Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

>>131870903
>artist draws the hero as an unlikable faggot
Really activates my almonds

>>131870903
Everything is hate speech

File: IMG_2782.png (103KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1200x750px

Only when they mean Angry When they talk about yan Pawłak the drógi

>>131870903
Statements about individuals vs statements about groups.

Former should be punishable, latter should be allowed.

I should be able to say "Fuck niggers, I hope they will be gassed in the next racewar", but not "Fuck Donald Trump, I am going to kill him next weekend".

>>131870903
>not wanting to entertain mental delinquents
>being threatened with murder by the same
S'd

>>131870903

When you explicitly call the general public for committing a crime.

I.e. go to the neighborhood of X and kill them all

stating you don't consider x worthy of respect or even a human is not hate speech

>>131870903
There's no such thing as hate speech once you're older than 13.

Actual adults don't recognize it

>>131870903
Right at where my feelings begin.

>>131870903
in America inciting violence is one of the only ways you get arrested for speech.

>>131870903
there is no line.

>>131870903
this is shitty art,

if you cant master any form of art your opinion is worth less than dirt.

File: 1391439996942.jpg (33KB, 400x582px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x582px

>>131870903
>soliciting to murder
>free speech

k

>>131870903
a real American response would be "Come and get me" while flashing your sidearm.

>>131870903
US supreme court settled it brilliantly. Whoever made that comic is a pure, undiluted retard.

There is no line you faggot.

>>131871022
Direct calls for violence and action are incitement not speech. Anything else is fine. You can sit around all day saying how some people should die, but the second you attempt to convince others to commit violent acts...that's different.

File: 1498531220757.jpg (218KB, 763x1046px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 763x1046px

>>131870903
Nothing should be off limits. But I'm willing to settle for credible threats of violence and slander being criminal.

Easy. Promoting violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
>The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

>>131870903
The individual in the kiss outfit there would be committing a crime in this instance, while the gentlemen in the suit would not.

>>131871417
>>131871489
You deserve being raped by the pedophile worshipers.

>>131870903
There is no line. That faggot is free to tell his audience to kill his guest and his guest is free to shoot them if they attack him.

>>131870903
Free speech is absolute. You can say anything. There are other laws in place that don't have anything to do with free speech.
It's this weird thing where leftists focus on words more than actions, like if someone shouted NIGGER at a nigger before punching him and it would be considered a hate crime, and he would get 20 years in jail, but if the same person yelled I LIKE BLACK PEOPLE before punching a nigger it gets treated as assault and you get a small fine.

You can say anything, that's free speech. It's the protection of unpopular opinions. That doesn't invalidate other laws. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean fraud laws don't apply to you.
Having a second amendment doesn't allow gun owners to go on killing sprees. A right doesn't override laws.

Hate speech is the modern version of a thought crime

>>131871690
It's the modern version of blasphemy.

>>131871309
This

>>131871549
tbqh this is the best solution. We must also add that proper society wouldn't go and maul somebody just because somebody else told them to.

>>131871309
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhP3p6lI3U

>>131870903

There is no such thing as hate speech, it's just nonsense made up by idiots

Anyway, in the cartoon the creature isn't expressing free speech, it's encouraging murder and that is a problem

>>131870903
This comic assumes that the Paul Stanley wannabe bitch's words have weight. The other guy could just as easily call for her rape, so in the end, lawfully it doesnt matter. Laws shouldnt apply to this issue, manners and having good taste is enough.

>>131871121
>Fascism is OK but trying to fight it is not

>>131872111
You are taking my examples out of context.

>>131872111
Fascism IS ok

>>131870903
this would totally be ok. as long as they didnt kill him. I would reply "Right wing death squads"

hate speech? what the hell is that?

>>131870903
hate speech is free speech.

>>131870903
There is no line because hate speech doesn't exist.

>>131870903
Stupid example

Incitement is not free speech.

>>131872330
No, your statements are all there. They are in the same thread and anyone can read them. I'm not taking them out of context, I'm putting them into context.

File: adlfreespeech.png (112KB, 723x642px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 723x642px

>>131870903

>>131872859
wtf i hate free speech now

>>131872581
Additionally, free speech is about reveal your opinion, not telling someone to do something.

"I you are not a humen and you should be killed by the audiance." Would be okay.

"Kill him!" Is not okay.

and of course Muslims can say what they like about the kuffar


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBWM6oOBFc

>>131870903
if its factual, not advocating for violence, (outside VERY extreme circumstances, which need immense justification) and is not harrassing those who do not want to be engaged.

If its a lie, calling for pointless violence, or is harassing / disturbing others with no point to be had (like blowing air-horns at people) then protections shouldn't be in place.

>>131870903
Hate speech isn't a thing. Conspiracy and solicitation are though.

"Everybody kill this guy" or "Hey, everyone light this building on fire and ransack it" are pretty obviously not allowed, but they're not "hate speech." They're just direct incitements to criminal action. "Fuck that guy" or "Fuck that guy's race" or "Fuck that ugly-ass building" are all hate speech, and they should be protected.

>>131870903
There is no line. If I want to say somthing that's my right, however "hateful" it may seem. Weather or not you agree, object or find insulting what I said is up to you. There are plenty of intelligent human beings that don't have emotional reactions because I've said somthing even if it's intentionally incinediary. Labeling something as hate speech is just an other way to control a dialogue/debate.

