Should there be limits to free speech?

Should there be limits to free speech?

Pic related.

Yes. No free speech for communists and democrats

No, fuck that and fuck you too.

Also, why do you have this?

Hard to say. To what lengths should the state go to fight cultural degradation and degeneracy?

No, never. It's a slippery slope when you start banning such basic rights for certain people or about certain subjects, what if far right wing politics were banned from discussion?

Since you believe in silencing democrats and communists, are those groups also justified to try and silence you? Is the EU right in censoring your "hate speech" because you represent a threat to their liberal globalist values? If they do one day shut us down, from what moral ground will you condemn their actions? Or you will accept it because they have more strength and might is right?

Jesus man
I get your point but this is nauseating.
Everyone who pretends otherwise is an edgy fag

I think the people who have advocated this have been traditionally 'protected' by a law which turns blind eye to their lynching.

>"oh no, the man advocating child torture is dead. you think we should investigate it?"
>takes a few pictures
"looks like a closed case! no evidence!"

I made this thread was a challenge for the people who like me like to think themselves as free speech absolutists.

Are we really absolutist? What are the limits of free speech? SJWs will say "racism, sexism, homophobia, etc." but we know that's bullshit. But would would we be okay with someone publishing a manual on "how to kidnap kids and never get caught" or "how to weaponize chicken pox for allah"?

Aiding criminals is, surprise, against the law.

You should be looking at what IS the law.

>how to weaponize chicken pox for allah

Playing the Long War with afflicting first world nations with shingles. Genius!

I wish sadistic child rapists were more honest about who they are. We wouldn't have any Pizzagate conspiracies floating around or any of the other shady shit that goes on within the government. We'd have militias of outraged parents slaughtering politicians instead.

say whatever you want. but there are reprecussions

Mfw

Found the newfaggots

I agree with you. But let's consider the fact that far-righters believe in censorship. Should they benefit from a democratic value they despise? Aren't they a bit like muslim who live on welfare and state support and yet despise the West and democracy?

Just playing Devil's Advocate..

lol

There should be no limits, other than the current restrictions against things like inciting violence.

But denying the holocaust is a crime in a lot of countries and books whose arguments corroborate holocaust revisionism can be understood in that sense as "aiding criminals". Are these books rightfully banned then?

The only reasonable limits to freedom of speech are as follows:
>outright falsities resulting in notable damages, either physical or monetary
>calling for deliberate and malicious intent to cause notable damages, either physical or monetary
>incitement of crime or speech that impedes investigation into crime
As such "do not hire white men" is less legitimate speech than using the wrong pronouns to trans people.

/thread

Please learn any history at all you illiterate, censorship enables exactly the sort of thing you are complaining about while criminalizing whatever ideology is out of power at the moment.

where is this from

Yea, that was a bit hard to read...

Only for Portuguese.

Are you gonna fap to that shit?
Fkn crazy turkroaches

>Turkey
calm down my dude, at least wait until the first period.

Sounds more like hate speech... should be punishable. Probably is here.

No limits on free speech. When you limit free speech, you get Adolph Hitler. When you allow it, you get David Duke, the joke in American politics.

This is so stupid it's mindless, if the repercussion is being beheaded, then that's objectively not freedom of speech. Yes, freedom of speech does mean freedom of consequences provided what you said actually is free.

You will never be allowed to call for genocide. Ever. The consequence will be life imprisonment. Whereas, you should be allowed to insult the leader of your country, in fact it's your democratic right within free liberal values nations to do so.

Let them screech all they want, makes planning helicopter tours much easier

no, but that doesn't make it consequence free when you say the wrong shit to the wrong people

if there are limits then your speech isn't free, it's regulated

that's not even edgy, in america genital torture on children is the cultural norm

that's why we elect judges to deal with the serious offenders and leave the "racists" to hang themselves. think a little before responding this time

I mean sure, you should be able to say this. I don't know what kind of sick creature you would be to /want/ to say it, but you should have the right to say it.

Now if you're /acting/ on these fantasies, that should have consequences.

If free speech comes at a price, it isn't really free, is it? Your position seems to be exactly the same as SJWs on this issue. What are these repercussions you're talking about? Having the government send you to prison and removing your kids? Being punched in the face by some random critic?

This is also mindless, hate is just an emotion. Being hated doesn't necessarily mean real damages, whereas calling to not hire white men in STEM positions has real financial repercussions on white men. This means there are real damages.

