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?

Previous discussion

*assuming an objective take on poisonous can be established

it's whatever the Party decrees user and nazis would be the first to go

Seeing as we don't have unrestricted speech at the moment, I'm curious as to what that society would look like

One mans poison is another mans pleasure. New ideas are hard to come by and should not be suppressed.

Plenty of real-world examples of places that limit "poisonous" ideas.
Pretty much any communist country, modern Germany, Nazi Germany, Sweden, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Corea, etc.

dude.. is either "free spech" or "censored" there is not other way

Right. I was saying I'd be interested in seeing how a society with truly unlimited speech played out.

...

Yes. Words have no reason to be limited. The only harm that can happen is that which is brought on by interpretation. Dont ban words. Ban stupid interpretations of words.

>Should free speech be unlimited?

By definition, if it's limited, it isn't free speech.

Actions speak louder than words and one day I'm going to beat this woman so senseless that she will never open her mouth or use her keyboard ever again.

Aus passed emergency laws to punish anyone who vilifies or insults someone in a current national debate on same sex marriage. Add us to the list.

pssh i'm sure she has someone on the payroll to do her typing for her

Did you get this pic from Harvey Weinstein's sex dungeon?

I think slander toes the line on that issue.

wait what's up with Weinstein I though Dan Schneider was the bad egg?

yeah i think his name is jake ganz

>UK
>libel capital of the world
>hate speech
>super injunctions
>official secrets act

Feels like shit really tbqh m80.

Schneider is just involved with Nickelodeon girls. Weinstein is a bigwig Hollywood mogul. Dan is small fry in comparison

No

Leftism is cancerous. It infects the youth with nice sounding ideas, and destroys the nation from within. It is tearing at the very fabric of western civilization. It must be eradicated at all costs.

Freedom of speech should be without restriction.
If you start making exceptions, you'll never stop.

>If you start making exceptions, you'll never stop.
Unfortunately we're well on down that road and have been for some time.

Hardly.

How do you figure?

the US has the most liberal free speech laws of any state in history. hate speech and libel are both narrowly defined. in fact dummies even have the freedom to argue against free speech as see here

Also that's not going to stop me from kicking the absolute dogshit out of her.

>hermione strapped to a table getting gangraped by fat old jews
This is my fetish

Yes, if you can't formulate a counterargument that's a good sign that you're wrong.

free speach should only belong to people who know what they're talking about

>Should we restrict the speech of those who propagate poisonous ideas?

No, because "hate speech" will then be defined by the powers that be.

Now, you may *hate* everything that the powers that be hate, so you might be quite comfortable with the powers that be defining what hate speech is.

What happens when a new regime is elected, who decides that a different set of ideas and speech will be classified as "hate."

Well, you might not be so happy then.

Anyway, for anyone living in the US, he merely need look at the example of what's happening in Canada and the UK to see what is the result when there's no robust First Amendment protection: In the UK, reading Sup Forums is (or is about to be) a crime for which you can be sent to prison for a long time, in Canada, true statements can be classified as "hate speech" and punished accordingly.

These are nightmare regimes.

Only blueshare shills such as yourself want such a future for the United States.

Do as all a favor and kys OP.

Yes and no, in that order.

I can't profess to knowing the right answer on the issue. But seeing as we don't yet know what unlimited free speech looks like, it seems that we can't readily endorse it just yet.

No blasphemy should be allowed. Heresy should be prosecuted as well, O.P.

Do you understand that no humans have a right to fuck with our GOD GIVEN rights outlined in the bill of rights?

>Should free speech be unlimited?
Yes
>Should we restrict the speech of those who propagate poisonous ideas?
No

To anyone asking that question... ask them who decides what is ok or not. Who decides?

Establish a Church and have them in large part decide. For example, put bishops in parliament, user.

Is that emma waston?

mmmmm

There have always been public decency laws curtailing speech to some degree. I didn't, however, expect you particularly to know that... :3

Liberals:
>"The government is run by Nazis! Actual fucking Nazis!"

Also liberals:
>"The government should be able to selectively limit freedom of speech!"

Guess what retards, if the government is so evil then you shouldn't trust them to decide who gets to talk. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech for everyone, because everyone's opinions (even yours) will be deemed wrong and bad by someone, and that someone might someday be in power. There is no objective measure of the goodness of an idea. Even if the power to outlaw ideas were implemented with purely altruistic intentions, it would be abused immediately.

>Trusting the Pope to decide what is and isn't hate speech
>Trusting modern protestants to decide what is and isn't hate speech

So a human with an agenda decides? Who cares if you tie religion to the system, humans are dishonest by nature.

Obviously not. Then it wouldn't be free speech.
>who are you to decide what is intrinsic to me and everyone else and what isn't?