>>131870903

There is no such thing as "hate speech". Incitement to violence and libel are already covered by the law. Anything beyond them is simply free speech someone doesn't like.

>>131872859
if hate speech were illegal the ADL's revenue stream would be cut off and that would be worse than ten holocausts

>>131870903
You dont.

File: hunderfossen-familiepark.jpg (53KB, 505x450px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 505x450px

>>131870903
"Hate speech" is made up bullshit invented by jews to prevent White people from talking about evil stuff done by niggers and kikes.
Fuck your 'hate speech' faggot.

>>131870903

Free speech is when I'm being a cunt, hate speech is when some mutters a response to my diatribe.

Keeps it simple.

>>131870903
That's not free speech, that's a call to action...

>>131870903
The image illustrates a call to action, not free speech.

A person could be arrested for that; but I don't figure a degenerate web-comic artist to know that.

I don't, it's not free speech if you just ban anyting you deem hateful

>>131870903
> Outright calling for violence
This is not protected by the first amendment

>>131875318

The debate is meaningless anyway. Communists used free speech until they could control discourse, now they're de facto banning it.

Ultimately both sides recognise that it's a safety net for the opposition, so the right will turn on it quick smart when power properly changes hands.

File: Loop niet op me.png (115KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1200x800px

>>131870903
who cares anyway?

>>131870903
Why does the "protagonist" look like a raging faggot?

>>131870903
>Calling for violence
Gee I wonder where the line is drawn.

>>131874977
This deserves a (you)

>>131870903
They're the same thing.

>>131872841
Incitement to action is different than idealised, inflammatory opinion, which was his point.
Faggot.

>>131870903
A call to action. That is the difference between
>we as a society should execute homosexuals
And
>hey everyone lets all kill that homosexual over there

>>131871636

If you don't believe in things you say enough to enact them in real life, you are a pussy and don't deserve the right for free speech.

Provocateurs and smug faggots are the worst kind - faggots send the cannon fodder while protecting themselves with "I dindu nuffin PERSONALLY".

File: 1497466938702.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

>>131870903
I'm going to develop a voice activated rifle. This will allow me to kill people using my free speech.

>>131871309
Hmm. 8 to 15 bullets. Vs 100 crowd. Who would beat you, but when some of them will die, will go apeshit and sodomize you with your own gun.

"Come and get me", right.

>>131878841
Only a westerner or a jew can unironically see difference in this.

>>131878841

THIS.

Either lefties don't understand, or the willingly lie.

>>131879522
>He thinks a crowd will all try and pile on a lone gunman.
Didn't happen to Breivik did it?

>>131871536
/T H R E A D

File: IMG_1260.jpg (72KB, 537x778px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 537x778px

>>131870903
What the fuck is wrong with these people? How are these levels of cognitive dissonance even possible?
They essentially take every piece of criticism and argument That runs counter to their own position as a death threat or worse.
These people are mental

>>131871417
>implying people don't have free agency.

>>131879522
>He doesn't routinely carry several hundred rounds and know that bodies piling up in a corridor impedes movement.
Come on faggot. It's not like bullets take up much space. Bumrushing a guy with a gun is the stupidest thing you can do if you aren't already in melee range.

File: 1467566685602-1.jpg (125KB, 1000x690px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1000x690px

When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people it's liberty.

>>131870903
Nowhere, speech can't actually hurt you snowflake !
All speech should be free

>>131880239
When nobody's scared it's called good government :-^)

>>131878643
Why is incitement to actain against a group better han incitement to action against an individual?

>>131871417

Like the eternal german.

The final line is in the act, not the word, because I'm not responsible for your acts nor your feelings, for anything else you can get out.

>>131880453
No, it's called liberty.

>>131870903
There shouldn't be one. Harassment is a different thing altogether.

>>131880239
man why did they stand in horizontal lines

>>131871417

Like the eternal german.

The final line is in the act, not the word, because I'm not responsible for your acts nor your feelings, and you are always invited to get out..

Free speech is protection from government, not from each other.

>>131872111
>but trying to fight it is not
why would you fight it?

File: IMG_2300.png (19KB, 1063x606px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1063x606px

>>131870903
Hate speech is free speech

There is no fucking line

>>131870903
Either all speech is hate speech, or none.

I take offense that you exist, you little faggot. But that is ok, as long as I don't act on it.

I could tell the audience to kill you, that is free speech.

>>131870903
there is none, "hate speech" is a made up concept to destroy free speech.

If somebody says he wants to kill somebody then why the fuck not. Let the police handle him if they think he's serious and dangerous.

Of course you're still bound by laws when using your free speech which means for instance you can't use your free speech to deny the holocaust in a country with holocaust laws

>>131880745
Because they springfield rifle wasn't invented yet and they only had shitty muskets.

>>131880745
To spread the volley and cover more area with each shot.
Picture a long line of bullets coming towards you

>>131880745
>man why did they stand in horizontal lines
volley fire
multiple columns can deliver constant shot
it's all about the musket

>>131870903
You don't.

>>131880973
and by "can't use" I mean you can say it but don't go full dindu when you face the consequences

>>131880745
The standard infantry arm of the time was the smooth bore musket. The weapons were just not that accurate and didn't requre much training or skill to use. It was more effective when used in volleys with close knit formations. What was learned from the French and Indian war and the Revolution is that fire from a skilled marksman with a rifle was the way of the future. It wasn't until the Civil War that the lesson really stuck.

