Make the case for free speech. Or are we just supposed to support free speech for no reason?

Make the case for free speech. Or are we just supposed to support free speech for no reason?

Other urls found in this thread:

hooktube.com/watch?v=1-FI6D8ZXpc
twitter.com/nytopinion/status/898259650797338625
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I think you already have made the case. Even retards get to question things they don't understand.

It is a popular opinion that freedom of speech should be restricted. We can't just tell them, free speech because we say so. We need to give reasons.

Made the case for communism, or are we supposed to support communism for no reason?

Speech is constantly tried to be supressed by the powerful over the powerless. The bill of rights was written to protect the little guy.

We shouldn't accept anything for no reason. So what are the reasons free speech should be allowed?

On Sup Forums you can say whatever the fuck you want as long as you're not messing with football or triggering one of the numods.

It's clear that free speech is one of the best things ever.

We don't have to make the case for it as it's already established. You have to make the case against if you want to prove otherwise. Such shitty debate tactics you faggots on the left use. Very easy to see through.

This is bad, guys. Free speech is the second freedom, after freedom of religion, preserved for us in the Bill of Rights, and we can't even explain why. That's why so many people are turning against freedom of speech. We need to prepare ourselves to explain why it's important.

Antifa commies want to take away ur free speech and history . They just burnt Abraham Lincoln statue . They are animals like Isis they do t like free speech . Only their own voices

But why was it established? If we cannot explain that, it can be taken away, bit by bit. This should be an easy question. It's one of the most basic philosophical principles, and everyone is just floundering because they can't explain it. That's really bad for our side. And it explains why so many people are challenging freedom of speech now.

Leftist used to masturbate to "I don't agree with what you said but I'll die for your right to say it"
Now that the shoe is on the other foot we need to justify it.
Time to kill the traitors.

...

Yes, they want to take away our freedom of speech, and they have tons of professors writing treatises about why that's OK. We have to be ready to respond to that with our reasons why freedom of speech cannot be taken away.

I came here and asked a simple question, and no one could answer. We are defenseless when the left starts their deconstructionist bullshit against freedom of speech.

I asked the question so you people will be ready to explain your side. You have to practice. Spar with each other so when the fight comes you are ready.

...

...

see -"endowed by Our Creator"
All the Bill of Rights did was acknowledge these natural rights and restrict the government from trying to take them.

Have a look at, "The 5000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen. He does a pretty good treatment with the concept of natural rights.

Even Obama, before he was selected to be the president, gave a rather well-sorted interview about how the Constitution is a system of negative rights. You'd almost believe he were at one point prepped to have the outward appearance of a constitutional lawyer.

...

I think John Stuart Mill also makes the case for free speech in his "On Liberty." I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with some of the arguments...similar to what is here:We need to read these things.

As I understand it, John Stuart Mill, in "On Liberty" says that freedom of speech must be preserved because it is the only way to make sure that the ideas that hold sway in society are the best ideas, because all ideas have been heard and subjected to full challenge and scrutiny.

If an idea is never heard, we cannot decide if it is a good idea or not.

And if an idea is allowed to go unchallenged because alternative ideas are not heard, that idea may in fact be a bad idea, but this was never discovered because it was not subjected to challenge and scrutiny.

Thus free speech is the only way to achieve the best ideas. Only the best ideas can survive the filtering process of free and open debate where all sides and all challenges are presented.

We value freedom of speech because punishing someone for their words is immoral to us. Leftists do not value freedom of speech because they do not have morality. It's not something you can teach them, either.

Further justification of freedom of speech would get into where our morality comes from which depends on your beliefs, possibly religious.

I got made fun of the other year for reading 1984 in my mid-30s because for whatever reason I was never made to read it in high school.