There are no real damages to being called the wrong pronoun. If someone accused me of such, I would give them 20$ in compensation so they can drown whatever false pain they believe they have with whatever drug they use. The amount of damages here cannot exceed 20$, whereas the amount of damages caused by not hiring white men for no reason besides being white men easily exceeds 5 digits.

Judges are meant to represent the public, this means they will basically believe whatever the mainstream media says and follow it blindly, especially if they're old and haven't realised that the children they feel they're representing have moved on to alternative media sources.

The mainstream media has always been an enemy to true egalitarian principles.

You cannot blame judges for this. They are old people misguided by the mainstream media like all old people are.

not them, but use your head people react to the shit other people say and you can't control those actions

saying whatever you want legally doesn't stop other people from reacting to it however they're going to

u know what im okay with free speech, even this
but i have a condition:
reveal yourself - unless ur in a shitpost fun board like this. like, you can type this shit in an article, but i have to know your name and adress ey its only fair negga

if i wanna revise holocaust ill give my ID, but u give it too with a thing like this

ITS ONLY FAIRE

Free speech is important, it allows you post satirical things such as how this country is evil, immigration isn't a problem and it isn't the source of drugs and violence and everything wrong, neither is niggers.

Politicians, people with names that you can find and meet, are the problem. They allow drugs into the nation, they allow these violent acts to conspire and be unleashed.

Did you forget Waco? Did you forget Ruby Ridge? Did you forget MK Ultra? Did you forget that they unleashed biochemical weapons upon US citizens just to see the effects of it? Did you forget the drug wars? Did you forget the draft?

Our government is pure evil, and relying on one person to do any work about it is what has allowed this evil to perpetuate within our system since its birth.
Do you think a civil war will help this problem? It'll just exasperate it.

We've allowed the true criminals to grow old within our country, we work to actively protect them. Conservatism is a disease, fascism is the king of this world and the apex of all systems: a working body of the people who will pull the weight of the globe up onto their shoulders and carry it with pride.

When the Nazis had their government shut down through outside exertion the world SCATTERED to retrieve their fleeing scientists, picking the fruit of a system far more valuable and perfect than their own. We must work together, all united people of the United States of America, and push the evil out of this country and bring it to its death.

Your OP pic is degenerate as fuck. You should fucking kill yourself just for posting it, let alone having it.
As far as free speech, that's fine. But now that I've heard your protected speech, I'd like to exercise my human right to fucking kill you for your god damned degenerate child fucking nature, you sick fucking freak.

> 2017
> Still having emotions
Yawn.

how is any of that aiding a criminal?

what?

ey thats only faire

No, but if any pedophile ever touched my kid I would gag them, time them in a stress position while forcing them to kneel with board under their knees, then leave them for hours. Then I would come back and beat them to death with glass bottles and bamboo.

I disagree with this. The more they speak, the sooner we get another Hitler.

You're not wrong.

its just like his opinion man

No

Socially there will always be consequences to your words. And being a degenerate will get you hate.

But as a whole, there needs to be a place where people can express their inner feelings and attempt to communicate those same feelings to other individuals no matter now wrong or right they are.

Sup Forums is the place I come to express my degenerate love for fat titties on /gif/, my pure love for mai anime waifu on Sup Forums, my admiration of Hitler and my hatred of Israeli kikes on Sup Forums, my disdain for NEETs on /r9k/, my disgust for indians on Sup Forums and Sup Forums and my disappointment towards women in general.

Expressing any of those opinions openly would get my name sullied beyond repair, but here, I don't even have a tripcode. So as I say it again.

No, free speech is required for the peace of mind. The fucko who wrote that piece may feel that way, but may work as a functioning member of society that just happens to look for opportunies to discipline kids more than he should.

The crimes of the few should not apply the consequences to the many.

Limiting free speech is a horrible idea, because it victimizes whoever's speech is being suppressed. From a pragmatic point of view, it's become ineffective to just toss whoever has problematic opinions in jail because modern technology allows ideas to be shared without having to make any sort of public demonstration. Take the homosexual concentration camps in Chechnya for example - we know about them and how the government is actively suppressing and murdering homosexuals within their country thanks to international LGBTQ+ organizations, whereas in World War II, we hardly had any idea of the Holocaust until we pushed into German territory, years after the process had began. For the modern day, the most profitable means of securing a national identity or mentality is through entertainment and mainstream media, but we already knew that. The only way to suppress other mentalities is to force it out of the light of the mainstream and relegate it to the fringes of society. To take it a step further, the mentality you're trying to push forward should also use its limelight to strawman and misrepresent the opponents to discourage divergence - we'd call this propaganda, and it's also very useful.