File: 1498797687127.png (76KB, 1040x532px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1040x532px

>>131870903

What the fuck? Does it really thinks that the other side thinks exactly like it does?

Whats even the point of this? This is not art, just some lines in shapes and colors to resemble something, this is not satire since its not funny at all, this isn't even a political cartoon because is not even a point or something to be discussed. So in the end, no one learned anything, no debate was established and nothing was gained out of this. This was created with the sole purpose of creating a strawman for a community to hate and feel good about their ideas, pure circlejerking or masturbation if your prefer.

If this hedonistic nihilism is the future of western politics, I'm glad Trump is in office, otherwise we deserve the islamic bombings.

>>131879596
I see from your flag as well as your post that you are exceptionally well-protected against concussions

>>131879962

First step of genocide is dehumanization. perhaps they have a right to be fearful, just like whites are seeing the signs of their impending genocide/ethnic replacement.

>>131880856
Because it wants to kill me. And I would rather go on living.

>>131870903
>people actually believe that when i say, "transgender people and people who make webcomics are mentally ill" is equivalent to "i don't believe you're human and i want you violently exterminated"

>>131873253
wow this is actually clever and could have lead to a continuation that provided something other than a straw man and a poorly contrived narrative.

>>131870903
That's not hate speech, that's inciting violence

>>131871417
>Direct calls for violence and action are incitement not speech.
They are speech. Call for violence is crime in itself, not speech that is used for it.

If you beat somebody to death with a hammer, it's murder, not 'illegal hammer waving'.

Same with speech. Hiring a killer is a crime, not uttering 'I will pay you 1000$ to kill that fucker' (even if that utterence can serve as mean of committing crime - as waving a hammer is mean of murder.

>>131881299
>Because it wants to kill me. And I would rather go on living.
western civilization is fascist, has been for thousands of years
only in the 20th century has communism gained control

>>131880745

Muskets were kind of imprecise beyond 50 meters, so when you lack the precision or you get closer or you add more bullets in the air.

Not to say that they didn't use cover to shoot, after all any house could be a nice entrenchment position and even fallen trees could be of used and flanking was also done.

Nothing wrong with pic related.
Arrest the person who does it and problem is solved.

>>131871121
No you should be able to say whatever you want as long as it isn't a direct threat which you have the immediacy ways and means to carry out.

So like I should be able to call you up and say "I'm gonna fuck your boipussy bloody Hans", and that's protected.

However if we were in person and I said "I'm going to kill you Hans", that's assault and it is a crime.

>>131881630
Some of the older colonial houses actually have holes for muskets for when Indians would attack

>>131880745
because the guns where shit and you had changes of hitting only with a big number of guns

if you would go as 50 guys with a lot of space between each, it would take all day to kill a line of soldiers, time by which they would be killed

the other option was melee weapons, which were efficient in a big number if facing another big number of soldiers. And who wins between a line of muskets and a line of pikes?

>>131872111
Correct.

>>131880745
Accuracy wasn't a thing back then and you were unlikely to die right away even if you got hit.

>>131870903
Holy shit, are you really this stupid, OP?

>>131870903
There's no such thing as (((hate speech)))

File: Hatespeechcomic.jpg (220KB, 768x638px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 768x638px

Please remember the 60 gorillian hours I spent in mspaint for this

>>131870903

I draw the line by what the KIKES and their puppets in the government and the media have to say.

File: every_webcomic_ever.png (25KB, 810x800px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 810x800px

>>131870903
its like the author did a reverse version of this where they are so lacking of self awareness they became the silly strawman

>>131881181
For anyone wondering here it is the original comment:

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

Go, contemplate and rage, feel the RAGE.

>>131880745
>tfw you will never fight war in the open field standing in a huge line with your bros ready to kill with your bayonet and musket balls

There is no honor in gorilla warfare

>>131870903
No line at all. If what your saying is true, people will listen because of you proof and eloquent speaking. If it's false, they won't because it's just incoherent dribble coming from your face.

Simple as that. Shouldn't be punished for something stupid.

File: IMG_1019.jpg (117KB, 750x964px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 750x964px

>>131882179
>there is no honor in guerilla warfare
That's what you think
>ywn have a top secret IRA pillow fight with this guy after a day of hunting down and killing British spies

The modern left simply strawmans conservative moderates in order to claim all conservative moderates are violent extremists

In doing so they alienate all respectable opposition and create more right wing extremists

>>131881299
What is fascism and why does it want to kill you?

>>131871121
That's not hate speech. Thats a written threat against a head of state.

Hate speech is a meme that needs to die, because apart from threats that most definitely impede the function of the government and smaller parts of society, no speech made by individuals should be impeded by the government or punishable.

Large corporations are another problem, but breaking up trusts and monopolies and oligopolies should allow liars to be punished with going out of business due to bad public opinion.

>>131881229

Shame that you weren't when you were born.

>>131876875
Because the author is a raging faggot?

>>131870903
> Where do you draw the line…
The first thing you need to understand: YOU don't draw any lines here, the Government does it. You do not have a right of decision

>>131870903
Isn't that supposed to be Milo?

He wouldn't argue with her over that at all.

>>131870903
>ere do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

You don't.