I knew what to expect, but it really was remarkably on point. The manipulation of language is not something to be laughed at. We just had a Noam Cumpsky thread, and he's another damn Communist Jew, but we ought not to laugh at his instigation of the link between language and human cognition.

hooktube.com/watch?v=1-FI6D8ZXpc

"If you can be told what you are allowed to see or read, then it follows you can be told what you are allowed to say or think"

There is a big difference between free speech and getting to say anything you want. Free speach is also different from free expression.
Free speach and free expression also only apply to what the government can restrict you from saying or doing, it doesn't apply to your fellow citizens or corporations.

It clearly indicates that Congress shall pass no law. It's merely a limitation on the federal government, not all governments.

Science achieves progress through the free and open competition of ideas.

Any idea that can only survive by censoring other ideas is probably a weak idea that has to be protected from stronger ideas.

Under free speech, only the strongest ideas with the best arguments win. Under censorship, weak ideas can win because they never had to compete with stronger ideas. Censorship is a form of cheating for ideas.

Free speech came from the Enlightenment, when the authority of the Church was questioned, which led to the scientific revolution.

In pic related, the Church tried to silence Galileo when he challenged the geocentric theory of the universe. The Church wanted to censor dissidents. If that had been allowed, science never would have come into being.

The science that liberals worship is a result of free speech which had to fight against attempts at censorship. This is proof that free speech leads to better ideas and censorship is only a way to protect bad ideas from being replaced.

I hope you niggers are writing this shit down.

There is the law, but there is also the principle underlying the law. The principle came first and is the reason the law exists.

If the principle was important enough to be included in the First Amendment, it apparently was considered and important principle, and people should understand why it is important.

And if it is important as a principle, and not just as a law, then it should be applied broadly, not just in cases of government power, but throughout.

If people only understand free speech as a rule or law and don't understand the reasons behind it, they might think it doesn't apply globally. But if they understand the reasons behind it, then they will generalize it to more cases.

That's why it's important to understand the principle and not just be able to recite the law by rote.

>Science achieves progress through the free and open competition of ideas.
Spoken like somebody who has never been a scientist. It survives based on securing funding, which means finding the results you're being paid to find and rocking the boat only enough to catch interest, excitement, and more funding, but not enough to cause discontent within the hugbox.

How else are you going to excuse your trip to a tourist destination under the guise of being forced and paid to attend some boring conference or other so you can get noticed and maybe a better gig down the road?

Do you think such strictures are a benefit to science and new discoveries, or a hindrance?

The govt. has no business deciding what people are allowed to be said BY THE GOVT.'S STANDARDS.

Anyone against the allowance of controversial speech is against personal freedom at its core: the ability to voice a thought.

If only one voice is heard, then only one thought is spread. It is most important to hear even the worst speech than to only hear speech we agree with.

It goes both was. "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene M. Wormser is a good read on this -- he was general council to the Reece Commission investigating the anti-American activities of the tax-free foundations, and his writing style is refreshingly dry and deft.

The problem is that it leads to in-the-box thinking when you have people working to produce the intended results rather than the Bell Labs type situation of letting smart people do whatever and hope it results in enough cool shit to keep the profit model going.

...

So there are two parts to that freedom of speech.

1. Allowing freedom to develop as many ideas as possible.
2. Allowing those ideas to freely compete with other ideas.

Both of these are important, the first because it brings ideas into being, and the second because it prevents ideas from subsequently being silenced before they have had a chance to compete with existing ideas and win or lose based on the weight of the evidence, not based on some censor's whim.

It's the first kind of freedom that is most restricted in the institutions of science as they exist. However, once an idea is proposed in science, it is never silenced by force but either wins or loses adherents based on evidence and persuasion.

That's how we should operate generally. The only way to remove an idea from the pool is by people freely choosing to abandon it, not by brute force of censorship.

It is also a popular opinion that OP is a faggot. And yet, here you are.

We can't propose ideas or debate without freedom of speech.

To condemn free speech is to silence the truth.
The truth fears no inquiry.

I think when it comes to freedom of speech, we're looking at something more closely tied to individual creativity and expression than the mandate to develop a superior idea.

