>you can say whatever you like, unless i don't like it

>>3347086
Free speech doesn't mean you should abuse it. To actually work it requires decency and self-awareness. If you're just an asshole who insults and attacks everyone just because it's "free speech" then you must be prevented from doing so because you're harfmul for the society and for the community.

>>3347129
>then you must be prevented from doing so because you're harfmul for the society and for the community.
Or you could just ignore those people.

>>3347129
Great, I'm sure that's a practical way to go about it with no room for abuse, right?

You fucking idiot.

File: stirner.jpg (157KB, 992x880px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 992x880px

>>3347129
>society
>community

>>3347146
Or those people can just choose not to engage in harmful acts. Either way, if you choose to ignore you get an anarchy-like society full of bumbling retards constantly attacking each other and no consensus on anything, ever.
>>3347149
Don't be a retard and you won't be treated like a retard.

>>3347086
>Limitations

Imposing limitations on free speech and milquetoast white dudes being held accountable for what they do with their right to free speech are two completely different things.

>>3347177
>white dudes
Good job disqualifying whatever point you might have had.

>>3347086
What exactly is the point of freedom if you can place whatever limitations on it you want?

>>3347155
Contrary to what you may have read in some meme pseudo-philosophical book, you are not alone in this world, but part of a bigger world, more larger and greater than you and your little life. You can choose to live in accordance to this world or you can go against it, but then be prepared to suffer the consequences.

>>3347162
You are the retard who wants to limit speech to subjective definitions of what is "offensive" and "decent". The next thing you know you're in jail for saying something offensive about the great leader.

Fuck you nigger.

File: 6a60779776122b8d3b849c29e7468718dffe2687.png (135KB, 2134x2060px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 2134x2060px

>>3347155
>I haven't read Stirner: the post
Stirner didn't believe society shouldn't exist, he claimed the individuals in the society are what make it. Hence his proposition for "Union of Egoists"

> What exactly is the point of free speech if you can place whatever limitations on it you want?

[citation needed]

But, OP, no one is stopping you from expressing yourself in your own space. You are perfectly free to say whatever you want on your own self-hosted website, your own lawn, your own home, to the people in your life. Everyone else of course has the right to tell you to fuck off and enforce you not saying dumb shit around them.
No one is asking to come into your house or your private server and police you.

>>3347203
Everything is subjective. Entire human society is subjective. Everything is subjective except for the sky above us and the earth below us. Your precious notion of free speech is also subjective, it was given to you by someone who had a clear idea what he wanted to achieve with it, and to promote certain standards by it. If necessary, it can be taken away from you.

If you act opposingly or destructive to those standards you must be ready to suffer the consequences.

>>3347230
>he thinks this is any sort of an argument
Fuck off with your post modernist pseudo bullshit intertwined with some retarded conspiracy theory of some higher being that giveths and takeths. You're not impressing anyone, you're not an intellectual, you're a fucking faggot and I cringed just fucking reading that.

>>3347255
The fact that you're angry and have to resort to namecalling shows i'm right.

btw you're probably some shitposting retard who got banned and now is so butthurt he made a thread about it.

>>3347267
The fact you actually believe your own bullshit shows you're retarded. Not even OP, just called you out on your stupidity, you fucking faggot.

>>3347274
You have no arguments, just impotent rage.

>>3347278
There is no use arguing with retards who never accept any fact or statement because "everything is subjective". You're a dumb faggot.

>>3347285
You have no facts though. It's more like
>REEEE WHY WON'T THEY LET ME DO X
Which is comparable to the mindset of an angsty teenager.

And yes. Everything related to human laws, human reasoning and humans at all is subjective. You can throw fits all you want but it won't help you.

>>3347129

Don't be a fucking limp wristed faggot, free speech is literally there because words and insults are just bullshit that literally gives you 0 damage unless you are too emotional to handle a little of heat

ironically if you restrict speech, then insults and words become more influential and everyone gets easily butthurt over anything

>>3347310
Words aren't bullshit. Words are the most powerful human invention. They can influence minds, move people, lead them and control them. What do you think propaganda is? Words.

If you have to resort to insults it means your arguments are really weak. In your free speech you are free to formulate your words and sentences in a more rewarding fashion, that will actually help you strenghten your argument. But you don't do that, you resort to the lowest setting of verbal communication.

File: 1359125589748.jpg (28KB, 280x412px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 280x412px

>>3347301
>>3347353
>freedom to say what you want should be limited by my opinion of what you say
>I'm smart and this is my argument
You deserve the ghulag

You have a right to so whatever you want. You don't have a right not to suffer the consequence. The only time it should enter illegal territory is when you utter threats or harass someone.

>>3347357
Don't put words in my mouth.

File: 1381103700310.gif (1MB, 198x134px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 198x134px

>>3347376
>If you're just an asshole who insults and attacks everyone just because it's "free speech" then you must be prevented from doing so because you're harfmul for the society and for the community.
I couldn't if I wanted to, its filled up with cocks you choke on. Albeit I will admit I am reasonably impressed by your ability to still write out somewhat coherent sentences despite it.

>>3347413
Nice impotent rage. Still no arguments.

>>3347432

intangible damage shouldn't be punished by law

>>3347129
Who exactly defines "decency" and what is "harmful to society?"

File: 959cadf4e1ba3f380d20e18fa7c5b1f2.jpg (88KB, 736x620px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 736x620px

Sure there's 'free speech', and it's probably been there since most modern republics' existence. It doesn't mean it may be to your benefit to exercise it anyway and wherever you want to. Court cases have declared free speech null and voild in the workplace. People are physically attacked when they burn flags. Police may arrest you for choosing to exercise your free speech and leave the court to decide whether you were in the right or in the wrong later.
Civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's had rights to free speech but were repressed by both the authorities and the public. Often the authorities wouldn't be able to protect these activists even if they wanted to because they'd probably be overwhelmed by the force of the agitating mob and such circumstances would stir up fights and both sides would have to be physically subdued, but due to the social climate at the time it was often not on the side of the activists. Today the situation has reversed and police and authorities simply aren't willing to exert theirselves in defending a group of people who take deliberate measures to agitate the residents of the communities they choose practice their activism in.
If the activists' discourse are of a racial nature employing the police forces in their defense would then create a situation similar to that of Apartheid era Africa with blacks being made to fight to subdue the citizens of their own ilk. Because the police force relies on the bonds of their fellow colleagues they naturally are wise in choosing not to defend movements which are inflammatory to some of their colleagues existence. They may have felt similarly during Civil Rights Era as well.

>>3347620
Not him, but society does.

>>3347666
What happens if society goes in a bad direction? It's happened enough times throughout history that this can't be dismissed with a single "well it just won't." Freedom of speech is meant to make sure unpopular ideas aren't quashed. These include both bad (racist sentiments) and good (gays are not automatically horrid degenerates). Remember that, on that note, homosexuality wasn't terribly praised and that plenty of folk wanted to eliminate any pro-gay speech as disruptive to society because it challenged wholesome family values. That was SOCIETY speaking. Think about that.