>>131882123
>https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
>Requesting contributions before being heard is a pretty low stab as well - you are basically saying that opinions gain worth with merit.

hahaha wow these faggots

>>131882880
>> Where do you draw the line…The first thing you need to understand: YOU don't draw any lines here, the Government does it. You do not have a right of decision

Well said.

>>131873253
How can you kill a cartoon? (((They))) tried it with Pepe and failed miserably

When describing or inciting to commit a crime, if
1) the menace and the crime being incited is plausible or can be committed
('anally probed by aliens' vs 'clubbed to death with a plastic spoon' vs 'raped')
2) there is a specific target or group ('mr smith' vs 'the party leadership' vs 'all whites')
3) there is a specific place and/or time ('tomorrow outside your home' vs 'one day')
4) there is a precise indication of how the crime (and which crine) should be enacted ('killed with a sniper rifle' vs 'teach them a lesson')

If you have 3 out of 4, it should be inciting to commit a crime. If not, fuck off it is free speech.

>>131870903
>This is what delusional liberal retards actually believe

File: 1492573230637.jpg (85KB, 707x500px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 707x500px

>>131870903
The same place the Supreme Court did:

you can't directly call for violence like that, it's illegal.

Saying
>I want to kill all niggers
is legal

Saying
>Hey Jim, Bob, and Frank, go kill that nigger over there
is not legal.

It was made illegal so that orators couldn't get a crowd riled up and then go tell them to kill people, because they might actually do it, and had done it in the past. It's the ONLY limit on free speech I'll ever agree with.

>>131870903

>Faggots deserve the rope!
Free speech

>There's that faggot OP! Let's hang him!
Incitement to violence

>>131882976
>unless @elia is removed from the project, I cannot learn Ruby, and thus can't get a job in Ruby development.
>and thus can't get a job in Ruby development.

The levels of entitlement... God... I want to tear up my eyes.

>>131870903
There is none, all speech is free speech.
Fuck off.

I draw the line when it targets mankind's greatest hope for FTL. Aka white people.

>>131870903
Easy. There is no such thing as 'hate speech', there's just speech. The term was invented recently to censor dissenting opinions. Making direct threats of physical violence is another matter. Shouting NIGGER on a street corner is just being an asshole.

File: IMG_2943.jpg (75KB, 576x1024px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 576x1024px

>>131870903
Hate speech isn't real. People that promote the concept should be hung from trees or beaten on site at the very least.

>>131870903
I don't. You don't have a right to be not offended

>>131874977
(you)

>>131871121
That's not hate speech, Mohamed. It's a threat. Threats of violence shouldn't be acceptable in polite society.

File: JESUS CHRIST.jpg (6KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x168px

>>131882576
Wha- what, Fascism? I don't even know who Fascism is! Whoever this Fascism guy you're talking about doesn't even exist and definitely doesn't want to kill me!! (starts blinking profusely)

>>131871036
^ this

Erry spoken word has the potential to offend someone.
Don't like what someone says? Don't listen to them.
Don't like a website? Don't go there.
Don't like what's happening? Go somewhere else.

Call to action is illegal. Say it all you wan't but the person has EVERY right to treat it as a credible indicator of what you are about to do. If you say you are going to kill him, he has the right to take that as a threat to his life and should be able to respond with deadly force.

File: a686981a8b174123ac78465bb917020c66147dd98c09fae992768b552604123a.jpg (181KB, 719x720px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 719x720px

>>131872111
Fascism IS ok

>>131871134
This desu. Saying that niggers should be killed in general is just inept, empty rage.

Saying that xz should be killed there and then is an informational channel, active act of organizing an actual crime.

Also if that's what they want I don't mind escalation. It's white people and right-wings, who put up with anything at this point, the left never shied away from underhanded terror attacks to kill innocents at any point if they had the opportunity. It'd be a forced epiphany on the coward centrum that these people cannot and should not be appeased.

>>131880745
They couldn't stand in vertical lines.

>>131881563

Wrong, a threat is a physical attack as it drastically increases stress in the person being threatened, which also triggers a flight or fight response.

It's really no different from going to your house and playing loud music every night and saying "I'm not touching you". You are causing physical harm with threats, and that's the intent of them, to stress someone out. Nobody who is actually planning to kill or harm someone as the one initiating the force is going to warn them beforehand. Imagine if robbers went up to people and said "tomorrow we're going to clean out your house".

If someone gets stressed in a discussion, that's their problem since discussions aren't directly specifically meant to stress someone out to the point of not being able to function.

>>131880994
They had a few companies equipped with the Kentucky Long Rifle. Lines of infantry was simply the military doctrine of the time and the best way to use those shitty muskets effectively.

>>131883360

>Faggots deserve the rope!
>Free speech

Faggot speech

>There's that faggot OP! Let's hang him!
>Incitement to violence

The way men used to function in a non-cucked society.

You say shit - you take full responsibility for consequences and act on it. You promise something, you do it. Backpedaling faggots, having balls only for provocation and small and petty snitching are worse than kikes.

>>131871636
>Natsoc
>"free speech is absolute!!!!!!"

>>131882703
>when you were born
despair thy charm,
and let the dig-its that repeat above
tell thee, anon was from his mother's womb
untimely ripp'd

File: 1498474896211.jpg (58KB, 540x655px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x655px

>>131870903
The can say that if they want , I'd like to see those limp wirsted faggots try and take me down

>>131879522
That's where the weeb katana and cars comes in.

>>131879522
Who wants to be the first that gets shot :)

>>131871036
Don't open my mouth unless it has the potential to offend. Why bother otherwise?

