Free Speech

I keep seeing pictures like this on my facebook feed from liberal SJWs. How do we respond to this?

Other urls found in this thread:

aclu.org/other/what-censorship
strawpoll.me/12801192
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Decentralisation and blocking is censorship and by creating these safe spaces they are creating partisan communities.

There you go.

"Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference"

This guy is a massive cocksucker. Courts charge taxpayers tens of millions in "damages" for things people say all the time. Government employees are fired for things they say all the time.

And if a community bans people for triggering them with opinions then its an objectively shit FORUM because its failed to do its fucking job.

Thanks for the feedback I'm just sick of hearing the "The First Amendment only protects you from government censorship, and not the people from shutting you down" argument from the left.

...

>How do we respond to this?

You don't, you just screenshot their shit for when the pendulum swings back.

Lmao i can go to jail for saying the wrong stuff here.

This is awesome! Saved!

well its true for private companies. But if its about a university or college then those are government funded platforms so there first amendments applies. Nobody is claiming that they can speak whatever they want in a private building or space. its a strawman

The First Amendment applies to the federal government. Free speech as a concept is far broader. It properly includes the idea that silencing unpopular speech is wrong.

Unfortunately a lot of Americans don't understand their constitution or the principle of free speech. There are people out there (and here) on the right who think that Twitter banning them violates their civil rights.

We should lobby for basic protections on speech, and political views, in the workplace. This could be framed as a "worker's rights issue" and would have the effect of reversing chilling. It would no longer be possible for these bullies and complain to HR or devastate a company through sensationalism via the press -- the company would not be permitted to terminate an employee for his views outside of work and this would cause companies to crack down on SJWs. They'd be rooted out and eliminated because they'd pose a threat to the company.

Private censorship and mobs of censors is just as pernicious, if not more pernicious, than government-backed restrictions on speech. The prospect of having one's social and professional life completely destroyed has a profoundly negative effect on speech. Until Trump came along, discussing immigration could cause one to lose one's job.

...

>i can go to jail for saying the wrong stuff here.
>wrong stuff

Everyone pays taxes to the government schools and colleges are paid for by the government therefore everything is government thus free speech is protected everywhere.

>what are the Berkley riots
Yeah no free speech supression there, or any where else for that matter Drumpfkins. Go back to bed

>Article 15.
>(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
>(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
I really like this part.

This, from the people who invented "hate speech" laws, to make it illegal to disagree with them. Would they be in favor of restricting freedom of religion, by outlawing "hate" religions, like Islam? There is no hope for the SJWs, they are twisted and damaged beyond salvation. The merciful thing to do is to exterminate them.

...

Well, the comic is right, but what it's missing is that SJWs ARE trying to get the government to arrest you for what you say.

Yeah. We will show them what freedom looks like!

>laws of the land go out the window when on private property

Free speech isn't just a constitutional right, but a moral principle.

That is literally what it means thou
Nothing to do with leftists

> tfw even the ACLU has a more reasonable view on free speech than xkcd and their retarded cultists

aclu.org/other/what-censorship

it's fine if the internet community or event(being held on private property) is explicitly partisan. However, the problem with liberals is they try to shut down speech in public places such as college campuses and will brigade call your boss trying to get you fired for having a dissenting opinion. This is why we're seeing the rise of Antifa and the violence that comes with them, legally they can't 'no platform' a speaker on campus who isn't extreme but opposes their entitled opinions, so they turn to violence to silence them. The left is cancer.

Simple: modify it, make it a funny meme that reflects our taste of humor.

free speech ≠ 1st amendment

They're correct in the fact that they don't have to listen to someone. They're wrong in the fact that depriving someone of the ability to speak is censorship and just because they don't do it under the banner of the government doesn't justify they're attempts to control others around them and deprive them of a voice.