>>3347086
free speech =/= unlimited speech

You have the right to spout bullshit, you'll never have to worry about a cop arresting you for something you said.

I, on the other hand, have the right to shun you for it. If I'm a business owner, I'm not allowed to discriminate against things which people don't have any control over, but you do have control over your words, and if you should "fire" in my movie theater I'm throwing you out.

>>3347230
I don't deny that freedom of speech can be taken away, my point is why pretend to have it when you don't?
Places like Sweden claim to have freedom of speech, but then do shit like this
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech
I like to remind you that words are just words and can't physically hurt you, words are only offensive or hurtful if you let them be offensive or hurtful. A person should have every right to express their honest opinion on public property, the only things you could possibly defend censoring are lies or things that have no purpose other then being disruptive (ei someone literally just screeming at you). If someone says something "hateful", then argue with them, show other people how stupid they are, if you can't do that, why the fuck should I believe that YOU are right?

>>3347623
Free speech never applied in the workplace retard, it's private property.

It's very simple.

Either we have free speech, or we don't.

There is a difference between limiting free speech and having consequences for what you say. I don't think a black person should be arrested or fined for saying "I think all honkeys should die", but if the people who they work for don't want to hire that person because it creates a negative association for their company, that's their perogative.

>>3347086
There is no point.

Consider this:
>Use free speech to tell people/X about how bad X is.
>X gets murdered/genocided/suicide as a result.

Free speech gives us the ability to manifest death and destruction without ever laying a hand on a gun or a nuke.

You can argue all you want, but statistics will always argue that words are more destructive then guns ever could be. They are the single most destructive force on Earth.

The libertarians want every right... Except, conveniently, the right to aggress. Non-aggression is the golden rule of most rights movements.

I mean, if we allowed Freedom of speech, we ought to allow the right to aggression.
What is the point of a state if we have the right to do everything?
The state merely exists as a compromise between different groups of people; that's all politics is.

The less politically confined we are by civilization, the more moral we would become.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussions, you can say whatever shit you like and if another private citizen decides that makes you ineligible for employment then tough shit

>>3347832
So you believe that magic is actually a thing?

>>3347086
Free speech is for faggots. I wish Trump would round up the leftists and put them in camps for their treason. I hate "muh constitution" crowd that gets triggered about their "rights".

>>3347828
>consequences
slippery slope mate

>>3347848
the country is the constitution and vice versa.
What's the point of playing any sort of game if you can make up the rules as you go?
Chess would be meaningless if the rules were "living and breathing documents".

>>3347849

We live in a very different world than we did at the time of our founding. The world for the most start stayed the same from our nation's founding until WW1, but WW1 killed the old world and forced a far more cynical, far less idealistic world onto us.

Either way, it's a catch-22 for a lot of constitutionalists. They don't want government interference, but what other than the state is going to prevent a tyranny of the majority as Jefferson feared? If the will of the people is for 51% to repress the rights of the 49%, then really what is the solution without creating an apartheid state or civil war?

>>3347230

What an absolutely moronic argument. "DURR dere is no objectif troof therefore literally anything is justified", what a great basis for a society that is, you fucking dope. It makes me physically angry that you exist, my only satisfaction is knowing you will die alone.

File: 1432617903123.jpg (87KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x334px

>>3347866
>constitutionalists
>believers in direct democracy

Bruh

>>3347086
People who argue against saying what is offensive are objectively wrong is the point.
Free speech includes hate speech.
The only restrictions of free speech are outright threatening someone while showing intent at the same time.

Retards like >>3347129 are utter brainlets and don't understand how anything works.

File: hqdefault.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>3347129
kill yourself you fucking waste of life, I can't believe you are this fucking retarded

>>3347832

If your speech causes harm then you can be sued for that, but if your speech merely persuades someone else to do something retarded, you should be given a fucking prize for helping thin the herd.

>>3347840
I never said that it was, I'm talking about when the government gets involved.

>>3347230
You should kill yourself my man

>>3347893

Threats should be legal, they're pretty incriminating if something happens to the person you threaten but threats between private citizens are their own concern as far as I care. It gets trickier when the threat leads to financial loss, as when someone phones in a bomb threat to keep a restaurant closed for the day, but it should be enough for this to be dealt with thru litigation rather than a criminal trial.

>>3347889
A lot of constitutionalists like I said don't want the government interfering in things. Again, if the state doesn't prevent that scenario, who will without war?

File: 359673_277x320.jpg (17KB, 277x319px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 277x319px

>>3347848
Goes to show were all you non-American alt-rightists truly stand.

>>3347925

Constitutionalists are not anarchists, they WANT there to be a state, they just want it to restrict itself to its Constitutional mandate.

>>3347186
I mean, my point still stands. Deflecting responsibility because you feel threatened because whenever someone brings up white dudes you automatically assume it's about you. It's not about you, Brett. get over yourself.

>>3347925
Your entire point hinged on tyranny of the majority being a thing despite the fact that most constitutionalists believe in the democratic-republic system in which representatives are elected by the people, not some retarded Brexit referendum shit. If anything, it's anti-constitutionalists who want to do away with stuff like the electoral college and other so-called anachronisms.

>>3347943
Different guy here. Your point sounded pretty weirdly targeted, man. If you'd said "uppity black folk" instead, you'd have been called a /pol/tard and been similarly dismissed out of hand.

>>3347932
I don't give a fuck about your dumb "rights" and your faggot (((freedumbs))). What freedoms are you cucks complaining about? Freedom to be a faggot, freedom to be slut, freedom to be a failed liberal activist. Freedom to be a pedophile?

Free speech is one of those ideals that was made to be a check against our base nature, to fight the fact that in reality we are still mentally primitive apes that want to stamp out anything we view as a threat to us.

>>3347972
This is pretty much the truth.

>>3347966

Not that subhuman degenerate but none of those things should be illegal. Why should your freedoms be enshrined but not his? If an action / behavior causes no harm, it should be legal.

>>3347972
>>3347980

It's the opposite, it's a check against our culture (specifically our laws) that is designed to ensure we retain the natural right to speak freely that our pre-civilized ancestors enjoyed.

>>3347989
You have a better view of our species that I do.

>>3347982
Because my "freedoms" is being loyal to the state, loyal to your country and love your President because libtards have a history of hating all things authority. And I don't give a fuck if they aren't "hurting" anyone. Its degenerate behavior that needs to be banned. I don't mean ban gay rights, I'm mean banning being a general faggot. If you complain about our country, you're a faggot. That's all you are.

>>3347989
Culture is inevitably shaped by human nature. We're all dumbass prideful sinners and that manifests both in the private and public sectors.

>>3348001

Natural rights are simply those rights we enjoyed in our "state of nature".

