Any mutts here can confirm this for me please?

Any mutts here can confirm this for me please?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1CGclx5hHro
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>criticism
>yelled at, boycotted, canceled, banned
one of these things is not like the other.

it isn't wrong though, but yelling can be considered assault

>consequences

But they're not consequences, they're decision made by people. Can I show them the door after they start yelling and boycotting too? Btw, when "the government" includes a complete fuckton of institutions like higher education and media, you kind lose the it's-not-the-gov argument out of the gate.

Yes you can have free speech, but private institutions can choose whether or not to platform you. The main free speech restricting things I see going on is the left chimping out whenever an alt right speaker is hosted everywhere and freak out until it’s cancelled

Anywhere*

Whatever technical spin you want to put on it, the fact remains that by cancelling speakers who disagree with you, violently protesting events that represent views you don't care for, banning persons on any sort of forum for disagreeing with you, you are indeed doing your part to quash free speech. Hiding behind the argument of "free speech only means the gubmint can't arrest you" is also fairly laughable when it's done at the same time as a push for hate speech laws.

Basically, you either let people speak and then decide if you want to ever listen to them again, or prevent them from speaking altogether. The former seems more constructive to me, but I suppose I may be in the minority here.

Free speech is favourable to the left when it suits them, and not when not.

If Twitter won't let you say whatever you want, there is nothing stopping you from making your own website and pasting whatever you want on it.
Web coding is not hard.

t. complete idiot who still managed to figure out web coding

So, consequences?

It's not showing the door when you cancel or ban someone. At the point you are pushing them out the door.

I'm not a believer in inalienable human rights that the gov is supposed to protect, just pointing out how it's in fact not just "consequences" but an infringement on freedom of speech when badthink is removed from education. People like Randall only want free speech for themselves.

/thread

There's a difference between the 1st Amendment and the concept of free speech. The former is what the picture is describing, but there's also been a fair amount of societal appreciation for the latter, at least to some degree.

Lawyer here. A popular line of reasoning among advocates of censorship is to point out that constitutional law does not protect individuals from one another, it only protects individuals from the government. However this is a fallacious line of reasoning because "freedom of speech" isn't only something enshrined in the constitution, it is a value held and esteemed by individuals and groups. It's perfectly valid to say that Twitter's censorship practices are reprehensible, for example, notwithstanding the fact that they aren't violating any kind of constitutional mandate.

What XKCuckD is trying to say is that you're not allowed to criticize his criticism because of a straw man that he introduces into the argument.

>can't arrest you for what you say

Also not quite how it works. It means the government can't pass laws that unreasonably impede your right to freedom of expression. Even if there's no jail involved.

>muh freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
People really like to conflate that with violent / shit reaction. Even extreme reactions should be expected, but violence and threats? absolutely not.
He's also conflating the laws regarding free speech and freedom of expression, and the principles behind them and the free exchange of ideas. Yes, people can be cunts about it and your freedom of speech was not violated, but they do damage the principle.
There's also something to be said for loud mobbing (like in Shapiro's or Farrel's lectures), when mobs of leftist thugs try to violate people's right to peaceably assemble.

This is correct. The problem is that Progressives contradict themselves by saying sometimes you are free to disassociate and sometimes you are compelled to associate with others. Boycotts, job termination, and forum bans are forms of disassociation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a form of compelled association.

If someone wishes me to take their position seriously, they can't have it both ways. You either have freedom of association or you do not. Taking the Constitution either as written or as intended by the writers, private citizens are supposed to have freedom of association.

So this picture advocates censorship of opinions they don't agree with? Have fun with your echo chamber

Sure, people don't have to listen to you, but if they ban you from attending events or get violent because of your views that is, by definition, a violation of freedom of speech.

If a private company has to make gay cakes than the private internet companies have to allow my speech.

This definition of free speech becomes redundant as soon as you realize the government holds much less power than (((some powerful individuals))), and the former doesn't generally gain from it while the (((latter))) does enormously so.

It was meant to be fucked sideways and thrown in the garbage by the (((ruling tribe))). Who cares anyway, the sword is mightier than the pen.

>it's another "I'm going to censor you in any way I can but still insist that I support free speech" episode
I hate reruns.

That's actually somewhat false.

