem here? Milo is sad that he placed badly in a popularity poll or do we have people using violence to stop his speech?

>And Milo is a glorified internet troll who rode Donald Trump and Steve Bannon's coat tails to the big time and built his career on edgy contrarianism and being a douche on the internet.

This is meaningless

>Educated people want nothing to do with him, which is why they're angrily protesting letting him go on a professional grifter's paid speaking tour through institutions of higher learning.

There are educated people who want to hear his speech. There are conservative students who are interested in hearing him.

>Plus it was other right wingers who smacked him down for running his mouth.
Is ANTIFA right-wing now?

>>2959860
The bigger philosophical implications is that in a country like Saudi Arabia their censorship is just as reasonable as the USA's whether you personally agree with it or not.

>>2959996
>Plus it was other right wingers who smacked him down for running his mouth.
I don't think it's fair to say he was "running his mouth," if anything he was just being pedantic and having a "are traps gay?"-tier conversation with some people. Though it's certainly poetic justice for meam magik troll to get fired for pedantic memery by the very people he thought were down with it. Here's to hoping /pol/ eventually realizes trump isn't /theirguy/.

>>2959999
>Media figure cries wolf
>Populace realizes that he's full of it
>People get sick of it and boot him off campus because of this
Pretty straightforward. The world has a reputation system, there's a reason why not everything is an anonymous imageboard.

>>2960016
>Media figure cries wolf
Could you mention when he did so?

>People get sick of it and boot him off campus because of this
Do the ANTIFA represent everyone?

>>2960029
>Could you mention when he did so?
>former senior editor of breit-"Pizzagate"-bart
pretty much anyone who pulls the "Muh emails" line is doing so

>everyone who's ever told Milo to fuck off is part of antifa
it's like when a bunch of people disagree with someone in a thread, and the odd one out goes "y-you're all one samefag!"

>>2959996
The problem is that these "higher education" institutes regularly have brain dead Afrocentrism and celebrities speak on context. Milo isn't necessarily a intellectual genius but he's no worse than the average parade of freaks Berkeley trouts out to speak.

Plus Milos brand of standard libertarianism might seem legitimately eye opening to the average zombified American.

>>2960037
>pretty much anyone who pulls the "Muh emails" line is doing so

I don't remember him writing about the Pizza stuff. That said, what do you mean by emails?

And do you think people got mad with him for that or because of his positions on feminism?

>everyone who's ever told Milo to fuck off is part of antifa
>it's like when a bunch of people disagree with someone in a thread, and the odd one out goes "y-you're all one samefag!"

The people burning stuff and threatening violence are centrists?

>>2958579
Calling someone a moron/cuck/heretic/degenerate should be perfectly legal.

>>2960105
>I don't remember him writing about
s e n i o r e d i t o r

>The people burning stuff and threatening violence are centrists?
>everyone who's ensured milo fucked off was burning stuff

once again you respond only with questions. Try starting off with a claim, then backing the claim.

>>2960146
>everyone who's ensured milo fucked off was burning stuff

Yes, they did.
Who do you think stopped him from speaking at Berkeley?

>>2960162
They were the period at the end of a much longer sentence, and Berkely isn't the only place where he's had blowback. Do you think ANY speakers get to talk at all the places they ask to go to? You're also ignoring the fact that B R E I T B A R T themselves decided to shut him up for thing he'd said. Is breitbart antifa anon? Are they really? Is that what you sincerely believe? The fact that some people burnt stuff does not prove that literally everyone burnt stuff. You can't prove "X is always true in every case" by showing one case where X happens to be true.

there are a lot of limits on free speech. You cant libel or slander or you can be sued, you cant yell "fire!" in a movie theater without being arrested for disturbing the peace, you cant insult an officer while he's arresting you or it can and probably will be taken as resistance, you cant distrurb a courtroom with your "free" speeh or you'll be held in contempt of court, you cant lie with the intention of getting people hurt, you'll get in trouble if you see somebody drowning and you dont at least say something and alert others. You have an obligation to speech at that point, its called the duty to rescue. basically you can say anything unless it hinders society or others unfairly. furthermore hate speech is definitely illegal, saying "nigger" in a business environment is liable to get you fired, sued, arrested for hate speech, or all 3 together.

>>2960193
>Berkely isn't the only place where he's had blowback.
In this case in particular, we are talking about what happened at Berkeley

>Do you think ANY speakers get to talk at all the places they ask to go to?
He was invited to speak there by the College Republicans. ANTIFAs used violence to stop his speech.

>>2960243
It's amazing how no matter how much freedom of speech you're given, you'll just keep trying to find more clever ways to say nothing. Here are the first two posts in the reply chain, anon:

>>2959736
>>2959831

Tell me where in these posts it was specified that we were only talking about your one super specific example of antifa bullying you, as opposed to the general issue of freedom of speech and the consequences of speaking poorly?

The only speech you can justify restricting is lies

>>2958723
Not gonna lie, former Trump voter here. This is fucking hilarious watching Trump crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let this guy get the nuclear codes.

File: 56d758f4431aa97ff1a3a08987525cd4ddd14b1494f01cda8093b0a0bec6441b.jpg (121KB, 1200x892px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1200x892px

>>2960339
I wonder who's behind this post?

>>2960321
they justify restricting all sorts of speech besides lies. Giving secrets to enemies is treason, especially when you tell the truth, threatening the president can be cause for arrest or literal banishment, theres a british guy who threatened obama tongue-and-cheek and he can never enter the country now. hate speech restriction is justified on the grounds of anti-discrimination legislation, i.e. civil rights, might disagree with them but that would make you an idiot that doesnt want more rights for himself at the expense of stupid ego shit like wanting to say "nigger" at work.

File: Joseph_McCarthy.jpg (577KB, 996x1191px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 996x1191px

>>2958579
freedom of speech ends with being filthy commie lover

>>2958723

US law has always had issues with dealing with new media or foreign topics in existing media. There isn't exactly an industry in the US centered around comics of underage characters getting gang raped or fucking their older brothers.

There is also generally a position that physical maturity and mental/emotional maturity when it comes to sex and consent are not always equivalent and the best solution is to set a general age of consent in line with most other ages of consent (alcohol age of majority is an entirely other story and centered around temperance politics historically, but it somewhat tied to religious history in the US that also affects things like sexuality).

>>2959831
Letting SJWs decide which opinions are allowed and which opinions are forbidden will jot exactly lead us closer to the truth. Sometimes, SJWs are wrong. Sometimes, you are wrong.

If only their opinion is allowed, we will never know when they are wrong.

>>2958593
I agree. Only through true freedom of speech and thought can human society progress.