Also the argument of consequences. Well when consequences are in proportion it is fine for example if you join a club, explicitly express contempt for said club and only have intentions to ruin it then it is within reason to banish said person from the club. When a person makes an ill worded, badly argued 140 character post about his/her opposition to certain actions or ideas for action being expressed is it justified to have that person lose their job - their entire livelihood, severely damage their ability to provide for the people that depend on them, smear their reputation and then proceed to justify violence against said person. No.

The problem is freedom of speech + consequences past simple debate and criticism has always been based on the ability for the participants to distinguished that which is and is not reasonable. With the deterioration of this reason we are heading into a situation where "Live and let live" are simply thrown out the window as it does not promote your own ideology which has a sentiment of "I can do no wrong and my opponents are evil therefore do no right unless they conform to be me. At the same time you have silenced all reason & discussion as to why you're acting unreasonably." A loss of freedom of speech is simply a symptom of a decaying and unreasonable society.

It is healthy to be able to agree to disagree.

>mfw the government doesn't directly duct tape my mouth and outsources Google and Facebook to shadow ban me and repress what I see and saw but it doesn't matter because it isn't censorship unless Trump personally puts tape on my mouth

>mfw public law stops when things go private

Also
>these smug ass stickfigure political cartoon shit are so fucking reddit.

Since it's always marxist libcucks pushing that shit just strawman their sorry asses.
>OH, SO YOU THINK ONLY THOSE WEALTHY ENOUGH TO CONTROL AN ENTIRE SOCIAL MEDIA OUTLET SHOULD BE PRIVY TO THE ABILITY TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES!?

This

Thank you for the responses. These are all amazing.

What...what the fuck do you think it means then?

>Only the bourgeois should be free to express themselves.
Fucking corporatist scum.

Also, I'm not American, but even I know that argument is bullshit.

The Bill of Rights recognizes unalienable human rights. They are not rights granted by the governments, they are innate and the Constitution purports to *recognize* them and ensure that the government doesn't infringe of them.

The Constitution is about the functioning of government, so the limitation imposed is on the government. But the rights mentioned are recognized as innate and, you know, inalienable.

PREASE RESPOND ;)

strawpoll.me/12801192

It's amazing the narratives they're trying to push these days.

Like. Fuck. They're really trying to fuck with the first amendment. That's absolutely insane.

It's bullshit, it is assuming the 1ST doesn't protect it while it specifies it is protected by definition

Thought control, welcome to 1984

...what?

...

PREASE RESPOND

strawpoll.me/12801192

Take a picture with an animal.
Tell them you'll kill the animal if they ever post again.
Remind them that you're in no way impugning on their freedom of speech, it's just that their speech will have consequences and that they're apparantly fine with this.

Err.. that should say denounce not announce. ohwell. I have a headache.

>having your event canceled at a public university where you are scheduled and contracted to speak because people complained about what you might say isn't a violation of free speech.

The government doesn't come up with laws out of the blue. Laws are made to enforce ideas that the people uphold. While the first amendment only effectively protects people from the government the idea that the first amendment stands for resonates with the people in all their interactions with one another.

So while it is technically true that the first amendment doesn't force companies to have free speech, it does imply that they should.

members of the government cannot shut you down
but corporations endorsed by or unofficially affiliated with the government can
know your place, goy

Public and Private are both very nebulously defined concepts for very good reasons.

If I stand at the end of my sidewalk and masturbate I can get charged with public indecency. Even though I am "technically" on private property.

There's a certain very grey area in between private ownership and public interest where the two concepts overlap.

...

I guess the issue is the criticism is levied in such a way as to avoid debate.

Have an opinion that is "wrong" according to the mainstream belief? You arent allowed to debate it, you are a social pariah who should be shunned. This is why communities like Sup Forums spring up a lot.

This desu.
I don't actually believe that all the kikes should be gassed. But censorship is a slippery slope. I've lived long enough now to see it.
When Sup Forums falls free speech is officially dead. I believe that day will come eventually. But I will make sure it doesn't go out with a whimper.

Apparently violently obstructing people from going to hear some public talker is not against freedom of speech because the government is not the one doing the obstructing.

To be fair I'd riot against Milo too.