>>131879522
I may carry a lil subcompact but I always have 40+1 with the spare mags
In reality, people don't zerg rush shooters. Unless they want to die.

>>131871536
Thread/
Debate is literally over.

>>131884200
And when he does it, you can lock him up. Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't mean that speaking out against the trash of humanity should be punished.

>>131883332
>It was made illegal so that orators couldn't get a crowd riled up and then go tell them to kill people, because they might actually do it, and had done it in the past.

Nah, it just made sure (((provocators))) get spared while cannon fodder gets the full wrath of (((justice))).
Good propaganda doesn't OUTRIGHT tell people to kill people, it, as you pointed out, riles crowd up. Dehumanization of enemy is the most of the work - people won't need to be told to act afterwards.

Hell, for many people the simple "you can do what you want with no reprecussions" is more than enough - Rhythm 0 proved that in practice, as are numerous psychological experiments.

The "it's just a free speech" is just a tool that is used as last effort to not suffer the consequences. Much as the hate speech is a tool to not suffer any opposition.

>>131885014

> doesn't mean that speaking out against the trash of humanity should be punished.


That's why people scream "muh freedom of speech" when NON-governmental entities decide to force some responsibility on them?

File: 1465803339557.png (33KB, 281x355px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 281x355px

>>131870903
>had to shoehorn in unrealistic incitement advocacy to make their bigoted cumskin strawman enough of a hypocrite to get gotcha'd

I'll just assume that the panel where everyone in the audience stands up and claps was cropped out.

>>131871468
This.

>>131870903
that's not free speech, that's domestic threatening

>>131884881
>In reality, people don't zerg rush shooters. Unless they want to die.

Depends on how pissed and how fanatical they are. You might wind up with a mob that doesn't give a fuck about petty casualities - they will make them martyrs later, so why worry.

But then again, you live in USA, so these concepts, like "dying for the idea" and similar shit, are foreign to you.

>>131876875
>>131882815
/thread

>>131884356

Digits will confirm you are a failed abortion, jap.

File: 1497457287627.png (859KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 960x960px

>>131871536
>>131871417
>>131871121
These motherfuckers understand. General threats to a whole group of people with no specificity is completely kosher, if you direct it to individuals then you get charges.

>>131885144
>decide to force some responsibility on them?
I have nothing against that. Overblown government censorship would be a problem, but this is alright.

I get why non self-hating western european natives hate this, since the majority of them are traitors towards their own people, but you can't cure that.

Majority interests and majority opinion should be protected before any minority interest. And if that minority can't get the majority to be sympathetic to their cause, they should give up.

I don't want fag propaganda, western liberal propaganda to be protected under free speech laws. I don't necessarily want a government crackdown on them, but society holds their ground against them, then they should be forced out.

If someone is speaking out against Hungarians, or an anti-fascist, he should lose his job, he should be forced out of society.

>>131885017
Diffence between words and actions faggotn

>>131870903
>hate speech
No such thing.

>>131870903
Someone edit the final panel to have the guy saying that he's got concealed carry license

File: 1497237284049.jpg (213KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 500x500px

>>131884356
>>131881229
Right over his head, but what can you really expect from nazbol.

>>131884808
Mate, have you seen a riot? Do you think that people participating in riots give a shit about their life, safety, and health?

Have you been in the mob, matey? I were. The feeling of belonging to a large group, right here and right now, the feeling of being part of the force - it's not just euphoric. It's ecstatic. It's better than ANY drug you can imagine.
Because with numbers you can feel power.

That's why soldiers have resolve to charge to their deaths.
That's why any "innocent" riot have a risk to turn into a bloodbath, even if it's for some shit reason like celebrating the holiday.
That's why the mob CAN and WILL do shit nobody individually wouldn't do under ANY circumstances.

It's a part of human psychology.
Face it - you won't kill ANYONE. The rest doesn't matter.

File: 1402931131056.png (38KB, 333x308px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 333x308px

>>131870903
>I have to create a fantasy-world in which I defeat all my enemies with comical ease and people actually care about me

>>131885414
> But then again, you live in USA, so these concepts, like "dying for the idea" and similar shit, are foreign to you.

>revolutionary war
>civil war
>wwi

Are you legitimately retarded? Americans die for ideas (not always good ones) all the time.

>>131885653

>I have nothing against that.

Same with me. But people want to eat the cake and keep it, which is, while understandable, quite disgusting and hypocritical.

>Majority interests and majority opinion should be protected before any minority interest.

It should be. Though I'm yet to see majority that would stick to their own actions. (To quote Brodsky, everyone is so eager to bash on Stalin, while conveniently forgetting about millions upon millions of anonymous letters to ChKa - GPU - NKVD)

This, by the way, is the reason, I think, that infamous "KGB bags" were not being opened in Latvia, for example. Can't let the Lech Walensa-tier backstories popping up for (((patriotic))) and politically "reliant" and "good" people.

>If someone is speaking out against Hungarians, or an anti-fascist, he should lose his job, he should be forced out of society.

Kicked out from the country, in ideal situation.

>>131885664

So when Islam calls for killing all infidels, it's ok, because it's words, not actions? That was expected from an ancuck like you.

Mark my words, if we'd go full Stasi on fucking imams who preach their shit and not care about freedom of speech, the problem with Terrorism would be much less of a problem.
Same with recruiters.

