First Amendment?

>>36654931
Why the fuck would you ever be ok with that? And the first amendment doesn't mean you're completely exempt from being ostracized, it just means that you can't get sent to jail/prison/get a fine/whatever from saying dumbshit.

>>36654931
oh boohoo someone said something mean :^( better give the government the right to silence "hate speech", a concept which of course they themselves get to define, but hey, government officials would never be corrupt and use their power to their advantage to silence speech they don't like or that goes against their political interests, right :^)

Being afraid of insults is a pretty stupid reason to oppose free speech.

Information hazards on the other hand are a valid thing to be concerned about now that meme magic rules the world, but no one seems to ever bring this up in the context of free speech for some reason.

>>36654931
No, the overwhelming majority of Americans are horrified at the idea of a given government criminalizing unpopular opinions or forms of speech.

>>36655055
It's not as much as be afraid of insults. Not every insults are eligible, but racism and discrimination based on sexual preferences can be punished. It's really more of "Acting against hate speech".

>>36655113
So why not act against actual discrimination (which is actionable in America, although more often civilly than criminally) and not insults? Racism is an attitude, not an action; why give an otherwise non-actionable action a penalty for one motive but not another?

File: 42.png (15KB, 420x553px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 420x553px

>>36655076
Hardly, my dude. See pic.

>>36655113
I forgot to mention I'm European so I am familiar with such laws. The thing is that hate speech is vile and noxious but like >>36655041 said, under no circumstance can you trust a government to handle that kind of power with integrity. And like >>36655000 said, free speech doesn't imply people should get away with acting like disrespectful cunts; they rightly should be shamed, but not officially persecuted (or prosecuted).

I don't like to make slippery slope arguments but people are getting v& for mouthing off on Twitter and generally having insufficiently woke opinions now. You have to be a pretty committed ideologue not to think that's going too far.

>>36654931
I am an American and I do not support thoughtcrime so I disagree. Free speech is lovely. No human should be censored.

>>36655055
>Information hazards on the other hand are a valid thing to be concerned about
No. The truth doesn't need to be protected. If these "information hazards" really are false, they will fail in the market of ideas.

>>36655317
>that pic says college educated types are more likely to be against prohibiting offensive language

how counter-intuitive

>>36654931
Society keeps it in check. You can say whatever you want but just go out there and spew some hateful shit in public and see how it goes. You can also talk shit all you want about the President or any members of gov't which is great.

>>36655389
I generally agree but I had in mind something more specific and weirder with the phrase information hazard. Memes are selected for virulent spreading, not truth value, so they're bullshit at best (in the technical sense). As they scale up thanks to the internet you can get really bizarre phenomena. SJW witch hunts are an example, maybe the trap meme also?

Note, I'm not saying one should ban social justice, or traps, or memes. I just think "egregores might take over" is a much better argument against free speech than "muh feels"; admittedly it's not good enough, but I wish it was talked about more.

>>36655113
Your government is ran by Jews. Its just another way to squeeze money out of you by fining.

>>36654931
Fuck off Cucknadian

>>36654931
The only thing you can't really talk about is carrying out illegal things, even speaking such things will increase FBI activity on 4chan.

>>36654931
I guess your attitude is understandable if you grew up in a culture where saying mean things can get you thrown in jail.

But, yes, I'm American and think free speech is everything. It's disappointing that some of my fellow citizens don't seem to feel the same way.

>>36655555
You tried, but I live over the sea.

Nice quint though.

>>36655612
I've never met a single American who did not sing the praises of the first amendment, hence me wondering, and deciding to get samples from here.

That was the entire point, from my PoV, everyone thinks like you and many other do.

Yes, thankfully most Americans do believe in free speech. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of our nation's culture and history. Free speech must include the right to say nasty offensive things or it is not free speech at all.

>>36655555
Glorious post

File: voltaire0119.jpg (45KB, 502x296px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 502x296px

People must always be able to speak truth to power.

File: 1482643134789 (1).jpg (76KB, 1037x1555px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1037x1555px

>>36654931
>mfw other Western nations think they have freedom and aren't just totalitarian states when they have laws that will get you sent to jail for saying the wrong thing

I will unapologetically say "USA! USA! USA! #1 Worldwide, baby!" over the 1st Amendment.

All other Western nations are pathetic in comparison when it comes to speech and freedom of thought. The fact that you think there is something wrong with our 1st Amendment says a lot more about your totalitarian mindset than about anything being wrong with we Americans.

>Where I live, racist insults, or insults based on homosexuality/heterosexuality could be subject to being prosecuted and having charges held against you.
I mean... top fucking cuck m8 that you think that is okay. And I bet you hypocritically hate Nazis too. What a fag.

>>36654931
Why shouldn't I be free to call a nigger nigger?

>>36655317
>Gov't should be able to prevent people from saying these things
>People should be able to say these things publicly

I think that's a bit misleading. It doesn't account for the idea that certain opinions should be socially unacceptable and shot down/shamed to the point where it's a bad idea to express them publicly, but that the government shouldn't have a role in taking legal action against people who say them. I think the results would look different if that were the option.

>>36655695
Well your POV is wrong because this is actually one of the major issues in our country right now. We're seeing vigorous attacks against free speech coming from the social justice left.

>>36655317
Millennials are not all Americans and they are also total faggots and a broken generation. I mean in terms of the values they hold overall they are very un-American.

I didn't used to be the kind of guy that would say "I hate my generation" but the more I learn about them statistically the more I truly do hate them and feel apart from the majority of them.

>>36655875
I find it quite ironic that you seem to think of us as extremists when you're the one labeling so harshly.

Regardless, I'm here to know the thoughts of people about it. If I was this certain about everything, I wouldn't ask for your opinion. Thank you for taking time to help me.