As for OP's pic, it has objective educational value for psychology, and would need to be presented as such.

The freedom to anonimity is an essential part of freedom of speech, I think, otherwise we have a Idi Amin situation:
>"You have freedom of speech but freedom after speech, I cannot guarantee that."

people act like they can delete racism or pedophilia. it will always exist. like an idea like that is so much harder to believe than guy born with a penis is somehow now a woman

If you don't understand what couldn't be clearer then the problem lies within your understanding, not my reasoning. Do you really not understand what I'm saying or you're being facetious?

>in Europe denying the holocaust is a crime
>books who deny the holocaust offer arguments that further that position
>therefore, according to European law, those books aids criminals (i.e. people who deny the Holocaust)

No.
This degenerate fucker is free to say what he wants.
However, the second he commits even a minor crime of any type, this shit should be used as evidence and he should be gassed right on the spot.

I understand why you feel like that. It's the reason why I posted the image. It's repulsive. But it's a reality that exists and hiding it won't make it go away. Sorry, bro. But I understand where you're coming from. Next time I'll use a trigger warning.

Powerful kikes realizing what we already knew tonight. There will eventually have to be a confrontation over free speech. An almost impossible sell in the US. This is your death knell, schlomo.

I second

>Expressing any of those opinions openly would get my name sullied beyond repair, but here, I don't even have a tripcode.

This is why freedom of speech means nothing without the freedom of anonimity.

Can you imagine if everyone's votes had to be made public? Pretty fucking sure Hillary would have won... because a lot of people who've lost their jobs otherwise.

Reminds me of what started that old gamergate fiasco.
>Gamurs don't have to be your audience
and
>Sexuality in video games is BAD
Worked for the ones publishing that shit. For a while, and to some extent, even now, all the west gets is dumbed down content and censored titties.

Propaganda is pretty much the tool the kikes are still using to make their ideas seem like the only valid ones, and for the most part, it's working

>tfw have a wall telling people to read """reliable news""" everyday on our floor in college dorm
America is a weird place where propaganda is pushed so heavily but the only time it gets called out is when it disagrees with the majority idea

Censorship is a form of cultural degredation

>We found over 9000 12 year olds on Call of Duty who called us fat niggers. Does this mean gamers are racist and sexist?? (Yes)

Ahahaha thank you for redpilling an entire subculture, retards.

Peter Sotos is one fucked up dude.

One of the limitations on free speech that I am most curious about is false advertising. I am pretty sure we have laws against blatantly false advertising in the US, but that seems to go directly against the First Amendment. Can anyone defend these laws on a constitutional basis?

>America is a weird place where propaganda is pushed so heavily but the only time it gets called out is when it disagrees with the majority idea
It's in more than just America, I'll bet. The only way to fight the propaganda machine is with your own. You can't "wake people up" by pointing out how the system works because it's everywhere, and they'll inevitably fall back into line without a constant, significant swaying factor in their lives. Like it or not, you have to rely on the machine for your news and for your entertainment unless you're going to live off the grid, at which point you've already pushed yourself to the fringe of society and made their job ten times easier.

Sounds like he'd fit right in here.

Whoever wrote this should be free to say it so that way we can kill him after we hear it.

The only legit repercussions for free speech are other people exercising their freedom, for example with their own speech, and with their freedom of association with boycotts. Being called a racist dick or an sjw nutbag isn't censorship, it's just more speech.

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist. It cannot exist as long as people have identities.

But the question was whether freedom of speech should exist, the answer is yes.

The question of freedom of ditching identities is a different matter, and to that, I say no. If you're infamous for being a dick that rips people off, you deserve to have your name known so that the damage to society remains at a minimum.

>flat earthers

You should be able to say something like that sure.

But nobody should be punished for dolling punishment to you upon hearing you speak such atrocity.

No limits whatsoever. Get fucked if you disagree otherwise.

You justify it appealing to the idea that the goal of a government is to build a society, first, that is stable, so no revolutionaries and people attacking its foundations roaming around freely; and, second, that is prosperous, both in the material, spiritual and psychological senses.

There is nothing inherently wrong with limiting speech. It's the purpose for why you are doing it that might be right or wrong.