What a dumb cartoon.
The laws are quite clear in America that free speech only crosses over into hate speech if there is a "direct call to action". The most common analogy is the fire scenario. You can tell people there is a fire in the building all you want but you can't tell them what to do about it. That's what the US bases it's case law upon. One example was when (((they))) let off the grand wizard since he never told his members what they should do about the blacks.

And also the line is never.
If you are unable to stand verbal assault how can you hope to stand physical.

>>131886223

Between WWII and nowadays there were three generations, first of which collectively shat over the country for muh profits and shekels, second of which went full goyim and third of which went full degenerate.

Hell, even murrikan participance in WW2 boiled down to gaining shekels from both Hitler and Stalin. Not to mention jumping the shit at the end to participate in the divide of Europe, once again, to have some extra shekels from the corpse of Third Reich..

"Americans fought for ideas", sure.

>>131870903
>hate speech
no such thing.
1st amendment faggot

>>131870903

>Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

I don't, because I believe in freedom.

File: 1497709047112m.jpg (124KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x1024px

>>131870903
At that point where fiction and reality converge.

>>131870903
>Kill this guy
That's a call to action, and could be classified as incitement. Not protected, she should face prosecution.
Still not "hate speech" though.

>>131871101
It should just say

KUUUURWAAAAAA

to be perfectly honest famalam

The call to kill a specific person is speech whoch careies an intended action with an expectation of harm i.e. fire in a crowded theater would carry a reasonable ecpectation of a stampede.
The artist of this cartoon has never read anything about the subject

>>131870903
opinion - free speech
threat - hate speech

File: 1396307566894.jpg (79KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x720px

>>131879522

>implying I only carry 15 rounds

>>131880745
Because standing in a vertical line is harder than normal when you're firing a gun.

>>131889193
>not having a bayonet on your pistol

File: roofkoreans.jpg (41KB, 600x466px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x466px

>>131886002
Which is why all those Korean store owners were killed during the 1992 LA riots.
Oh wait, they didn't, because no one wants to be the first to get shot.

>>131889901
*weren't

File: wattefug.png (456KB, 506x550px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 506x550px

If this is how the tranny artist draws himself, with these clothes, tattoos and fucking weird spike choker stuff...
THIS is the ideal representation of himself.

Can you imagine what this freak actually looks like?

>>131870903
"then i guess ill have to exercise my right to open-carry"

>conflating discrimination with violence
yawn try harder...

>>131870903
No word is illegal, threats on life and the sanctity of personal information however (anonymity) is something i personally like.

Sticks and Stones, you fucking limpdicks.

>>131871417

It's funny how much shit you're getting over this, but in the U.S. your substance (if not terminology) is objectively how the First Amendment works.

Of course most Burgers could never actually tell you what unprotected intent and likelihood in the First Amendment mean.

>>131870903
Saying you hate someone, disagreeing with them and pointing out their flaws, weaknesses and hypocrisies is okay.

If you're making explicit threats of violence against someone, then you've crossed the line, i.e. threatening to kill somebody.

Just a reminder anyone who changes their flag is assumed to be a swedfag or leaf cuck.

>>131870903
The only limit is calls/threats for imminent violence, i.e., "I'm going to get my shotgun and shoot you."

All other speech is and should be protected. The picture in OP would violate U.S. law if it actually happened.

>>131880745
Because having an army stand on top of each other would be retarded, all youd have to do is shoot the guy at the bottom and everything would come crashing down

>>131870903

"hate speech" is a bullshit term. you don't draw the line. free speech, period. 1st Amendment, suck it faggots

>>131870903
Proscribable speech in the US is defined as "any speech which credibly threatens an imminent lawless action."

>>131870903
Inciting violence is not protected under free speech. That includes calling for lynching, genocide, etc. Stating that I hate Muslims, Mexicans, etc. or that they should integrate instead of getting us to is not a call for violence. and is therefore protected, as well as people saying fuck Trump, marching for Marxism, and peacefully counterprotesting.

>>131891177
Calling for genocide is not illegal, and is unconstitutional to proscribe unless the threat is credible.

>>131870903

Provocative and dissenting speech is the only Free Speech.

File: Ashcry.jpg (18KB, 620x478px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 620x478px

>>131871205
I smiled

>>131870903
You don't draw a line. What you do is stop being a fucking pussy. Only a fucking pussy would use the term "hate speech".
KYS

File: calico-cut.jpg (18KB, 388x222px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 388x222px

>>131879522
>8 to 15 bullets
You're like a little baby.

>>131870903
>Killing people is free speech
Really activated my almonds

>>131870903
>calling someone a homo on xbox live is the same as threatening to kill someone

>>131871543
But they're correct you fucking cretins, that example is incitement which like libel and slander isn't the same as free speech and will get you arrested and sued in America

File: againstjesus_web.jpg (330KB, 840x663px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 840x663px

Guys, guys, this a fucking goldmine.

https://lifeofbria.com

>>131870903
What a fucking strawman, the artist should kill xirself

If they said "I think this guy should be killed" there would be no problem whatsoever.
But as it is here they are asking people to commit a crime and act óf violence against an individual.

fucking retards

>>131870903
Why is every leftist only able to make comics with poorly crafted straw men arguments?

>>131870903
free speech does not exist if there is "hate speech"

>>131871121
no. actions should be punished, not speech.