>>36655934
I'm guessing you mean Antifa, yes? I am aware of those groups, and it would seem quite probable indeed that they would be against the 1st (and most likely other) amendments. Pertinent reminder, thank you.

any respectable modern human won't care if there is or isn't protections for free speech; say what you want with no regard to if you're allowed to

>>36654931

Free speech without hate speech is fundamentally not free.

No one will ever violently attack you for saying, "I like ice cream". Statements that pose no political or social risk do not need to be defended. And they largely, aren't even thought of.

So what is free speech for if not to defend hate speech? What speech needs to be protected if not for hate speech?

You're either for free speech and "hate" speech, or you're for neither. Which is fine, I just hate when people are hypocritical on this issue.

I put "hate" in quotes because hate is simply whatever is against the current status quo. It would probably be hate speech to decry Christ in England in 1250 or to talk about abolishing Marxism in the Soviet Union 1930. It's simply whatever the political and social masters will it to be.

Maybe "I like ice cream" will be hate speech in 5 years. Who knows? Don't consider anything outside out the realm of possibility.

>>36656068
It is how it is in here, despite the laws. No one will prosecute you unless you made some kind of public statement for all to see. It is much more of a theoretical "We don't condone hate speech" kinda statement more than actual cops arresting rude people.

Really, it'd be more of a "media-censor" kind of thing.

>>36656146
"Hate speech" is anything right of Antifa according to libfaggots.

The First Amendment is a joke, it doesn't even protect obscenity or child porn.

>>36656180

Exactly.

Shifting the goalposts is a modern liberal past time.

>>36656185
Aren't there laws against CP in place though in the USA? Are those not taken into account of one's "beliefs,etc"?

>>36656051
They are against the 1st only when it is speech they don't like.

>"Self professed Neo-Nazi wants to come to my campus and talk about White Nationalism? No way, that's hate speech!"

>"Self proclaimed Communist wants to come to my campus and talk about tearing down the cishet white male patriarchal capitalist system? Great! Good to see like minded people on this campus!"

They have also been very much against the 2nd until Trump got elected. I honestly think they thought Hillary would come in and get rid of most of the 2nd if elected. They are now, however, talking about using the 2nd to get well armed and fight right wingers and conservatives in the streets.

>>36656146
This x1000

originaldo

>>36654931
>Where I live, racist insults, or insults based on homosexuality/heterosexuality could be subject to being prosecuted and having charges held against you.

Well, yeah -- the idea is that the first amendment should protect against that kind of abuse.

Unfortunately there are too many Americans who don't have respect for the first amendment -- so they don't have a problem with prosecuting people who say unpopular things like racial insults.

In America, we have the horrible concept of the "hate crime". Logic demands that in order to show that you "hate" someone, you must somehow express that hatred using speech -- so therefore, criminalizing the hate component of a crime is equivalent to criminalizing speech. Again, the cause of this abuse is a lack of respect for the first amendment.

The first amendment is under continual attack -- mainly because some corporations find it to be very inconvenient to their goal of maximizing profits. For example, if I exercise my free-speech right to send a computer file to someone else over the internet, there are some corporations that insist on inspecting the contents of my file so that they can ensure its transfer is not hurting their corporate profits. Some politicians also insist on inspecting the contents of my file, so that they can ensure I'm not trying to subvert their political power. They might not be able to inspect every file that's sent over the internet today -- but they are trying as hard as they can to eventually do that in the future. In the meantime, they are using a legal approach called "prior restraint of free speech" to try to block any speech over the internet that they have reason to believe violates their goal of maximizing corporate profits or maintaining their political power.

>>36654931
>if you oppose marxist ideals you should be put in jail

>>36654931
Restriction of free speech leads to politcal censorship. Who's going to define what is "hate speech"? Would political views that don't fall to one side of the spectrum be defined as hate speech? Possibly and probably if it goes far enough. Idealistically, I could see a point for your side of the argument, but I still wouldn't agree with it.

At the end of the day, you aren't going to receive any harm from words being hurled your way. Somebody calls you a faggot and you seriously think that person deserves to be in jail? Or a nigger? What if these words are used out of context as a joke or something to a friend, what happens then? People who use slurs like this publicly are shunned by the community. No harm is received, if you're a little snowflake who thinks having your life hurt somehow by being called mean words as if you're in elementary school, America isn't the place for you. Nobody is running around yelling "fuck you kike" 99.999% of the time just because free speech allows it.

>>36656954
I am aware. Thank you anyways for contributing.

>>36654931
>It is apparently completely horrifying to him.

Being punished for voicing an unpopular opinion should be terrible to any human being.

>>36654931
Australian here.
We don't have a right to free speech and it's one of the worst failures to protect human rights in this country. For all America's faults, their absolute protection of free speech is something the rest of the world sorely needs.

>tl;dr The only valid restrictions of free speech are where it causes real and serious harm, i.e. slander, shouting fire in a crowded theatre or the like

Double plus good comrade!
If we take away the ability for the masses to say what they think, then they will stop thinking it!
But first, and this is very simple, we must give someone the power the determine what is hate speech.
So then, how do we define hate speech comrade?
Who do we give this absolute authority?
We must be like Canada, where refusing to use a made up pronoun is a crime! But no, they need to make it a felony! Refusing to acknowledge their arbitrary identity is hate speech is a crime against humanity
>Believing there's actually a clear cut thing such as hate speech
>Desiring to give someone the authority to take away your speech based on the perception of something being hateful
>Literally being okay with legislated morality
>Rushing head first into letting the state decide what is an isn't okay to say and think
No wonder Canada and Europe are so fucked. They can't even think to defend themselves from tyranny.

>>36654931
NO, STAY OFF THE FIRST AMENDMENT