A lot of bitter /pol/acks in this thread thinking calling people niggers and cucks is akin to free speech.

>>3348002
>free speech for everyone!
>but not for them!

You alt-right pissbabbies really are as bad as the Sjews. How about this: If you're not hurting anyone, do what you like.

>>3348016
Whatever libtard. I hope the President and the Army rounds up you fags and puts you to work doing something useful for once in your life.

ITT: wahh wahh im white and can't hurl verbal abuse at minorities and get supported by society like in the 50s anymore wahh

>>3347086
Free speech has to do with government restrictions. There's nothing stopping private individuals and organizations from refusing you goods, services, or employment.

>>3348004

Obviously, human cultures reflect human natures. You can look at our close primate cousins and see many of the same cultural traits you find among humans, then look at a more distant relative like a lion and see a culture that is quite alien, and as the saying goes, "if the cows had gods, their gods would be cows".

>>3348022

I'm not an American so that seems unlikely. You seem very angry, you should go fuck a trap or something. Don't forget to beat her up for being a fag afterwards.

>>3347086
I remember reading about J. S. Mill's way of differentiating 'free speech' and 'hate speech.' with the concept of 'the harm principle'. It's in this article (which is worth a read if you're interested in free speech anyway): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

The article explains it this way:
"[Mill] suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve the poor if such a view is expressed in print. It is not acceptable to make such statements to an angry mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the corn dealer."

It's an interesting way of starting to look at where is reasonable to put limitations, if a society is to put any limitations, on free speech.

The same article covers other areas that people have argued for limitations to be placed, as well as outlining the reasons that free speech is good and/or necessary.

Hope this helps.

>>3348031
Well enjoy getting raped by Pisslam in Europe libcuck. I hope when Europeans grow some balls they'll declare martial law and round up you faggot degenerates for cucking for Islam.
America is being protected against Islam while you cucks bend over for it. Hahahaha loser.

>>3348035
>Posting a reasonable response in a /pol/bait thread.

>>3348038

I am a Muslim and pray daily for when Europe sees the light and reverts, so thanks for the good wishes, friend. I likewise hope your Mommy-Sister gets treated for her diabetic ass-tumors soon, and that your cousin can get out of jail in time for his son's court appearance, good luck American friend!

>>3347177
>milquetoast white dudes being held accountable for what they do with their right to free speech
The freedom of speech is not a freedom from judgement, saying you'd be in favour of legalization of beastiality is going to sever links between you and others.

>>3347786
>I like to remind you that words are just words and can't physically hurt you, words are only offensive or hurtful if you let them be offensive or hurtful.
Multiple people have killed themselves over words, and when you're in a situation where you're mobbed (where the vast majority of hate speech on the internet happens) you can't individually deal with each jackass.

>>3348041
B-but maybe if we push for discourse and learning in our almost-not-/pol/ safe space then maybe when they stumble on over here they'll at least be a bit more fun to talk to.

Maybe.

How is being fired for your political beliefs not a soft suppression of those beliefs? the only time when doing something like that is justified is when that person brings their politics into their job.
The entire idea behind doxxing someone or getting them fired is to make them too afraid to speak, to me that is morally wrong.

>>3348041
this is not a /pol/ thread.

File: dixieControlYourself.png (163KB, 522x216px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 522x216px

>>3347086
Free speech is a farce and has never really existed.

As long as some information is considered private, or some phrases dangerous (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to cause a panicked stampede) then there will never be true speech. Merely highly unregulated speech.

Incitement of violence and hysteria are real things. There is no speech policy which will satisfy everyone.

>>3348056
>your words control the actions of other people
No.
>you can't ignore loud dumb people on the internet with incredible ease
Also no.

>>3348056
>Words can kill
>If you kill yourself

If you kill yourself you really have nobody to blame but yourself. This argument that if you kill yourself because I say you suck, therefore I should not be allowed to say you suck because it caused you to kill yourself is nonsense. People are not retarded children who need the state to nanny them, they must be accountable for their own actions, and must be able to be criticized.

>>3348009
It's part if free speech. The nigger or cuck in question is allowed to punch you in the face afterwards and the rest is allowed to not befriend the racist weirdo but authorities must stay apart from this. You don't need to be a /pol/ack to get this. Punishing people for bad speech is literally pre-school teacher tier.

>>3348088
Criticism and "go fucking yourself" are different things.

File: opinions.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>3348081
Go into a crowd at an American football game and shout "Allah Hu'Akkbar" and tell me, if you survive, whether or not you still think words cannot control the actions of others.

>>3348092
>The nigger or cuck in question is allowed to punch you
They actually aren't. Physical assault isn't legal because feelings were hurt.

>>3348035
The only thing I read is "I don't like free speech but that's untrendy".

>>3348095
No it's not.

Criticism has no requirement to be intelligent or elegant. If people think you are a piece of shit who should jump off a bridge maybe they have a point, and if they don't you should be adult enough to ignore them or likewise tell them to fuck off.

File: 1434819891842.jpg (4KB, 124x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 124x125px

>>3348098
>baiting and mind control are basically the same thing
No.

File: he didnt even wait.jpg (101KB, 950x758px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 950x758px

>>3348100
Rule of law is a lie. Just like freedom of speech. You can do whatever you can get away with.

Grab 'em by the pussy.

File: Janus.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>3348113
All stimuli demand response. Just because the response is unpredictable doesn't mean it wasn't brought into being by the stimulus. There are things you objectively wouldn't have done had someone not spoken. Sometimes your response was so quick as to have no other choice.

>>3348106
The only thing I read is "I like free speech because it's trendy".

>>3348100
There will be no testimonies if the people believed that the guy deserved the punch. If people doesn't believe he deserved it maybe it's you who deserved the insult.

>>3348123
Except I never mentioned I liked or wanted free speech, retard.

>>3348122
If this is true and your point was we should restrict free speech because it -might- set someone off (and remember, according to this latest post, you can't predict this shit), then the solution is just to sit on our asses and do nothing. Or preemptively kill ourselves so as to produce less potentially harmful stimuli.

>>3348141
Then why are you exercising it?

>>3347769
agreed

File: 1434082757956.gif (2MB, 560x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 560x433px

>>3348136
>the victim of the angry mob had it coming because the mob decided so
This attitude is going to turn places like Berkley into uninhabitable shitholes.

>>3348098
I would say that the crowd's response is unjustified and that they should be prosecuted.

File: PlayinBothSides.png (914KB, 511x920px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 511x920px

>>3348145
I never said restrict free speech.
I said it doesn't exist.
It is already arbitrarily limited by the necessity for privacy, safety, and national security.

It is merely a bone thrown to the masses.
And the masses don't really use it for much other than yelling tiresome slogans. Very few people use their freedom of speech in a meaningful way that gets them in trouble (Edward Snowden, for instance).