>Hiding behind the argument of "free speech only means the gubmint can't arrest you" is also fairly laughable when it's done at the same time as a push for hate speech laws.

It's great that you are interested in American legal system. Unfortunately you have some basic concepts incorrect.

The Constitution and it's amendments apply to the relationship between the federal government and the people (which typically means an entire State as well as all individuals). There is a huge history regarding the limiting of governmental powers. The Federalist Papers is a good place to begin your understanding.

Laws, unlike the Constitution or it's amendments aimed at outlining acceptable behavior of the population and it's individuals.

We have administrative law which is aimed at non-person entities like businesses. There is criminal law which is aimed at real persons and require a high burden of evidence and are enforced by imprisonment or death. Then we have civil law which can be aimed at real persons and non-person entities in which the burden of proof is less and deliveries monetary or labor related fines such as community service.

So you see, you can't possibly compare the 1st amendment with hate speech laws because the scope is entirely different.

Freedom of speech is freedom from the consequences of speech. 100%. Not just by the government, but by the people.
The founding fathers knew that a mob of brain dead idiots is just as bad as a totalitarian government.
This is why we're a republic and not a democracy.
This is why the people, senate, house, president, ect. Has checks and balances.
This is why the second amendment gives us the freedom to hold any weapon as a birthright.
It's a human right that no one should take away from you for a reason.
The only reason this faggot likes to think that freedom of speech isn't violated when someone is fired for a racist joke told only to their friends or having your videos pointing out IQ differences deleted is because he knows that the media and Google are on his side.
If it were flipped to not be in hus favor, he would be making the opposite comics stating how important it is to not let anyone censor other people.

Notice how slippery the neocon is, and how it fails to apply the same legal scrutinizing to the XKCD comic.

>you can't possibly compare the 1st amendment with hate speech laws because the scope is entirely different.
This is only nominally true in the case of law, but anybody with sense can tell you that hate speech are an infringement on free speech. Just because the law makers call it an exception doesn't mean people have to agree with that characterization. The whole cringy point of the XKCD comic is that he's trying to lawyer everyone by pointing to the exact legal definition, when that's not what anybody means when they talk of freedom of speech.
>New law: from now on you can't say "nigger"
>Put new law in criminal law section
>Claim it has nothing to do with free speech.
So is baking cakes as anti-discrimination also not an infringement on association?

Laws passed by government must comport with the Constitution. "Hate speech" laws are a flagrant violation of the First Amendment and thus outside of the government's legitimate authority to pass.

Moreover, calling a business a "non-person entity" is disingenuous if that business is not government department or government-sponsored enterprise. Private corporations are nothing more than an association of private citizens. To treat them as anything else defies rationality.

I don't see how anyone on Sup Forums can in good faith advocate freedom of criticism and forcing individuals to provide platforms for everyone because otherwise it would 'remove their free speech'.

And indeed they don't.

*blocks your path*
*pogroms you*

Free speech only protects against the government limiting your speech not private institutions. A private institution doesn't have to put up with your bullshit so long as they are not receiving subsidies from the government. If I private institution bars your freedom of speech whilst receiving government subsidies, you can sue to have the company lose it's subsidies.

>It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit.
This is true, however, if you disagree with someone, you are not allowed to assault them or try to silence them, contrary to what many leftist believe.

>Or host you while you share it.
So long as they aren't receiving government subsidies, which most companies are in some way or another.

>The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.
Criticism yes, consequence no, you have no right to exert your will on someone else.

>If you're yelled at,
Assault

>boycotted,
This is fine.

>Have your show canceled
Depends on your contract with the company that is hosting you.

>get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.
Retarded but fine. It's the community loss of profit not your loss of free speech.

>It's just that the people listening to you think you're an asshole,
Or they're cucks who can't handle the fact that people have other opinions.

>and they're showing you the door.
It's fine to show someone the door but it is illegal to push them through it.

>private institutions that provide public speech platforms should be able to ban and censor as they wish

why are you liberturdian ancap niggers so myopic? or are you just a cryptokike?

Bravo!

youtube.com/watch?v=1CGclx5hHro

Allow me to elucidate.

I wasn't stating my opinion, I was stating what the law was. I don't think private institutions should.