What limits should be placed on free speech? Is there anything

>>3143099
no

>>3143099
any limits you place is for the benefit of the ruling class

Inciting violence.

>>3143099

none.

It should be illegal to trashtalk my waifu Mio

File: image.jpg (78KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x600px

>>3143099
Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Can't incite violence.
That's about it.

This is your reminder that we, as United Statesians, are allowed to voice our hatred openly. Pretty cool...
>pic tangentially related

>>3143099

None. Words are words. OTOH, you should be held accountable if your words directly lead to harm, for example if you shout fire in a crowded theatre and people are injured or killed in the stampede then you should face criminal charges, and even if no-one is hurt but the theatre clears, you should face civil charges from the theatre owner to compensate him for the lost business. But, if you stand there shouting fire and no-one moves or pays you any heed, then as far as I'm concerned you did nothing wrong.

>>3143099
>>3143276
>>3143284
You can add intentional slander to that list.

>>3143099
If the speech limits free speech of others or any other amendments. This means if the speech calls for death of others or harassment of others, then that is limiting another's speech and life.

you should be able to say what you like, but also if you are challenged by someone you must descend into a metal pit ringed with barbed wire and fight to the death (or till the other admits they were wrong).

1. Free entertainment
2. Prevents Slander
3. 'Untermensch' BTFO
4. Makes people think before speaking
4a. Removes the MUH FREE SPEECH barricade for the destruction of dedicated hate groups; i.e., WBC
5. Free entertainment for those of us who like to keep our opinions to ourselves from time to time

I'll take my peace prize now desu

i think you should be allowed to say the n word, kike etc

but as a result, it's entirely legal to (with witnesses to testify that the person in fact said it) defend yourself physically

if someone calls me a kike, it should be encouraged to bash their head a few times

>>3143441
But that's stupid, because saying a "mean word" is not the same as physically assaulting someone. Ever heard the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", you stupid kike?

>>3143455
not him, but physically assaulting someone is not the same as calling someone a kike; and calling someone a kike is not the same as someone who did nothing to you at all.

talk shit get hit desu

>>3143455
There's a difference between saying a "mean word" and attacking another person's core identity.

People are very defensive about self-identity. Self-preservation takes the center stage for defensive fights.

Say what you want, just don't act surprised when a hood nigger unloads their clip/knife in your head. Public support will be on the defensive side of things, in whichcase, the hood nigga.

>>3143276
Falsely shouting fire hasn't been illegal for decades, it's a dated myth.
Case of Charles Brandenburg overturned it being against the law

>>3143099
"Fire in a theater" type stuff.

Maybe knock-cnock jokes.

>>3143476
>not him, but physically assaulting someone is not the same as calling someone a kike; and calling someone a kike is not the same as someone who did nothing to you at all.
Agreed. But hitting someone harms you, getting called kike or nigger doesn't.

>get hit
And then ship the nigger/kike to jail.

>>3143487
>There's a difference between saying a "mean word" and attacking another person's core identity.
Not in a legal sense. It's still free speech.

>Say what you want, just don't act surprised when a hood nigger unloads their clip/knife in your head.
And then don't act surprised if the rayciss po-po arrests the nigger and fries his nigger ass on the electric chair.

>>3143400
>You can add intentional slander to that list.

Can? Sure.

Should? Not so fast...

How are you going to establish "intent" there? Is it likely that this will be differential applied (it is in the US) rather than applied fairly across the board? Will it be used to chill disapproved speech?

In general, I think it is better to answer slanders than to forbid speech.

>>3143487
>>3143476
>>3143441
You're all children or severely retarded.
Mean names aren't equivalent to assault or murder, I refuse to believe anyone over 18 who isn't trailer trash genuinely believes this.
>>3143487
And you're just a complete fucking moron.
If you call someone a racial slur, no court in America would justify you getting shot or stabbed over it with "he was defending his self identity". You're dumb. Shit like that doesn't happen, ever. You have to be physically threatening them, or have a reasonable way to show that said random coon was in fear of his well being or property.
Seriously, if you don't know anything about a subject just don't comment

>>3143418
You seem to be conflating speech that "calls for" something, and speech which actually brings about the result called for.

Not the same thing.

If I call on the mods to permab& you, I am calling for your speech to be limited, but to no real effect: they seldom ban anybody just because I demand it. So this is a case of no blood, no foul, I'd think.

Also, I am not happy with the idea of proactively banning one sort of speech because it might result in limiting some other speech.

That seems an inefficient way to protect free speech!

>>3143428
A modest proposal indeed. You should develop it for publication, and be Swift about it.

>>3143487
>There's a difference between saying a "mean word" and attacking another person's core identity.

Or there is not a difference.

An insult is like a drink -- it effects you only if you accept it.