I would suggest that the onus of proof belongs on the person who would bring in to question why we should even be debating the intrinsic value of being able to say whatever comes to mind or that we want other people to hear (provided of course that this does not in so doing encroach upon the same intrinsic freedom that others might be enjoying.)

who decides what is a good reason? who then decides what should and should not be allowed to be said. If you are going to prohibit or control something somebody must be the one to control it.

I would say that you have simply given another reason to protect freedom of speech. There's no reason to think there is only one. There are probably many reasons. The more we can come up with, the better. And there may be some reasons against, too, and we need to know what they are ahead of time so that if we encounter them later we are prepared to rebut them.

I would also say that the burden of proof is on anyone who makes any kind of claim, but there is no burden on someone who simply asks a question. A question is agnostic and doesn't require proof. It simply asks that anyone who is gnostic provide proof to support their gnosis.

1. if anything one little thing becomes illegal to say, then that law will set a precedent that allows other words and phrases to be banned.

2. It is unethical and legally perversive to infringe upon one's right to free speech because one's speech does not violate another's property rights.

3. to speak out against tyrants.

I'm not much into gnosticism. What works more effectively is to state your rhetoric preemptively. Would any ordinary drunk in a barrel have been so compelling if he weren't Diogenese?

If we propose freedom of speech as an irreducible a priori truth that needs no proof, then people are just as free to reject it as if we propose that freedom of speech is a principle based on sound reason. However in the latter case reasons will have been given to support it rather than just saying it's so because we say it is.

I meant to say perverse. My bad.

Bring it down to a tautology then. One of the funnest parts about math is that you can prove things to be unprovable.

PIME TARADOX

For this reason right here. If we didn't have the freedom of speech and a party controls the country, you would never be able to critique any policies made, protest injustice, etc. The freedom of speech is an equalizer, it lets us freely debate ideas so that we can determine which are the best and to which direction our country will lead. The freedom of speech is a defensive line between us, and an authoritative regime such as that in 1984. Make no mistake that those who believe we should suppress this right believe that their word is law, and that there should be no dissent. They believe that they are above the rest of us, that somehow there intellect is superior to our own. To simply we say we need the freedom of speech is not enough, those who wish to defend it should learn what it means to have this right, our most important right in this country.

We absolutely should not have free speech in the way the cultural marxists have made it.

>Free speech meant free political speech and the silencing of obscene speech. Also there were limitations upon speech like fighting words.

Now the exact opposite is the case:

>Silenced political speech Absolute right to transmit and retain obscene speech And a prohibition on fighting words

Aka satainic inversion

The Jews knew if they could take down morality enforcement mechanism white supremacy becomes a liability.

The Jews need to die and the law needs to be purged of their perfidious influence.

Trust a deicidal Jew and they mark you with their curse.

No Jews in media no Jews in the USA. 1488

faggot you asked for a case to be made, not for a proof.

OP loves cock. Proof? this thread.

Do you even know any Jews personally?

What makes you think knowing Jews personally doesn't lead us to this type of thinking? Do you personally know Jews?

Personally no, they aren't common where I am from, but what I mean is that you have no way of knowing truly that all jews are bad and that all jews should be kicked out of the US. I stand with you on the idea that Globalist and the Centralized Banks are a horrible institution, but going full 1488 is fucking retarded

Let's see if faggot OP has a snappy comeback now :3

I'm not an absolutist, but I do recommend spending some time among a sufficient concentration of Jews in order to better understand their culture.

You might want to think about statistically what happens when you get a sufficient monopoly of Muslims in a certain area. In order to appreciate what Jews wind up doing, coincidentally or not, you have to get enough of them in one place so that they start imposing their intrinsic nature.