Most just want to yell "black lives matter" or "jews did 9/11" or "block that kick" one more time while simultaneously feeling persecuted for doing so. Our postmodern lives are so dull we have to feel like we could be jesus. Like the authorities might actually come to crucify us. Like there's some sort of orthodoxy we're resisting.

>>3348141
Read back your original reply, then apply the one I'm replying to here (albeit slightly modified) as a counter argument.

File: 1491215536771.jpg (290KB, 708x864px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 708x864px

>>3348166
I agree, and yet words still had the effect that would not have occurred in their absence. People are weak for being controlled by words, but the truth of the matter remains.

>>3348175
Oh, my mistake. I thought you were trying to make a rational point, not play misanthropic teenager stuck in a goth phase.

>>3348179
Threatening a crowd and expecting no consequences is not a free speech issue. There are reasonable limits.

An unreasonable limit is saying you are not allowed to say anything which may cause someone unstable to harm themselves because really then you can say nothing.

>>3347086
If it marginalizes people and people of color.

>>3347177
>milquetoast white dudes
found the lefty cuck.

>>3347943
obviously it its because lefties seems to be obsessed with white men. Probably out of gender and race envy.

>>3347932
and we're the growing majority.

>>3347943
>Deflecting responsibility
what responsibility?

>>3348035
Hate speech is free speech.

>>3348016
The left is the one that actively seeks to censor free speech.

>>3348041
People like you ruin the site more than any so-called polster does. In fact I bet most people in here actually go to pol.

>>3348063
most people who post here also post on pol.

>>3347848
What happens when his (hopefully) 8 years are up.

Hint, it's most likely going to be a Dem in office, and that Dem will abuse the principle you just proposed.

This is what I tell leftists who oppose free speech:
>Your BDS movement? Hate speech due to the Zionist bloc in congress.
>Anti-Amercian statements? Hate speech due to the current congress.

They slowly (emphasis on slowly) start to see their idiocy.

Restricting free speech via govn't means and legislation is immoral and against the 1st amendment.

Private companies pushing censure (Google/Alphabet, Facebook, Web hosts) is legally murky due to their right as private companies. I imagine this will be a lawsuit at some point.

File: kakarot.png (244KB, 248x459px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 248x459px

>>3348182
Invoke stereotypes, that'll convince people

>>3348009
It is free speech.

>>3348092
>he nigger or cuck in question is allowed to punch you in the face afterwards
actually no, that's the way it works.

>>3348117
Bitter leftist.

>>3348063
>/pol/ safe space
I doubt they need one, it seems by the amount of people who whine about pol they are the ones who need the safe space.

>>3348307
>They slowly (emphasis on slowly) start to see their idiocy.
I doubt that, they just don't have a retort.

>>3348025
You're right, whites aren't going to hurl verbal abuse anymore like the 1950's. We're just going to kill you all because you will never fucking leave us alone otherwise. All this could have been stopped if you just left us the fuck alone

>>3348238
Which shows why cronyism and non-regulation sucks.

>>3348238
>growing majority
In your local detention centers and soup kitchen lines after being fired from your jobs maybe.

>>3348258

Because they're the ones in charge. You really think the right won't turn on free speech as soon as it takes over?

>>3347086
Free speech was great but its been ruined by subhuman millennials who constantly whine and shit their diapers. We should start drafting you whiny pants shitting babies into the army so you can go and die for your country. Bullets whistle by as you uncontrollably keeping pooping into your diapers enjoying it the whole time.

>>3348806
Wake me up when you try something

>>3348864
That's funny it's mostly extreme rightists who reee and poop themselves every time some pro minority action is taken. Meanwhile the rest of the world endures tear gas and batons for their views.

>>3348890
You young whippersnapper you, i'm referring to all subhuman millennials. Both the left and the alt-right wear diapers for fun and shit in them constantly.

>>3347989
Nuh uh, Tsûdt Tdūndærcökk would just bash your skull in if you said something he didn't like in the prehistoric days

>>3348329
bugs..

>>3348007
My point is that I believe our state of nature is bloody and barbaric.

>>3349039

Yes, just like today you face the consequences of your speech. Rights exist to protect us from the state, we have other laws to protect us from one another.

>>3347129
>then you must be prevented
Ok, so it's not free speech. Why claim to be for it?

>>3347162
This offends me you should go to jail

>>3347086

Nobody is putting limitations on it, they are just using their own right of free speech to react.

>>3349042

Some people are psychopaths, most people aren't. Most people enjoy helping others and are basically decent, don't let the fact that our rulers are mostly psychopaths blind you to the basic goodness of most people.

>>3349053
>>3347162

I am also offended, this means we have a majority and therefore I sentence you to death by torture.

>>3349059
It's not psychopathy, it's human nature. If there is nothing stopping you from say killing your neighbor and stealing his wife, and you have the ability to do so, it's really in your best evolutionary interest to do so because it allows you to further propogate. We didn't crawl out of the mound of corpses because we became good, we did because people put fear of consequence in us.

File: joel banderas.gif (3MB, 640x349px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x349px

>>3348081
>No.
>he doesn't possess the power of the Golden Voice that compels others
Get a load of this voicelet

>>3349071
>If there is nothing stopping you from say killing your neighbor and stealing his wife,

But there is, my basic human decency.

> your best evolutionary interest

Individual organisms do not have "evolutionary interests". That is the concern of genepools, an individual is merely a vector for furthering those interests, but those interests are not "ours" and what is good for our species is not always what is good for us.

>We didn't crawl out of the mound of corpses because we became good, we did because people put fear of consequence in us.

Humans are overwhelmingly more cooperative than they are antagonistic, the mere existence of advanced civilizations proves this.

>>3349080
>But there is, my basic human decency.
That's not inherent to you, that was taught and bred into you.

>>3349092

No, it's inherent. You can see it from the earliest infancy, you can see it in other primates and even other more distant mammals.

>>3349107

Except other socities exist that don't have the same universal view towards human life. If they did, the death penalty would either be banned everywhere or practiced everywhere. The idea of honor killings wouldn't exist. Cannibals wouldn't be a thing everyone else reviles. We're not a tabula rasa, but less things are inherent to us than we think.

And children are a terrible example because children are sociopaths with no concept of right and wrong.

>>3349115

Every society has laws against murder and theft and suchlike,what the fuck are you talking about?

>We're not a tabula rasa, but less things are inherent to us than we think.

On the contrary it is our culture that has less of an effect than many assume, most of our behaviors and moral intuitions are innate.

>And children are a terrible example because children are sociopaths with no concept of right and wrong

So what you mean is, you don't know anything at all about the subject. Opinion disregarded!

>>3349129
>So what you mean is, you don't know anything at all about the subject.
I'm a former teacher, I know perfectly well what children are like.

>Every society has laws against murder and theft and suchlike

Except when they make exceptions, again like in honor killing. Exceptions that don't exist in other societies. You're the one making excuses for people here, I'm just saying to embrace how we really are.

>>3349139

So the fact that people need additional rationalizations in order to justify killing someone proves that humans are innately evil? What teh actual fuck are you gibbering about you dopey faggot?

