Tfw you become aware that free speech is the downfall of society

>tfw you become aware that free speech is the downfall of society

Don't blame the plebbitors coming here,blame the mods for not making this board a Christian white board only.

Its not the downfall of society. It's just baseless. You have the right to say whatever the fuck you want by nature, but somebody has the right to kill you if they don't like it.

Elaborate on what you mean by it being the downfall of society.

>you have the right to say whatever the fuck you want
This,if 10% of society doesn't agree with the majority that 10% will always cause trouble and will eventually attract more people,leading the 10% to slowly become majority.

This happend many times in history,look at communism,started from a hand of people and ended up destroying countries.

It's a pretty decent policy to ensure you can't be hoarded away by a corrupt ruler and executed. But I just mean in general. It serves around 5% of the population as it actually should. The other 95% have the right in writing only, because in reality it means nothing and you consciously prohibit your speech regardless because either 1) you're afraid of speaking out of term or 2) the people you surround yourself won't care about ""freedom of speech"" if you offend them to the point they want to knock your teeth out.

There are also taboo subjects in society that we've seen more & more of recently where regardless of "freedom of speech" you'll still be looked down on for raising these topics or expressing a certain opinion on said topic.

And then there are things not legally protected by freedom of speech, etc. It just really is baseless.

North Korea will prosper for all eternity

This would imply freedom of speech has anything to do with the west prospering. If anything frivolities like freedom of speech are a direct result of the prospering of the west. That we ever had time for such vanity.

How do you find and exterminate 10% of the population if they cannot out themselves as mentally ill?

You can't efficiently.

Do I have the right to kill you since I think this comment is the most retarded thing I've ever seen on this board?

Remember, it's a right, meaning the government can't do anything about the murder

If you're willing to fight like a real man then yes

You don't want whites to be weak do you?

You gave no defense, only showed that me threatening a stupid republican English concept from the 17th century threatens you.

You have the right to kill me. If you understood my point, you wouldn't have had to even ask that. I have the right to cut you into tiny pieces for trying though.

And the government can't enforce freedom of speech. I missed that part. It's as baseless as the UN putting "the right to clean water" on its human rights sheet.

I don't understand your point in the skightest. Why do you think it's okay to kill people? One of the basic functions of government is to keep people safe.

If you hate being safe so much why don't you go back to home country and join ISIS?

Freedom of speech means the government won't limit your speech. How is that unenforceable by the government? The government can't control its own actions?

Too much Freedom leads to absolute degeneracy. Don't forget, humans are still animals.
And still need to have their hands held by somebody.

The right amount of Authotarianism is 100% nessescary, just like how Rules and Laws are.

Fuck off you miserable gypsy nigger

White "men" are ugly
Go back to europe. Leave your women for us dark handsome melanin skins.
Your ugly white feminine skin looks like bird shit mixed with cum.
We'll fuck your women and deport them back to Europe as well.

I don't think it's okay to commit murder. I'm saying that freedom of speech will only protect you in a very limited political sense. This stops you being hoarded off by a ruler for expressing certain political opinions, a point I praised in my very second post, but even then there are legal limits on what constitutes freedom of speech & there are still a massive list of taboos that mentioning can destroy a professional (and personal) life. If it was merely meant to protect political speech (which the first freedom of speech act codified in the Bill of Rights 1689 wasn't) then speak openly about National Socialism.

My point is there are natural consequences to freedom of speech both within and outside of politics.

This would work if the government didn't already have many exceptions on freedom of speech.

Why does that freedom of speech a bad thing?

What does that make*

Same question to you, why does that make freedom of speech bad?

It doesn't but I was never arguing that. I asked OP to justify why he thought it was, quote, the down fall of society in the first post I made. I was arguing it's misleading and perhaps a little too much emphasis is placed on it in modern times. Not so much on Sup Forums although its prevalent but in Conservative circles.

So your point is that freedom of speech doesn't matter because we limit our speech in other ways?

It was a concept which was very centric to parliamentary England in the Early Modern era following a devastating civil war. It went hand-in-hand with other revolutionary concepts which I would say had extremely beneficial and long lasting effects. Prohibition of excessive bail conditions, the right to bear arms,prohibition of keeping a standing army, refusal to unjust taxes, being able to petition the government,
the right to clean elects, etc, etc. This is where the origins of free speech are found. It works in contrast to the rest of the points, but doesn't stand alone. This was never its intention but people act as though this one measly right is what makes or breaks a society. As if countries without codified freedom of speech do not have other rights/decrees which stops a leader throwing somebody in prison for unjust reasons. Societies WITH freedom of speech tend to be Americanised or Anglo'd. I see what you're doing though, asking me to elaborate or justify specific points I make (while making none of your own I might add) & then asking me a question on ONE point I made without taking into account the rest that only serves to make me look bad.

Come up with something.

Calm down dude, I was just trying to get you to explain yourself.

I don't see why I would want to make any arguments before I fully understood yours, that would be retarded.

If you think I'm using some backhanded technique to make you look bad, you're being paranoid.

In the end, it seems like you want to argue the point that free speech is the only thing that makes us special. But I never posted on that topic. So I think we're done

>(((christian)))
Suck a dick, gypsy-faggot

Every reply you made seemed to be an underhand shot
My point is that freedom of speech doesn't stand alone. The title is misleading. It is prohibited both in law and naturally by human nature. It serves a small minority of the population in its political purpose. And I'm sick of fucking Conservatives acting like the west would fall apart tomorrow without this right. As if there isn't 2,500 years of western history before its introduction. 2,000 years of democratic history and 1,800 years of republican history before the guys who came up with freedom of speech were even a twinkle in their great great great great grandfathers balls.

Please tell me thats not Stalin.

>i have the right to say anything
>but you have the right to kill me
>but i have the right to defend myself by killing you

Literally not how rights work.

Read my other 11 replies before trying to get a (You) out of me on points I already covered. If the point I was making was that basic I wouldn't have bothered writing in the first fucking place, would I?

For the record, I was creating a scale in writing for that specific point. Murder was on the extreme side of that spectrum.

it is

Freedom of speech is the jewish tool that fucked up our culture.

>AND WHUT IF AHMED IS A MUDSLIM HE HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD A MOSQUE HERE AND TALK ABUT ILLAH
>FAGGUTS HAVE RIGHTS TOO
>ZE NUZIS WERE BADH

It gives inferior people the chance to poison your country and your mind.

That's you doing the opposite of what Conservatives do when they place too much credit on freedom of speech for the foundation of the west by placing it on the downfall.

>>>AND WHUT IF AHMED IS A MUDSLIM HE HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD A MOSQUE HERE AND TALK ABUT ILLAH

That's just Liberalism down to a T. Since its conception. Not modern Liberalism, not leftism. Pure liberalism in its full evolution.

I do not care who says that or what it is,all I care is that people can say that without getting jailed.
People should not be allowed to destroy a country/culture.And other people should not be passive and watch it.

The idea of tolerance has done more harm. Over tolerance of cultures, once a quirky early 20th century concept promoting what seems like a good cause (like all bullshit started by women and liberals), has made us all a witness to genocide. Our own genocide at that.

And yeah, freedom of speech shouldn't extend to men like Anjem Choudary either. That was never its purpose. There are people who will use the slippery slope analogy. I don't care. He should be executed as a traitor - for his speech and his actions which he justifies through speech.