If you want liberty yourself you have to respect it in other people (to the extent of mutual non-aggression).
Because if you shoot people who do nothing but voice disagreement with you, you set the precedent that you are not a reasonable person, and you will, most likely, be shot at not only by other non-reasonable people, but by reasonable people as well.
tldr if you want to not eat a bullet for saying you are a communist, you have to not serve bullets to people who say they are a fascist
Of course if you want to risk the bullets go ahead and execute people who disagree with you

>wanting to go to jail for saying words
why WOULDN'T you want free speech? afraid of your feeling getting hurt?

>messing with football
boy that takes me back

There's a reason why our countries laws are secular, this is one of those. However, I don't understand how saying "No Jews in the USA. 1488" Doesn't make you an absolutist. You 1488ers swear up and down that the whole reason the allies took down Germany was because they got rid of their centralized banks, and start blaming the Jews every which way, but ignore the fact that the reason the U.S. deployed that day wasn't because of some Global Jewish Conspiracy, it was because Hitler was a shit tactician and overstepped the wrong boundaries. I doubt you, or anyone you know has ever been in a Jewish community.

This kind of thing is why I brought it up. Free speech is under attack.

Link: twitter.com/nytopinion/status/898259650797338625

I don't know why you're calling me a 1488er. I honestly hadn't heard of such a thing until after spending some considerable time on Sup Forums.

As for Jewish communities, I grew up near New York City. Now I live in Squirrel Hill, which has been an interesting study in the Orthodox Jew crowd for me. Why are you so quick to cast aspersions and falsehoods at me?

So this kind of speech should be restricted.

Advocating violence and death on another person or group should not be allowed. We don't live in a society where killing someone is the only option. Whatever problems you have with them can be solved by another means.

>suppress any form of speech
>opens the door for anti speech laws to be slowly implemented into our society by politicians over time

pick 2

In fact, now that you're jogging my memory, I remember having the impression as a young child that probably about half of everybody was a Jew because that was the local demography.

I was shocked when I found out how few of them there really are. And then I did some traveling. Would you believe there are enormous sections of the US where Jewish influence does not operate at a personal level? It's like a whole different world out there.

I called you a 1488er because you literally said, No Jews in the US. 1488.

NYTreachery.png
Hypocrites that they are, do they not dwell under the same shield of free speech that protects the rest of us? Oh, but they don't, do they? Their masters limit what they can say quite thoroughly. They already do not have free speech.
Do not let the ghouls take it from the rest of us.

A simple Ctrl-F would refute your false claim. You are the only person in this thread who has used the terminology "No Jews in the US."

The meme of Jewish intelligence is overrated, but most of them wouldn't be as stupid as you are being.

I see now that you are a different poster, the color of the ID was the same. I apologize

Speech is constantly shifting forms. As ourselves, and our culture evolves so does our speech. nothing in the modern age, hell nothing in the paleolithic age could get done without speech. Speech is our greatest tool. In order for our language to continue to evolve, and drive us forward it needs to be unregulated by the state. Any government that regulates what speech we can or can't say is one which is stagnating our great destiny among the stars.

There were no IDs other than your own that had proposed "No Jews in the US."

The right to speak freely is the most important of all, without it you can't even discuss the restriction of freedom.

Negative, I am SZUpgJQw. My second comment on this post was a reply to MiEiTmpM. The had posted a comment right after me stating the phrase.

Hey buddy, we can worry about figuring out which jews are okay versus which are Zionist kikes trying to destroy white AFTER they've been made to fuck off.

We did it to Japs in WWII. We're many of them innocent people, yes? Does that excuse the fact we can't be sure who they are among the spies? No, so we have to be sure first.

There was a green ID he replied to that did in fact say no need in the USA 1488. Then you started a reply chain after. Pay attention, both of you.

Without freedom of speech, who would ever discuss anything else? It would be the permanent issue of greatest importance, to which all others were compared for discussion. Even if it had to lurk in the shadow of subconscious, this role it would play. But you know it wouldn't lurk in the subconscious. People would talk about it incessantly.

As, not coincidentally, they have been doing.