>I'm a former teacher

Sure you are sweetie.

No nation had truly free speech. It's a meme.

For example, in most countries it's illegal to slander, threaten, coerce, blackmail, yell out "fire" in a crowded room without a fire, bully and abuse people verbally, give people wrong advice that leads to their harm etc.

You could say a better term would be freedom of opinion, which you have in developed countries even if it's objectively wrong and people would shun you for it.

>>3347086
>thinking your freedoms are being infringed when someone tells you to shut the fuck up or yells louder than you to prevent you from being heard

>>3347086
t. /pol/ack

Using words to hurt people is not free speech but a crime.

>>3349519
I'm hurt by what you said thus you should be sent to jail.

>this is what leftists actually believe
I honestly believe at this point that it's a mental illness.

>>3349526
>I'm hurt by what you said
>implying racists bigots have a right to not being hurt
That only applies to people.

>>>/pol/

File: file.png (159KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 600x600px

>>3349528
>when the nazis called you subhuman
>when tolerant liberals 70 years later call you subhuman
Go back to plebbit

>>3349536
>implying the two sides call you subhuman for the same reasons
Just because the Nazis called you a subhuman doesn't mean you aren't.

>>3349539
If only I was more of a tough guy like you, with all those nigger dicks in your mouth, calling out subhumans on a siamese bamboo weaving forum.

>>3349548
>casual racism in the current year
epic

>>>/pol/

/his/ is not the right board for you.

>>3347177
>milquetoast white dudes
Good afternoon Reddit

File: 1391358889291.jpg (12KB, 232x231px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 232x231px

>>3349551
>says the nazis were right about designating subhumans
>whines about racism
Must be really big nigger dicks.

Make me faggot.

>>3347943
Who is Brett? I only know Brett Favre.

>>3349567
>/pol/acks are unable to think in a logical fashion
How surprising.

I already told you that it's not designating subhumans that's the problem but designating subhumans for arbitrary racist reasons. Designating bigots and racists as subhumans is perfectly legitimate.

>>>/pol/

>>3349593
Given that you don't even try to argue any more but all that you have left is insults it looks like you just got told hard on the internet.

File: 1380823015565.jpg (63KB, 684x725px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 684x725px

>>3349600
There is no argument to have with retards that reject any form of rationalism and instead base their arguments around feelings, which is what you're doing by claiming free speech should be limited by what you deem offensive or inappropriate. It's even funnier when you responded to my argument by calling me a subhuman in essence violating your own principles, like leftards often do.


So, back to nigger dicks for you.

>>3349609
>calling me a subhuman in essence violating your own principles
I already told you that bigots and racists like yourself don't have rights. I would be violating my principles if I insulted someone undeserving out of random, such as you are doing in calling people the n-word on the internet. You however I can insult as much as I want.

>>3349609
>base their arguments around feelings
But attachment to free speech is feelings too.

File: 1449165776945.gif (3MB, 240x135px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x135px

>>3349609
>there is no argument with retards
>proceeds to talk about nigger dicks

so theres no arguing with you i presume?

File: 1374355218047.jpg (94KB, 625x469px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 625x469px

>>3349615
You lack the mental capacity to be able to form a coherent argument let alone understand one that's why its imperative that retards like you are never allowed to form actual policy.

>>3349618
>>3349619
>taking the nigger dicks out of your mouth so jamal can post too
top lel

see>>3349526

File: 1449986735653.jpg (40KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x480px

>>3349642
>continues talking about nigger dicks

son, are you gay?

>>3347285
>"everything is subjective"
most things are subjective

>>3347357
>>freedom to say what you want should be limited by my opinion of what you say
>>If you're just an asshole who insults and attacks everyone just because it's "free speech"

If this is even remotely equivalent in your head, then you have no idea how to talk to people or function in a society as a person.

>>3349677
No, you're just an idiot and are unable to comprehend the implications on free speech when you start limiting it trough feelings. Defining what is "an asshole" and what are "insults" is the problem which inevitable is open to abuse trough which legitimate opinions can be censored.

Saying all illegal immigrants should be deported to their country could easily be construed as me being an insulting asshole and thus need to be shut down trough force of lawful violence. This is what is already being implied in many EU states. Merely being opposed to mass immigration makes you an asshole and a hateful person because you refuse help to those that are deemed in need of it thus making it hate speech and thus making it illegal to hold such opinions. People are literally getting fined and arrested over facebook likes.

Saying gays should be allowed to get married can easily be construed as hateful towards the church and anyone religious and thus should be made illegal (but then leftists sperg about Russia doing it). Saying that Hitler is a blood thirsty tyrants will get you into Dachau, etc.


Stop wasting air.

>>3349642
>You lack the mental capacity to be able to form a coherent argument
I did and I refuted yours with the result being that you got told. It's now up to you to come up with something new instead of haplessly attempting to insult people and making a fool of yourself.

>>3349701
You're a huge moron if you actually believe society is unable to come up with certain standards on what you're allowed to say and what not because it plain insults people and contributes nothing to the discourse. In fact, that's what people have done throughout history.

>>3349722
You failed to make a single argument trough out this discussion because you're a dumb nigger.

>>3349726
>You're a huge moron if you actually believe society is unable to come up with certain standards on what you're allowed to say and what not
That's the entire problem you fucking moron. Society deemed faggots like you mentally ill not 50 years ago and execute them to this day in certain countries.

But that's okay, because society, amirite?

>>3349642
>>taking the nigger dicks out of your mouth so jamal can post too
That's not an argument. Tell me again that you are not emotionnaly attached to free speech or feel entitled to it.

>>3349753
The way I see it you're the one trying to change the status quo and feel entitled to restricting speech of others while providing zero actual arguments for it and in turn deserve to be called out for what you are - a dumb nigger sucking untold amounts of cock.

any other questions?

>>3349734
>That's the entire problem you fucking moron.
No, that's just you being an idiot. Because people have been wrong 50 years ago doesn't mean that they're still wrong now.

Under your premise we might as well give up everything because pretty much everything we've tried has gone wrong in the first attempt.

>>3349778
>because people were wrong restricting speech 50 years ago that doesn't mean people will ever be wrong again so restricting speech is totally justified as it can never be wrong again or back fire in any way like it did historically
Yes, and we should try communism and slavery again as well. Just because they were wrong then, doesn't mean that they're still wrong now.


You're an idiot.

>>3347129
>free speech doesn't mean you should have free speech
>you should have free speech but you can't say anything I don't like
It is scary how brainwashed leftists have become. They can now deny even basic logic.

>>3349793
>Yes, and we should try communism and slavery again as well.
Again, you fail to think in a logical manner.

I'm not saying everything that that which failed should be tried again, I'm saying that just because something failed it should not necessarily not be tried again.

I can tell that you've never had a proper education if you're unable to comprehend the difference.