The Church has always curtailed speech, and so have aristocracies. This idea that stopping muh freeze peach leads to commie totalitarianism or papist revolution (National Socialism) is nonsense. Before the classical liberalism of the American and French revolutions, speech and dissent was regulated by the State and Church to great success (booming populations and technological advancement).

Sounds like you don't even trust the systems that your ancestors thrived under, lad.
>yellow flag
Ah, yes. Somebody who is a psychopath. Shoo, shoo, away decadent filth!

We don't have what many would define as "free speech" in many parts of the West right now. It would be interesting to see if absolute, unlimited free speech were preferable.

Yes. And like millions of armed citizens I'd be willing to kill to defend free speech even if the existing government had to be totally destroyed and rebuilt from scratch. There is a difference between right and privilege that jews can't seem to grasp because they don't see the goyim as human. You can make speech illegal but i still have a right to it, even if it is oppressed by marxist faggots like the limousine left.

Some places should be all for free speech
Others should try to keep a civil discussion
Other places have rules of conduct

>speech and dissent was regulated by the State and Church to great success (booming populations and technological advancement)

People were executed for discovering things about the universe that turned out to be true. What a wonderful time.

>Sounds like you don't even trust the systems that your ancestors thrived under
My ancestors were primarily New England dirt farmers. They hardly thrived under Christian society, meanwhile my father born in 1960 and isn't remotely religious and is a nuclear engineer. From my perspective it looks like Christianity has done nothing to benefit my ancestors and if anything harmed with in some way to make them less successful.

More to the point or whatever look at the current Pope. Do you really want him deciding what you can and can't say? Look at modern Evangelicals in the US. Do you really want them deciding what you can and can't say? Have fun being arrested for condemning refugees or Israel.

See as there has been a slow and subtle erosion of 1st Amendment rights in this country for many years running, I wonder what the final combustion point would be - crackdowns on the free press seem a likely candidate

I know you're interested in my ideas, but I have to go. Go read up on what I'm talking about; do some research on your own and maybe I will run into you again next time.

yeah we should get rid of freedom of press

restricting free speech is a good idea if you have a guarantee that the opinion of the group in power will always be the best and wisest, which is usually the opposite. Freedom of speech is diversity of thought, the most sure way to turn a population into sheeple is taking that away

Yes.
No.

I agree. Imams should be free to share their ideas with the world over the internet and other media.

In my personal opinion everything should be free speech unless it is a feasible threat. Like if someone said "you better watch what you say. I'll be at your house tomorrow with my glock and fucking blow your brains out" then it's obviously in the realm of possible and likely.

...

I would tend to agree. But as we've seen with recent events (on this site, even), you can always run into problems of subjectivity where credible threat is concerned.

From a natsoc type view, i think that words should not be limited be ideas however, such as a group like antifa and those that spread communism and marxism would not be allowed. Those things are objectivly bad, and an enemy to civilazation, and the state.

Yup, and like what we've seen on college campuses

>oh look it's Ben Shapiro and Milo threatening America and being violent through their speech.

Idk how they reach that conclusion but apparently it's possible. I don't trust people do protect my rights of free speech, because as you said there will bedifferent opinions.. and herein lies the problem.

The American Left are well-versed in the art of conflating speech with violence.

>Trusting the pope who loves gays and kisses mudnigger feet
Wtf you doing

This is very true, and what is moraly right. But those who wish to destroy our way of life and civilization should not be protected be free speech. This is why an authoritarian sociaty is inevettable. If the good don't stand to enfore what is right, then the evil will conquer all.

Its for the purpose of darwinism.

There is a reasonable argument to be made for the exiling of those whose views do not align with the stated goals of the state. And of course we practice a form of that in the US, although the exile is social, not geographic.

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

So, you don't want free speech?

No. Total free speech. If you take a look at Sup Forums, you see it works. Srsly tho its either yes or no there should be no 'free speech but not if it offends me' shit.

I want to handcuff Emma Watson, tape her mouth shut, and lovingly rape her.

We don't currently have it, and many of our countrymen seem satisfied. I can't yet envision a society that has true free speech, so I can't speak to its virtues or drawbacks.

That looks perfect for an ANTIFA Punch a Nazi meme

Should be? Idk. But it's already unlimited.

Discounting threats, slander, and "hate speech."

well if you want to talk about free speech, lets discuss how many years emma watson has been hiding that shes trans. are you butthurt now?

>Punch a Nazi meme
huWhite ppl amirite?

Open secret.

CLC, right? she's a cutie

Elaborate.

civilized people dont need to punch others.

I'm dubious as to whether that chick is even a nazi at all.

That boat sailed already.

Long before that I think

Oh no, the thought police are at the door.
What think?

ΚΏ cb

>Should we restrict the speech of those who propagate poisonous ideas
Yes

Yes