Should free speech be unlimited? Should we restrict the speech of those who propagate poisonous ideas?

Should free speech be unlimited? Should we restrict the speech of those who propagate poisonous ideas?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DSlphvKLTlE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Who decides the ideas that are considered poisonous?

popular vote to nullify agendas

Yes. Libel, slander, verbal threats, release of state secrets should all be legal.

Nah people are too easily propagated to for that.

the preaching of feminist doctrine?

seems preferable to secret tribunal

Every decent idea has been poison to someone.

Usually not the same people who shitpost online against free speech.

Everyone hates free speech since they don't realize they won't be the ones deciding what speech is banned

So it's true, freakishly large jpgs have childporn embedded in them. I decoded one of those fuckers and let me tell ya, there's some pretty looking flowers in there.

This, any person that tells you what to think is moral or right is themselves a prisoner to moral subjectivity. If someone imprisons or fines you for what you think is right, that does not mean they are right just because they have the power to pass that judgement. That gives me some peace of mind when it comes to moral busybodies attacking people like 4channers, because we are just as right and wrong as each other from an objective standpoint.

Pretty sure it's 18-22. If you have a son, at some time, you're going to have to square up. I don't want to be a grandparent to my son. Women should quit hoarding the idea of a biological clock.

agreed

Wrong thread, but hey, I stand by it.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.

Restriction of free speech is poisonous idea, which should be restricted.

>muh moral subjectivity
While I agree that the freedom of speech is a necessary evil to maintain the freedom of the people, implying that "moral subjectivity" should be praised is laughable. If morality is subjective, then why shouldn't we give into power dynamics of neo-marxism and truly operate under "might makes right"?

Moral subjectivity is a idiotic way of thinking about free speech, perhaps even antithetical to the idea of free speech. Moral subjectivity suggest there are no supreme right or wrongs, which can lead to operating principles that result in "free speech" becoming a subjective good, rather than an absolute good. If free speech can be projected into the subjective mindset, then it can be made to be evil.

There is moral objectivity, but most people are plain idiots when it comes to thinking.

>There is moral objectivity
Then there must be some sort of authority on moral objectivity, no?
And who might that be, considering that people have different opinions? God?

Might does make right. The might of a peaceful collective to overcome the constraints of living outside of the collective are self-evident. The might of a collective to do what no individual could ever do given a million lifetimes is self-evident.

Morality is simply the stories of our evolutionary selves learning to live in a collective society where we can specialize and be interdependent, and the benefit of that story is all around you.

to paraphrase: "Ideology changes one funeral at a time."

Seems a lot of extra work to allow someone to speak

Is advocating for the genocide of an ethnic group not poisonous regardless of politics? Memes aside

No. Bad ideas are easily crushed by the righteous.

Hell fucking no.

Yeah sure if we’re interested in protecting today’s retards, sure. Think for yourselves, don’t be retarded.

fuck feelings they have no place in the rule of a just society.

Yes.
By restricting the speech of marxists, you are only planting the seeds for a leftist version of Sup Forums that will be even more destructive and insidious than our current timeline's version of the left-wing establishment.
Also, pic related is relevant to the discussion

anyone want her mastubation video

...no...

I support free speech, but condemn openly displayed degenerate behavior.

no really keep that filth away from me

All speech should be free, even threats and lies. Only except should be advertising.

Oh and if someone makes a threat and they don't follow through, you should be able to sue for false advertising

>Also, pic related is relevant to the discussion
I hope you're aware of the irony of posting Napoleon with the rest of your post.

Make lying illegal, that's all that need be restricted.

I see the opposite happening, the liars have a monopoly.

>if someone makes a threat and they don't follow through, you should be able to sue for false advertising
kek

People should grow up and not depend on a single source of information to form the basis of their opinions.

the existence of God, gods, or even objective morals is not contingent on your knowledge or belief in them. They are a fact or aren’t a fact whether you believe in them or don’t. You relativist degenerate faggots objectively need to off yourselves.

Without the ability to vocalize your grievances, diplomacy is off the table and only violent solutions are left.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Not slander you retard. Then we’d all just be like little kids saying “He did this” “He did that”
Unless it’s factual, there should be consequences

emma is so beautiful even when she gets gagged

>even
*especially

WHITE POWER!

my thoughts exactly

Who's making up these morals that everyone must follow?

So many cunts online quoting Popper about muh 'tolerance of intolerance'. It must be a faceberg talkingpoint

Ummmm... yes.

>Free speech is intertwined in democracy and liberalism
>We should use democracy to inhibit speech
Do you understand the paradox here yes or no.