>>3349811
Absolutely free speech is unnecessary and only leads to a less civil society. It is perfectly reasonable to exclude insults, racist slurs and other nonsense that only hinders discussion rather than contribute to it in a meaningful manner.

Just like your posts could easily be deleted from this thread and nothing of value would be lost.

>>3349830
The fact you're trying to appeal to logic while lacking a scrap of it is both sad and hilarious at the same time. How you're trying to distance yourself from the actual subject of discussion because you were btfo is also amusing.

brainlet to the core

>>3349836
>let's restrict free speech to only things I agree with :^)

>>3349769
I'm not trying to change anything. I like free speech. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

>>3349839
I am making logical arguments. You on the other hand are creating one fallacy after another and all I have to do is point it out to destroy your arguments.

>>3349841
Yes, that's what a society is free to do. There is absolutely no cosmic law that grants you the right to insult people and calling them racial slurs.

File: 1386087081099.jpg (40KB, 461x403px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 461x403px

>>3349847
>I am making logical arguments
lmao

>>3349811
>just because you can, doesn't mean you should
Literally what he's saying. Believing that not engaging on ones sociopathic thoughts is not leftist brainwashed propaganda, it's common decency in a semi-functioning society.

>>3349854
That's the response of someone who got told and has nothing else left to say.

File: 1386316494867.jpg (45KB, 600x385px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x385px

>>3349859
>being this mentally deficient

>>3349865
You still havent provided an argument as of why it's efficient or rationnal to have unconditionnal free speech in a society.
You just insulted people who dont agree with you and talked about niggers cock.

File: 1381053303067.jpg (697KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 800x1200px

>>3349879
But I did, not only that but I gave you one historical examples and one contemporary example of how restrictions on free speech literally kill(ed) people when they broke those restrictions. There are people in jail right now across the world simply because they said something that is deemed inappropriate by a group of people or society.

You provided no counter argument except claiming that just because restriction of speech cause(d) misery, death and destruction it doesn't mean that restricting free speech now is in any way, shape or form bad and completely ignore any evidence contrary to it. All the while you're literally pretending to be a logical and rational individual.

You deserve the ridicule you're getting, and much worse. I insulted you not because you disagree with me, but because you deserve it for being a dumb retard. Furthermore it was you who started out with insults and literally zero argument. You are mentally deficient in more way than one and any form of rational discussion is pointless and destined to fail because of it.

Nigger dicks, faggot.

>>3349894
Speech is restricted in every civilised society, either in the US or in Europe ane they are the best place in the world to live in, despite this limitation already in place in the law. That people are put in jail is literally the intended effect of limiting speech so I dont see what you're for here.

>>3349929
There are no restrictions to free speech in the west short of inciting violence and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But they are increasingly being created thanks to retards like you. All you can muster is false equivalences. You point to the EU and the US yet those are the freest societies in the planet and that is after 50 million people, or so, died due to totalitarian regimes which restricted speech to such a degree that they literally had slave camps full of dissenters and were spying on people in their own homes while promoting reporting among the citizens for literally thought crimes.

Meanwhile much of the 3rd world has actual restrictions on free speech, prominent examples are Saudi Arabia where journalists are imprisoned, gays are publicly executed and denouncing Islam is a crime. All of those restrictions were put in place by society, which according to you is all there needs to be done, because society is always "right". Sadly idiots like you fail to realize society can and does change and any restrictions pertaining to speech are open to abuse because because of it. Case study of any authotarian regime yields these results.

>That people are put in jail is literally the intended effect of limiting speech so I dont see what you're for here.
Because you're too much of a retard to comprehend the consequences. If the nazis were in power you'd be in jail, and according to you it would be justifiable imprisonment because society decided so.


tl;dr you're a dumb brainlet that still failed to provide a single argument for restricting speech tat doesn't boil down to
>I don't like what you're saying and it hurts my feelings:(

>>3349839
>Spergs out on a whataboutisms with communism and slavery
>Accuses the adversary of distancing from the argument while being unable to tackle his argument entirely.

And just because you seem to be unable to understand others, what he said can be summed up with:
>You learn from your mistakes and one can prevent past outcomes from certain actions.

I agree with this sentiment but not with his take of free speech.
Free speech laws to curb sociopathic behavior (as in, those that use their speech not for dialogue but simply to attack others gratuitously) only end up limiting the liberties of those that don't engage in that behavior (and I do believe that aggressive/offensive speech can be justified and should never be made illegal).

>>3349894
>But I did
You really didn't, you gave examples where free speech restrictions are bad, but not why unconditional free speech is necessarily the right thing to do.

if you imagine two cases:
Society A: With limited free speech
Society B: With unlimited free speech

You've only been promoting B by saying how flawed A is, and while I agree with you on the shortcomings of society A, you keep failing to argument FOR society B. You're just saying B is better because it's not A, that's not an argument and it ignores all problems of B.

>>3349975
>There are no restrictions to free speech in the west short of inciting violence and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
Many european countries have restrictions on insulting their heads of state, and some have laws against vilification of religion.

>>3349975
>short of
So, limitations then. Now that we agree that there are already limitations, the argument that there shouldnt be any limit or we would be Saudi Arabia or thr 3rd Reich sounds pretty weak since we most definitively are not. Besides do you really think that if we turned into Saudi Arabia overnight, the Constitution would stay as it is, free speech protection included?
Your only argument seems to be a slippery slope and an appeal to emotions (think of the nazis!). Nobody here is asking for death as punishement or death camp so I dont know who you think you are arguing with. You are arguing for a scenario that
>will not happen
>if it were to happen, would not do so in the fashion you seem to think it would
In your fantasy, if nazis or any totalitarian group, somehow, would access the executive and legislative power, they would not attempt to change any law limiting their power? Those are not convincing boogeymen.

Limiting speech can serve business purposes thanks to copyright laws inciting to creativity as you can benefit from it, or limiting blackmail. It can also protect the citizens mental health or help keep the civil peace.

>>3350006
You're deep in mental gymnastics at this point.

>You really didn't, you gave examples where free speech restrictions are bad, but not why unconditional free speech is necessarily the right thing to do.
I don't need to provide a single example to it being the case but they are easy enough to find, including advocacy for groups that were historically socially ostracized and have no outlet in societies where speech is restricted and punished, the opposite actually being the case, with their opponents being allowed free speech while they themselves are repressed. It goes from democracy advocates in communist countries to gay issues in the west. If speech is limited to what is socially acceptable you make everything that's not socially acceptable illegal by definition. Thus talking about blacks as if they're equal to the white man would've been socially unacceptable and thus illegal, speaking about gay rights would likewise be illegal, The same way it was illegal to discuss capitalism or democracy in a positive light in the soviet union and under "anti-fascist" speech codes no less.