>>131894355
No one has ever been arrested for libel and slander. We're not a third world shithole with blasphemy laws like you.

>>131879522
Chill out

File: 1498235688016.png (53KB, 571x618px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 571x618px

>>131872111
>implying fascism isn't okay
you new here?

File: IMG_20170629_160432.jpg (55KB, 631x499px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 631x499px

>>131870903


> Disagreeing = hate speech

You can already get into trouble for telling an audience to kill someone. We don't need laws to jail people who say there are only two genders.

>>131870903
Why is she/it dressed as a raider from fallout?

>>131870903
Hate speech doesn't exist. It is really only speech "that hurts my feelings and makes me sad". That is the only difference between "free" and "hate" speech. Both belong to speech and are a part of speech and are a cog within the whole of speech.

Fuck those faggot bootlickers who can't handle conversations and so spew forth attempts to push forth censorship on a public and personal level. You shouldn't have been born and you need to kill yourselves as soon as possible.

>>131870903
Direct incitement of violence

>>131871022
Which one?

>>131870903
there is no hate speech, its all free speech you kurwa

>>131898193
this picture is true and the reason I'm pissed off about trump. Nothing should make him stop telling the truth about people

Everything should be permitted except calls to (illegal) definite action (ie. "let's kill this guy").

Broad statements ("kill all niggers") is okay.

>>131894748
>jesus was a happy gay nigger and there were female prostitute disciples
Does the Bible ever say Jesus washed Mary Magdalene's feet? afaik it was just the 12 disciples

>>131879522
>a crowd of 100 SJWs will head towards fire
what's with bolsheviks and their daydream fetish for zerg rushes?

>>131896087
well put.
>>131870903
There is no such thing as "hate speech" just speech somebody feefees get hurt over. Im sure something an individual says that pisses a great many off, an equal number also agree with every word said.

>>131884616
Holy kek

>>131872859

This is stereotypically Jewish.

"We 'support' free speech"
"We 'support' companies to block speech"

>>131871176
The Jap is the only other adult I see in this crowd of pussys. Learn to bantz.

>>131882123
This was confusing at first because the dumb cunt complaining links to some ANTIFA fag instead of the actual person they're complaining about

File: uglytranny.jpg (112KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1280x720px

>>131890019

>>131894748
When has this ever happened? Except when a muslim does it.

File: attack_chopper.jpg (676KB, 1024x785px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1024x785px

She just sexually assaulted the attack helicopter and assumed his identity as a mute helo.

File: 1494182794651.gif (2MB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x259px

>>131896512
Here's the problem, if someone is issuing a credible threat let's say, "if you dont give me my money ill smash your car up." And you cant go to the police because that threat is protected speech, dont you think the person threatened will attempt to defend themselves preemptively? Violence usually follows threats of violence.

>>131870903
I don't

>>131870903
Leftists are terrible chess players. The irony of this comic being, of course, no one on the Right says anyone "isn't human, so it's ok to kill them"; only the Left does this, then pretends they did it in self-defense. Thus, they leave us with the right of self-defense if we ever do decide to start killing them.

>inciting violence is free speech

the OP image is fucking retarded

>>131885615
Wrong. You are just as likely to get arrested if you say on twitter, "today i will smash every nigger i see and i encourage you to also physically injure any negro" as if you said "gregg is such a nigger today im going to shoot him at 12 at his house with this gun *pictured*"

>>131871758
You're assuming that people aren't that fucking dumb. That is an incorrect assumption.

>>131871134
What about saying you don't consider x worthy of living?

>>131870903
There is no line. Hate speech is free speech. Incitement is free speech. Threats are free speech. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is free speech (although the theater reserves the right to kick you out for being loud). Anything less is a slippery slope.

File: A big dino thankyou.jpg (147KB, 768x1015px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 768x1015px

>>131870903
knew I recognised that art style somewhere.

>>131903206
Thats an opinion not a credible threat. You can for example call boogie not worthy of living past his surgery because of his lifestyle choices. You aren't threatening his life.

>>131902568
Well I guess you have kind of a point, but I suppose it's on a spectrum, because if ALL "threats" are illegal then you can get your friend arrested for threatening you jokingly, yet if there's a big nigger standing 4 inches from your face yelling at you, that is what you would call "issuing a credible threat". So I would still have the opinion that actions should be punished and not speech, but "credible threats" in the case of the nigger is so close to action that the lines are blurred.
Wouldn't you agree?

>>131903433
This sort of nonsense always turns into a verbal game of "I'm not touching you". It's gay as hell and you shouldn't support it. Make threats legal again.

>>131879522
Yeah except nobody wants to be one of the 8 to 15.

>>131903237
No retard thats not protected. Neither is libel.

EVERYONE JUST READ THIS
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Threats, even if they are general like "I will kill the kike I see" shouldn't be protected. Statements like "the kikes aren't human", "I hope all the niggers die", "fuck all these fucking faggots" which have no active threat in them should be.

>>131871176
/Thread

>>131903454
Yeah, if you consider credible threats an action then sure.

Thats actually a threat though.

>>131890512
>>131871417
Yeah, it seems most of the idiots attacking him have no idea what "Fighting words" are. There's already a provision for it in US law, and it's worked this way almost forever.

>>131903819
what limits someone from conjuring a threat out of something suggestible?

>>131903516
Like libel or rape credible threats are scrutizned heavily in court. If you dont have witnesses or a chat log or a recording you are fucked.

