Is "free speech" a meme?

Is "free speech" a meme?

are you a meme?

>Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

No, I just don't even get what these two knuckleheads are arguing.

How is private property the enemy of "free speech"? What are the definitions of "free speech" both are talking about? Is that guy t being satcastic? Communism in practice is vehemently anti-"free speech"

>This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty

Sup Forums is not a Roman Catholic board, dummy

They're just idiots.

this is what /r/latestagecaptialism comments looks like

It's a frontpage subreddit too

They made the top two posts on reddit today, at the same time

They must have a bot army or something

Sounds pretty WOKE to me!

>not spreading class consciousness

Assuming this post is serious, what are your views on "free speech," as a communist?

I was under the impression the vast majority of communists rejected it based on the belief that the allowance of counter-revolutionary speech would be...well, counter-revolutionary.

Speech requires a medium, in true capitalism all mediums are for sale, therefore the owner of the medium gets to decide what is and isn't allowed within that space.

To have truly free speech, you need an enforcing body to keep it so, while not actually under any conceivable threat by individuals using that speech to threaten that enforcing body. This is only possible under communism, because only under communism can someone be both completely free to say whatever they want (in theory) and completely powerless to make good on any threats to the government.

TGT is absolutely right, but only in a technical sense.

>mediums are for sale
>therefore some speech will be bought and paid for
>therefore there is no free speech

Def need a totalitarian government to control all mediums. Only way to have free speech is to have no free speech.

arewememe?

In "true capitalism" no one is stopping you from building your own printing press or making your own website or even handwriting your own pamphlets...

orarewedancer?

Frankly I think we should start catapulting people into space. True free speech requires a vacuum.

>spoons are the enemies of forks as forks will never be able to scoop liquid adequately

>therefore lids are the only solution.

Who is the spoon and who is the fork in this metaphor

bump

>Free speech is only possible in a system that permits no dissent.

>listening to communists
Don't get the mind virus.

>not spreading racial consciousness
Class is a social construct.

Communism is definitely anti free speech but I can agree private property is anti free speech too. If you can forcibly remove someone from your property (or even kill them) strictly for exercing their 1st amendment right that's quite literally anti free speech

What does trespassing have to do with freedom of speech?

Free speech does not equal freedom to trespass, assuming the "private property" you're referring to is physical land

It has nothing to so with *where* you are speaking, but *what* you are saying

It about intent.

well first let me say I believe in different forms of private property, or that there should be different forms. I think you should be able to protest on "private property" I.e corporations churches etc but you draw the line at private citizens

Anyone who wants to should just be allowed to disrupt businesses and churches at any time and for any reason because you don't like capitalism or religion, but they shouldn't be allowed to bother private citizens because you're a private citizen? You have the right to freedom of assembly. You can protest anything you want to protest and get as much media coverage and influence as many people as you possibly can. What need do you have to physically disrupt the everyday operations of lawful citizens trying to do their jobs or peacefully practice their religions? What gives you the right to forceably infringe on their rights?