>You've only been promoting B by saying how flawed A
I don't need to promote B, B is the current state of affairs, you are the one promoting A while claiming B is flawed without providing any evidence to it being the case. The flaw you keep maintaining exists is actually not an objective flaw you can measure and define but a subjective one that is based on your personal opinion as to what is "acceptable" inherently making it prone to abuse because what is acceptable and is not is determined by society and not by an objective force of nature, thus it is morally acceptable to beat your wife if she doesn't do as you say and at the same time morally unacceptable to mis-gender someone depending on what part of the world you live in. Thus there is no objective morality upon which to base speech codes without fucking up things down the line.


Thus you have to go about semantic.

>>3347129
>I believe in free speech as long as you don’t hurt my widdle feewings

>>3350039
I like how in the same post you point to human fallibility yet at the same time believe you're not fallible and any speech codes made by you specifically would weather the time and any moral system its applied to. Only proving you're a short sighted, self important holier-than-thau retard.

>Your only argument seems to be a slippery slope
>implying the slippery slope is a fallacy or somehow invalidates arguments
You're an idiot.

>So, limitations then.
Like I said. When failing to have an actual argument, resort to semantics.

>copy right limits free speech
>what is fair use
Retard

>>3350042
>I don't need to provide a single example
You do, if you're in an discussion and want to prove a point.

>B is the current state of affairs
It isn't, there are various speech restrictions in a lot of western countries and cases for censorship in most of them.

>you are the one promoting A while claiming B is flawed
I did no such thing

>>3350066
>>what is fair use
A US thing that it not that widespread in the western world. Still incredibly limited when it comes to transformative media.

This discussion would be solved if people in the thread actually read Mill's essay On Liberty before they commented.

>>3350091
>You do, if you're in an discussion and want to prove a point.
No, I'm sorry, I don't have to but the saddest part is I did, but that's not enough for you crypto commies

>It isn't, there are various speech restrictions in a lot of western countries
Semantics again. Restricting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the same as restricting opinions.

>I did no such thing
No, not at all.

The worst part is that I'm from an ex-communist state where people were sent to a barren islands in the thousands for voicing or writing down "incorrect" opinions and here we are, 30 years later with some pampered westerners trying to impose speech codes because his feelings may be hurt by racists.

>>3350107
>A US thing that it not that widespread in the western world.
Do you always make up things or do you just consider laws that don't have identical names as having nothing in common?


Maybe you meant "world" without the "western" part? The same way that free speech is not that widespread in the world and is coincidentally least found in rotting intolerant shitholes that people are fleeing en masse?

what did you expect? people are hypocrites

>>3350066
>any speech codes made by you specifically would weather the time and any moral system its applied to
That's not the point at all. The point is to better suit the society the codes apply to. I believe limiting speech has more benefits than letting it totally free, and most democracies in the world seem to agree with me.

>implying the slippery slope is a fallacy or somehow invalidates arguments
It's not when you're actually describing something likely to happen, which you are not doing. Totalitarian regimes tend to form by coup or violent action and do not respect the letter of the law of the regime they replaced.

>semantics
You like to use that word it seems. When I get sued for copyright infrigement, you are, in fact, limiting my speech. My speech is not free. So are you when using the "fire in theatre" argument. As another anon pointed out there are already several other limitations to speech in the western world barring copyright laws, libel, etc. You argue that we live in a society with unlimited speech (free speech), we've shown you that you're wrong, and that yet we don't live in a communist dystopia.
So if we agree that speech is not free, but restricted, the discussion shift as to where put the limitation of speech, not whether or not it is free.

>>3350159
>I believe limiting speech has more benefits than letting it totally free, and most democracies in the world seem to agree with me.
>>>I did no such thing

>It's not when you're actually describing something likely to happen, which you are not doing. Totalitarian regimes tend to form by coup or violent action and do not respect the letter of the law of the regime they replaced.
This somehow makes speech codes okay.

>When I get sued for copyright infrigement, you are, in fact, limiting my speech
You are retarded and keep ignoring fair use is a thing.

>we've shown you that you're wrong,
Did no such thing but retards like you have no problem proclaiming victory.

>and that yet we don't live in a communist dystopia.
This is somehow an argument for using the same totalitarian techniques as those regimes. Hm, I wonder how we got to a communist dystopia in the first place. We'll also pretend this only happened in communism.

>So if we agree that speech is not free, but restricted, the discussion shift as to where put the limitation of speech, not whether or not it is free.
Speech is not restricted, yes you're reverting to semantics because you have no other argument to stand on. Thus yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the same as jailing someone because he disagree with mass migration on facebook, which is what your ultimate aim is, with you deciding on what should be restricted and what shouldn't be restricted and using emotions to define ithose restrictions as you have no objective moral code to base it on. Thus merely being offended by something is ground for the removal of the offender.

You're an authotharian leftist that's trying to silence dissent via speech codes forcing conformity to your ideals trough appeal to self-preservation and you try and disguise it as a benefit to society.

>>3350192
>>>I did no such thing
You are arguing with more than one person.

>This somehow makes speech codes okay.
This somehow makes your slippery slope a fallacy, because you're are describing a situation which is not going to happen.

>Did no such thing
>A: there are no limitation of speech in the western world
>B: Yes there are, here are some of them.
>A : Those don't count, speech is still totally free

>I wonder how we got to a communist dystopia in the first place.
When there was an armed revolution and they seized power. Communist also had laws against murder, I guess we should also get rid of those?

>Speech is not restricted
Yes it is, I think we've listed several instances of limitation of speech.

>Thus yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the same as jailing someone because he disagree with mass migration on facebook
They are both limiting speech, yes.

>what your ultimate aim is
How woud you know that? Should I assume you want free speech so you can yell "nigger" in peoples face and get away with it?

>using emotions to define ithose restrictions
But you are using emotions yourself by appealing to the nazis, saudis and what-about to support your attachement to free speech, perhaps because you have emotional ties to it ("
The worst part is that I'm from an ex-communist state where...")

>forcing conformity to your ideals
Limiting speech doesn't, in fact, make thoughts a crime. Only some speech. Nobody is forcing me not to think I really want to yell "Fire" in the theatre or to think it would be really cool to do so.

>>3350229
>more semantics and false equivalences
It's all you have, your entire argument on restricting free speech stands on it. Go and take it to the extreme, we already banned calling people niggers, might as well ban opposing anything else I dislike, after all, we already set a precedent so it's all good even though the precedent is a false equivalence :)

>How woud you know that? Should I assume you want free speech so you can yell "nigger" in peoples face and get away with it?
You can, because it's my right to say nigger and you can fuck off if you don't like it, nigger. I can also say faggot, dune coon, gook and spic because I have the right to do so and you have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to gag me because you dislike what I'm saying, which is what you're doing, and you're not doing it because someone yelled nigger.

>opposing speech restrictions makes you emotionally tied to free speech
Yes, just like opposing murder makes you emotionally tied to murder. Great argument! How will I recover from this magnificent point that has nothing to do with anything?