>>131879522
Kill 2-3 guys, rest flee

You are an idiot.

File: 1465936252465.png (316KB, 425x450px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 425x450px

>>131870903

>Liberals are too retarded to understand what a call to action is

>>131904083
Can you convince a judge that the person making the threat has every intention to carry it out? If so its a credible threat.

>>131870903
Calls to action are not protected and never have been.

>>131904083
If its suggestive but youve proven they are, at the very least, harassing you, you can have a restraining order placed.

>>131903634
>>131904610
They should be, though.

File: retard_akko_2.jpg (42KB, 500x472px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x472px

>liberals can't into free speech
incitement is a thing desu

>>131904610
Wrong. What do you think a posse is? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

>>131905055
>my exception is the only moral exception
Incitement should be legal.

File: _fujiwara_no_mokou_and_houraisan_kaguya_touhou_drawn_by_shangguan_feiying_3ffd6eb4c1c7088b95ca22a8b7b3fb9f_0.jpg (282KB, 462x1045px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 462x1045px

>>131905145
people who convice others to commit crimes wouldn't be able to be convicted then, that's fuckin' stupid.

>>131905145
You are basically making it legal to shake people down in the streets without the ability to physically defend themself.

>>131905327
That's not fuckin stupid. If you tell someone to jump off a bridge and they do it, you shouldn't go to jail.

>>131905524
How? Just walk away. If they stop you, that's kidnapping and you can defend yourself.

>>131903267
What is this autism ?

>>131871417
>Direct calls for violence and action are incitement not speech.
>You have to have limits on free speech
Some people gotta die and people should have the right to call for their deaths.

>>131870903
>i hate niggers
Regular speech

>let's kill niggers
Inciting violence

There is no such thing as hate speech, only speech which hurts your feelings.

>>131906135
what he said is exactly how our free speech in murrica works
You can say that x is a nigger that deserves no respect
you can say that obongo should be strung up from rafters
you however can NOT say im going to go kill obongo or lets go kill obongo

>>131905915
You are a woman in a poor neighborhood, a large man walks in front of you and says "wallet or i beat the fuck out of you". You propose that this is perfectly legal, and is in fact assault if the person being held up defends themselves physically.

>>131906466
Neither should be illegal. They're both just words.

Free speech is hate speech and vice versa.

>>131870903
Someone tell her that calls to violence were already a crime before the concept of hate speech was even bubbling up in some kike's mind.

>>131905915
>That's not fuckin stupid. If you tell someone to jump off a bridge and they do it, you shouldn't go to jail.
What is incitement

>>131906548
She has the opportunity to walk away, doesn't she?

>>131906924
Something that shouldn't be a crime. Keep up with the thread.

>>131906559
Yeah except people who are threatened reasonably act violence.

>>131907221
That should be legal as well. If someone threatens you and you shoot them, neither of you should go to jail. Lesson learned, no need for the state to step in.

>>131907010
The woman is in a situation where she reasonably believes if she tries to disengage and walk away the man will assault her.

>>131870903
Speech is free until it directly calls for specific violence. Such as calling on a crowd to kill someone. Or saying "I'm going to kill X if they don't stop doing Y within 3 days"

A direct call to physical violence or a direct threat to do physical harm is already deemed to be assault. Blackmail is also already illegal. Aside from that, everything is fair game in my eyes.

>>131870903
>>131907655
also the author is a faggot who can't draw.

>>131907366
That doesn't make any sense you're okay with people acting in self-defense in responce to a threat but not the person being arrested you have something against people being arrested? Why have the police at all if you expect everyone to be able to defend themselves?

>>131907659
What about libel?

>>131907900
The police exist for other situations, not this one.

>>131870903
nowhere

>>131908090
If the police do not exist for upholding the public trust and they should not exist

File: 1428118539730.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>131870903
>Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech
Right around the area of the following
>Free Speech: Go fuck yourself, cunt.
>Hate Speech: I'm going to kill you.
Problem: Hate Speech mongs think they have the right to say what they do, and only really get angry about their right to free speech when called out on their bullshittery.

File: cartman_ragequit.gif (288KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 320x240px

>>131870903
> Hate speech

Not a real thing you stupid Polish nigger

the only line for speech is serious threats and clear and present danger, its not ok to say you are going to bomb your school on twitter with videos of you detonating IEDs in your backyard and its not ok to shout "ITS A BOMB!" during school to chaos and fear.

File: meddlingqueerkids.jpg (614KB, 840x932px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 840x932px

everyday we stray further from god

>>131870903
That comic is infuriating. It actually quite clearly proves the opposite: free speech should be uphold (that suitguys right to "offend") and literal calls to violence such be treated as being an instigator to violence and partly responsible. If no violence happens, then it is free speech.

example
free speech: fuck you i hate you because your Russian (not nice, but you shouldn't go to jail for it)

hate speech: Fuck You, im going to murder you and your whole family for being Russian. (Legitamate deadly threat, not ok, put on watch)

>>131908844
That and libel why is everyone in this thread forgetting about libel

>>131870903
I don't.

>>131908899
Anybody have the edit where he says they are going to kill themselves in 20 years or something.

>>131870903

"Hate speech" isn't a crime in my country unless it is a clear incitement to crime and/or violence as determined by a court of law. Otherwise, learn to banter, or ignore it.

>>131871468
This picture is oddly arousing