Emma was so perfect, why did she have to turn out to be a roastie and not my big sis gf?!!!

>tfw you look into her absolutely soulless eyes and see miles of kike cock

well the beauty of democracy is that it's flexible. especially with a rotating set of lawmakers a la the ephors or what have you

there's still time

first ask, why do you think all human beings are stupid, including yourself?

>No I don't understand the paradox
There will be no democracy neither its beauty once you inhibit speech the way you want it.

Still not getting it? Let me give you an example.
100 people village.
>51/100 people vote to make natsoc speech illegal
49 people are silenced and can't speak anymore
>26/51 people vote to make atheist speech illegal
74 people are silenced and can't speak anymore
>14/26 people vote to make democracy illegal
86 people are silenced

Examples are arbitrarily chosen. Bottom line, the 14 oligarchy rules (kinda represents many societies currently) while the rest just follow silent.
Start an ILLEGAL riot to get your rights and your democracy back which has obviously ceased to exist. If you want your beautiful democracy you need your free speech.

saying all the jews SHOULD be gassed is protected speech
calling for people to do it or saying you will do it yourself isnt

fair point. still we must have room for restrictions, at least where the public good is concerned. "fake news," "fire" in a theater, feminism, etc

...

Sure. Consider who is behind the message. If it's the head of a country and they have the capacity to do it, perhaps it would be helpful for international forces to keep a watchful eye on it. Even though some want another Hutu vs. Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, it doesn't look good for most normies. Or, you can be the bearded guy down the street who fucking browses Sup Forums and mumbles the destruction of all black men. The social effects of so-called "dangerous" speech should be left to the people to reject: in a just society, it will be. If we want to go Godwin, remember Germany's economic situation and unreasonable demands the Allied forces brought in at the end of the first World War. Then imagine a guy who scapegoats an array of folks for these things coming to be -- justified or not -- and look at the ways the German people reacted. There was a great deal of coercion applied to not be in the wrong state of thought, just as in the United States we prosecuted several people for sedition even though the charges would never stick in times of peace.

That's not true for the US. You can call for people to do it all you want -- that's what you're doing when you say they should be gassed. You can - within the confines of the law and not necessarily any online social network's rules - say they should, theoretically, be put to death. And finally, you too can actively advocate for their demise, which is what you would be doing on the first two situations. The difference is knowing the time, place, and manner in which you do it. Saying it in front of a crowd, one that might have Jewish persons in it and particularly pointing one out is bound to cause an imminent danger. If you're a nobody standing on top of a milk crate, it's far more likely nothing would come of it. We have incredibly strong speech protections, particularly defending the communication of hate speech. Police actions are to prevent the action of violence and not suppress the speech itself.

>restrictions for public good
Let me ask you this. If the majority voted one day and said ''FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC GOOD, ALL e.g. FEMINISTS ARE HEREBY HANGED''

Would you like / accept / adhere / respect it?

Now answer me the same question if e.g. is Nazis.

there was a time people were allowed to openly ridicule ideas without being branded a criminal. and that was protected by ones own ability to defend themselves.

However today since we often face persecution for violence occurring through self defense people simply keep their opinions to themselves when they don't agree.

Yes. Everyone has the right to say/think whatever the fuck they want. Even the people with ideas I think are completely mind-fuckingly stupid have the right to have those ideas and express them.

well there is a middle ground of course. measures can be taken to stop the spread of ideas without (necessarily) putting the evangelists to the sword

>particularly defending the communication of hate speech
Discuss all the calls for assassinations on Trump (with huge amount of likes) and all the 'art' that sees him decapitated etc.

Well I agree, but you didn't answer my question. I'm sincerely curious. Would you accept and respect it (obviously you don't like it) if one day the majority (democratically as you said in 2nd post, popular vote) decided to put a dissenting group to the sword?

No. I don't think so. In this hypothetical perfect state, there'd be certain safeguards against such radical action. what those would be, i don't know. perhaps the proposal has to pass through to elected bodies - one after the other, in the manner of the Spartans - to hold. even then, I much prefer banishment as a means of purifying the body politic

If you don't then you're not really a democrat. You're just a 'democrat' when you agree with the result. I honestly don't mean to judge you, a lot of people are not democrats, just that you need to be aware that democracy implies you accept the will of the majority regardless if you like it or not.

now... should you be FREE to speak against it? Absolutely, like I said that is the essence of democracy to be able to speak against or in favor and change shit.

Otherwise, you/we are just useful idiots who ... happen to agree with whatever the ruling oligarchy suggests and there is no democratic beauty whatsoever, all but an illusion.