>Limiting speech doesn't, in fact, make thoughts a crime
>Nobody is forcing me not to think I really want to yell "Fire" in the theatre or to think it would be really cool to do so.
Great intellectual dishonesty.

>you can still think whatever you want, you just can't share or say it or you'll go to jail :)
.

>>3348806
Empty threats and impotent rage, the undeniable mark of the beta white.

>>3350276
And your entire argument rests on throwing your toys out of the pram because you can't say nigger or faggot anymore. Well I guess I also don't care about your feefees.

>You do not have the right
But I do, actually :^)

>Great argument!
Oh no it's a very stupid one. But you started using it first so, yeah.

>>3350302
But I can say nigger and faggot as much as I like, it's legal for me to do so. You're the one sperging about how it should be illegal because your feelings get hurt.

Tough luck you intellectually dishonest fag.

>>3350317
>But I can say nigger and faggot as much as I like, it's legal for me to do so. You're the one sperging about how it should be illegal because your feelings get hurt.

Depending in the country you live in, no you can't. And as I mentioned before the rule of law regarding limitations of speech has been breeched several times already for several reason, even in the US.

>You're the one sperging
I've been very civil, you're the one sperging because you're afraid of not being able to throw slurs around.

>you intellectually dishonest
I think anybody can tell you're not the one being honest here.

>>3350329
>Depending in the country you live in, no you can't
Oh, but I can.

>I've been very civil
Hiding behind the mask of civility while lobbying for incarcerating people based on the opinions they hold could only fool people who are as intellectually barren as yourself.

>I think anybody can tell you're not the one being honest here.
Ah, yes, especially when you tell me that it's not wrong think because I'm still allowed to think about illegal words, which your kind define, as long as I don't say them out loud.


It's called freedom of speech, you communist faggot. Not freedom of speech I agree with.

>>3350346
You keep trying to claim some intellectual/rationnal high ground while being a sperging mess pal.

>>3350346
>Oh, but I can
No you can't, hate speech is criminalized in various EU countries.

>while lobbying for incarcerating people based on the opinions they hold
>It's called freedom of speech, you communist faggot. Not freedom of speech I agree with.
are you a real person?

>>3350366
I don't have to "claim" anything, I already have the moral high ground because I'm not trying to limits someone's speech based on what I feel should be allowed to say.

Fuck off.

>>3350372
>You can't
You seem so sure about it yet fail to notice me actively doing it? What a nigger faggot you are.

>are you a real person?
Yes, unlike you, beneath an animal.

>>3347086
>comes into the bar
>look at the meanest tattooed biker motherfucker and goes "your mother is a whore"
>get all this teeth pulled from his rectum
>free speech fetishists: "Talk shit get hit"

>free speech fetishists: "WE SHOULD GASS THE JOOS"
>free speech fetishists get punched in the face
>m-muh free spech, you can't attack someone for being mean!

Free speech isn't about free speech, it's about /pol/ak being buttdevastated that they can't scream about the joos without any consequence because they are autistic faggots who can't operate in the real world.

>>3350440
Who are you quoting

>>3350440
>Free speech isn't about free speech, its about porkies being buttdevastated that they can't scream and subvert our peoples democratic republics without any consequences because they're autistic faggots who want to exploit the proleteriat
wtf I love repression now

>>3347086
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. The first amendment guarantees freedom from prosecution from the United States government, with the exception of the Clear and Present Danger clause.

You can say the president can lick your asshole and be fine, but you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. You can't say anything that breaks your employer's code of conduct and expect no consequence. You can't incite a mob to cause violence or looting.

Freedom of speech, as a US concept, basically just boils down to protection to criticize the government without fear of prosecution like in third world countries.

>>3350440
In both cases the agression should be punished (not good having deranged, violent people running around) but don't whine when people say "I told you so/you deserved it".

The source of the anti-free speech camp goes something like this:

You can say what you want, but once what you say does harm to another, it should be restricted

Which is *okay* in the most absolutely limited sense.
Were I to demand to a crowd the murder or wrongdoing of another, I would be directly inciting evil, and ought to be stopped.
But they take this basic notion and take it to extremes.
Now, just by holding a disfavorable opinions of the manlets, talking about how those manlets are doing all this terrible shit in society, they want to shut me up because this could lead to the manlet genocide. I didn't advocate for the manlet genocide, but they have decided that I wanted that, or was going to make the manletcide happen just by voicing my opinions and beliefs.

So now, we can police opinions based on all manner of bullshit, censoring for things that aren't actually espoused, and destroying Free Speech.

>>3347129
>Attacks everyone with name calling
Its fine. Just get a tougher set of balls you pussy.

>>3349975
>short of yelling fire in a crowded theatre
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Schneck v. US was overruled years later by Brandenburg v. Ohio

>>3350440
>Free speech isn't about free speech, it's about /pol/ak being buttdevastated that they can't scream about the joos without any consequence because they are autistic faggots who can't operate in the real world.

Exactly.

Free speech was never free. Access to audiences was always controlled by the people that owned the forums of speech, like the newspapers and television shows. It's a bunch of people pissed that they no longer have as many sympathetic gatekeepers in the media to ensure that their opinions are the dominant frame of debate.

>>3347086
Speech is either limited or free. You can have one or the other, but not both.

>>3347849
As opposed to...?
Your employers never being able to fire you because you constantly rant about how shit your job is and how much of a bitch your superiors are and they are afraid of getting sued if they do for violating free speech so they never hire you in the first place?
Free speech doesn't exist. What people mean when they say "Free Speech" means the government can't prosecute you just for saying things they don't like.
And even that isn't true because otherwise whistleblowers wouldn't couldn't be arrested for leaking confidential/classified documents.
Free speech literally does not exist.

File: 1471190722519.jpg (85KB, 496x405px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 496x405px

>>3348022
troll and unamerican. how disgraceful.

Meaningful free speech is incompatible with private property, yes. But the solution is not to narrow down "free speech" until it's practically meaningless (freedom to say whatever business owners like!) but to abolish private property in order to preserve democratic rights.

>>3352550
>>3349975

You should absolutely be able to yell fire in a theatre, but if people leave and ask for refunds, or if someone is hurt in the stampede, then you should be sued or tried for those consequences.

>>3352550

Also Schneck wasn't about literally yelling fire in a crowded theater, but some faggot judge deciding that criticizing conscription and war was equivalent. The American government threw the first amendment out the window once it was faced with an organized socialist movement.

You can have free speech or you can have capitalism.

>>3354585
Can you blare a foghorn all night long?

ITT American "pro speech" white mongrels vs Americans "anti-speech" brown mongrels.

>>3354585
Aren't you simply playing a game of semantics at this point?

>>3354591

No because noise pollution is a thing. You can stand on teh street and talk to yourself all night if you want to, tho.

>>3354600

If you think there is no possible way to cause a stampede in a threatre except by shouting FIRE then sure it would be semantics to punish the consequence and not the shouting.

>>3348069
This tbqh