Yeah, try getting that idea to be taken up by the layman after Unite the Right. If we want to get anything done as a group we need to use a different public image. The Nazi Flags and "Muh Viking Genes" has and always will be cancer.

That might have worked for our Grandparents generations but the media would have a field day with any political group or politician that proposed such a thing.

Your baseless and unproven claims are secondary to how you show yourselves to flip out over the suggestion that somebody named a Jew.

Would you like to go back to discussing Jews? There was one time I helped shut down a financial criminal that really should be in prison for Jewnig out his own friends and community. It was only about $1M and there were multivector opportunities to sic the feds on him, but that's how these lowlifes operate I guess.

This is important so you faggots need to listen up. Words are magic. They literally create reality. Thats why to do magic ppl refer too casting spells. Spelling bee. Your reality will begin to sync up to the words AND thoughts that you use/have. If your words/thoughts are defeatist/negative, you will experience that in your life. If your words are positive/loving it will manifest in your life. Listen to the language of the loser Marxist leftists. Problematic, racist, hate, etc. They are literally caged in by language. That's the power of indoctrination. It has the power to create reality. Here's some words for your day today: awesome, love, thank you, gratitude. Try it out. If you have kind words for totaled and others it will reverberate throughout the universe. Reality is very pliable and subject to your will.

*kind words for yourself and others

If you don't allow the 1st Amendment to exist, the 2nd Amendment is the only recourse.

Free speech is what allows whistleblowers to not necessarily be punished for speaking out. WikiLeaks is the gold standard of this.

There's always the 3rd
>tfw get to snuggle with a qt soldier

Not baseless, someone did infact say that. I mistook it for you due to the similarity in ID. It was an honest mistake. I don't agree with identity politics what so ever. But so you must know there are plenty of people who would take money, doesn't mean they are going to be Jewish. I knew of an Latino woman back home who was working as an auditor for some drilling company who was stole 8 million dollars from the company over a course of 10 years. If someone has the means, and the mindset to do something, they are going to do it regardless of what genes make up their bodies.

>It is a popular opinion that freedom of speech should be restricted.
Source?

Are you a Jew?

Forgive the grammar.

It's Sup Forums, you twit. With all the phoneposters even the grammarnazis are left with no leg to stand on anymore.

No, my family is German and Danish

They were very dumb mistakes

Do you suffer from guilt, assuming you did manage to escape all the racemixing from in and around the Ashkenazi leaking zone?

Guilt?

Guilt about being who you are or perhaps what your family or your region might have done at some point in history. It's remarkable to me that you want to call me out on if I've ever been in or around Jewish communities before.

Have you? Do you know something about them I don't? I'm here to learn. Why don't you ask me if I've been in or around Danish communities or the Amish or something like that?

North Korea, nuff said.

Yes, we just support free speech for no reason.

If you can't handle bantz or criticism or jokes or memes from all directions from all different types of people; you're a weak shit and have no business being in the United States.

That 'reason' enough?

>which means finding the results you're being paid to find and rocking the boat only enough to catch interest
Science is about proving theories wrong not right. What you are describing is politics.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yeah, I'm familiar with what we take to be the Socratic method and all that. Gee, and what controls the flow of money?

I quite liked tuning in to NPR one morning and having one of their bimbos blithely annuonce that Al Gore had just donated another $3M or whatever to "help prove global warming."

Here I thought the science had been settled and there was no more room for debate with the climate deniers. P. good science right there.

My family has been in the U.S. long before most on this board I presume. I can care less what my ancestors did. I only care about the future I can carve out for those that come after me. I mistook you for the 1488er, and proceeded to ask those questions, because I don't believe they can take criticism of their ideas without calling their detractors shills or kikes. Do I believe there are institutions that seek to undermine the U.S.A. and all it has created? Yes. Do I believe we should round up all of the Jews and kick them out? No.

Politics in science is helluva thing isn't it?

How many 1488ers do you know personally?