God.

essence of democracy and liberalism** (hence making it contradictory and ironic when liberals speak against free speech)

If an ethnic group is a massive problem, that fact should be able to be addressed.

The only reason you would think otherwise is emotions.

you know, i hadn't considered it in quite that way. i'd taken democracy as essentially reasonable when obviously it can be taken in any direction. perhaps i'm really not much of a democrat

Restrictions on speech is the fastest way to violence. Been proven time and time again.

A true democracy would start castrating blacks if 51% of people wanted that to happen.

The only place true democracies have ever occurred is in bandit groups and on pirate ships, things of that nature, though. Personally I think democracy is stupid because most people are retarded.

The free speech should never be limited. If you're advocating for it to be limited, you're no better than those SJWs who cry about shutting us down because "muh feelings". Truly a generation of pussies. No, honestly, America, can you explain to me when did your people turn into such crybabies? Why is everyone talking about "feelings"? Who the fuck gives a shit about you feeling offended? Why do your "people" root for safe spaces? Can't they simply handle arguments and different opinions? They are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who cry about human rights, yet want to shut down everyone who disagrees with them, which means taking those rights from them. They are like communists. Oh, wait...

Is Anarky free speech?

...

No.


Fuck you.

>Discuss all the calls for assassinations on Trump (with huge amount of likes) and all the 'art' that sees him decapitated etc.
Its free speech and it helps identity people who have poor morality. This then allows society to judge them fairly. Its an important process.

im a free speech absolutist

dont come for me guns or me speech u kike niggers prepare for KAT KAT KAT BOOM POON POON

youtube.com/watch?v=DSlphvKLTlE

Reminder: You will turn against unlimited speech as soon as someone tries to dox, slander, harass or blackmail you.

I know how you feel. I've gone through similar phases because I also like to dream of utopic scenarios where the majority, through popular vote etc, is perfectly capable of reasonably regulating a society.

However something I urge any and all advocates regarding free speech to think, is that what would YOU do/feel if one day both the elite oligarchy AND the majority propagated a poisonous idea? Would you want to be able to speak up against it? Would you feel suffocating and imprisoned and helpless?
If your answer is yes, then you should never ever create the dangerous precedent of inhibiting something you may want yourself one day.
>see Germany 1933

>im a free speech absolutist
>dont come for me guns or me speech u kike niggers prepare for KAT KAT KAT BOOM POON POON
I'm with this user

Sure.
Ban Islam.

I wouldnt have to get the law involved if duels were still allowed

talk shit you better 1v1 me

Washington State still has em I believe

>doxing
>harassing
>blackmailing
>free speech
What?

>(((liars)))*
The immigration/multiculturalism they pushed was a bad idea from the start. Feelings took power over logic with the use of some guilt tripping brainwashing.

The "righteous" voice fell on deaf ears. Kangaroo is right.

Agreed. Let's see if the other user replies.

People are dumb. The reason we're where we are is because some asshole started telling women their opinions matter and betas that they have to support immigration so they can get some pussy.

I think free speech should be regulated. I oppose the Larry Flynt kind of free speech. Not everything goes.

If you are truly free to say anything, without any limitations, you can release sensitive information about others (doxing and blackmail), you can offend someone and disrupt their activities with your speech (harassment), you can spread false information (libel, slander), including when it may cause financial trouble (fraud involving deception) or even trauma and loss of life (misinforming someone about a dangerous situation or pushing someone to suicide), you can also incite riots and provoke others into violent actions and many other things that are currently banned. No one ever wants unlimited freedom of speech, except maybe ancaps.

See the problem I run into is: who regulates it? On what authority? it's a pickle

Why do you want to restrict speech? What is your end goal?

i've no fixed opinion on the matter at this point but i find it an interesting question. it's obvious that speech is powerful and people are easily swayed. ergo it stands to reason that (maybe) some ideas should be restricted

Except that doxing and blackmailing usually involves hacking, which is an illegal action itself. If your information was acquired illegally, that's a whole different story.
>Harassment
Offending someone is normal. False information can be proven to be false. Misinformation should be judged by results.

ITS A PICKLE MORTY

On another note I just sharted, thank God I'm at home

How is this even a fucking discussion point in the year 2017 yes it should be unlimited save in instances of slander, hate speech, and harassment. Any disputes handled via the judiciary as is their job. re the way its always fucking been

This.

lotta wiggle room in there, though. hate speech is always a Rorschach test for one. slander and harassment can also be grossly expanded to fit the needs of the ruling party

>hate speech
trollsoftly.jpg

>unlimited
>except this that the other
So it isn't unlimited.

> regardless of politics
no