>>3143441
>but as a result, it's entirely legal to (with witnesses to testify that the person in fact said it) defend yourself physically
>if someone calls me a kike, it should be encouraged to bash their head a few times
Self-defense is only ever acceptable if it's PROPORTIONAL. Therefore even if you weren't wrong, you'd still be wrong.

>>3143487
>attacking another person's core identity.

I see an issue here -- how do I know what elements make up your concept of "core identity? Will we all have to carry around signs? Or at least have them stated for the record some where, so I can't just decide to beat the shit out of you and then later claim it was because when I said how much I like football, you said you thought it was sort of stupid, and I decided football-fan is now part of my core identity?

>>3143104
wrong, lewdness on tv and pornography is for the benefit of the ruling class since it creates a degenerate and docile populace; it should be banned tbqh fag

>>3143099
You can't cry wolf in situations where it would lead to deaths. You should only be prosecuted for inciting violence if your words actually do incite violence. Beyond that, there should be absolutely no restrtictions placed on free speech; you should be able to say what you want, whenever you want, no matter how hurtful your words are.

>>3143099
using the power of free speech to incite whatever may violate the rights of a person, such as promoting violence against others or denying their rights of free speech.
if you use a right given to all to violate said right, then it is not a right in the first place.

>>3144737
>Case of Charles Brandenburg overturned it being against the law

But if I read it right, if your shouting "fire" causes a riot, or a stampede, or such, you can be liable for that. That act of the shouting is legal, but you own the consequences.

>>3143099
>Is there anything you think that should not be allowed to be said?

Check out my doubles should be illegal

>>3143487
>just don't act surprised when a hood nigger
Keeps the purp by the pound? The club stay pumpin, y'all know we run the town? and I keep a bad bitch around? Thick bitch, long hair, yellow white red brown?

>>3143099
>Is there anything you think that should not be allowed to be said?
If you use your free speech to on purposefully set off riots and shit that gets innocents targeted for constant harassment, stalking, and killed you need to fuck off with "muh free speech".

>Don't yell fire in a movie theater when there is no fire and get a person stomped to death.

>>3144923
But the actions are what should be punished, not the words

>>3144881
Right, but we are talking about what's legal to say.
You're always responsible for the consequences of your actions, legally

>>3144864
gender-sex/race-ethnicity/family/loved ones

Those are the main thing people usually get upset about. Personally I think the idea of self-preservation based on these ideas are pretty irrational, but in identities are mainly there for nominal reasons, not anything else. For others, these identities are what they believe themselves to be, not an idea that's separate from them.

>>3144944
The words were the motivators for the actions. Had the words not been said, the action wouldn't have happened.

>>3143099
You post a pic where the Amendment clearly says "none" and then ask "how much".

Fucking NONE.

advocating for extrajudicial violence against individuals or groups

File: andy.png (465KB, 550x603px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 550x603px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPgk0Hv-eTc

>people think this should be banned because muh fee fees

File: 16c194d12d78d23f70351c9bd5ff4de4[1].jpg (82KB, 512x354px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 512x354px

>>3144790
>How are you going to establish "intent" there?

>>3144867
TV as a whole should be banned, not just porn.

>>3144790
>how are you going to establish "intent" there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

How about falsely accusing someone of a crime?

File: 1500038762857.png (19KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 499x499px

Freedom is a privilage not an automatically obtained right.

Prove me wrong. Tip: you can't.

>>3143099
Depend on the culture of the country

>>3145292
You are wrong by definition, freedom is a human right and rights are not privileges

easiest rebuttal ever, jesus christ disgusting

>>3145310
Only in US legal system senpai

>>3145338
This thread is about the us constitution kohai

Can someone give me a reason why incitation to violence should not be protected by free speech? The fact of the matter is that inherently violent speech (ideologies advocating for genocide/warfare/avoidable deaths/etc.) is currently protected. Sometimes, it is even perceived as innocuous, e.g. reducing the number of the benefits of those benefitting from state healthcare. To take it a step further, EVERY ideology accepts some deaths as necessary. Even the generic liberal capitalist ideology supports the institution of obscure foreign wars and accepts that some workplace injuries/deaths would not be cost efficient to prevent. Unless you have no ideology, by your very belief you are advocating harm to be done to somebody, somewhere.

So what's the difference? Kill somebody, somewhere, and hope it's not you — or kill this person, on this day? Why is one form of speech protected and not the other?

>>3143099
none

>>3143099
Asking for limits on free speech and even to that I'd be strongly opposed.

>>3143099
Yes. The left and liberals are preaching treason and hatred against America. They need to be arrested and thrown in jail.

>>3146606
Fuck off righttard. If you don't like America you can leave.

>>3146606
Go live in North Korea.
>>3146617
Second that motion.

>>3143102
fpbp