This guy has a point

this guy has a point

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

True but if that was the case why does hate speech exist and is punishable by law?

Same reason libel and threats do not fall under free speech laws, they're considered too much of a detriment for societal cohesion

God when did everyone get so GAY? XKCD, Vice, Maddox, Egoraptor, Cracked, The Onion, CollegeHumor... They used to be the kings of the Internet consistently making great, innovative content but then got all sucked up into this ultra-liberal sphere somehow and they've never been the same since.

I agree. We should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. That's true free association. That's true freedom.
Let the free market sort it out.

Those are clearly defined legal concepts.
Hate speech isn't.

>Or host you while you share it
In California political affiliation is a protected class. You can't be discriminated against for it. Every social media outlet that denies service based on political affiliation is in violation of State law

>typical shitlib thinking government is the keeper of concepts
The first amendment is free speech, but free speech is not the first amendment.

Apparantly most parents are super duper gay and allow their children to be faggots.

Except that social media has given mobs government-level life-destroying power.

>why does hate speech exist and is punishable by law?
It doesn't (in your country). There is no such concept as "hate speech" in US law. It's a meme made up by leftists.

This is a similar argument to the one that claims assault rifles have become too powerful, and so they warrant special regulation.

Not making a claim one way or the other, just illustrating that it's possible for smart, reasonable people to disagree on these thorny subjects.

He's 100% right though, and a lot of the time its libs that say MUH 1ST AMENDMENT when you tell their dumb protesters to fuck off out of your restaurant.

Fake thread, if thread initiator is not involved in discussion then you know it's a chan mod acting as a traffic cop...

The OP's post is in error, the people are free to not listen if they don't like what you say. Going to another level to try and shut down what you're saying or prevent ANYONE from hearing what you say, such as on college campuses where controversial people are speaking, is a form of censorship.

It's like the left's argument on abortion: if you don't like abortions, don't get one. In this case, if you don't like what someone is saying, just ignore them, except they can't and they will do anything to stop you from saying it.

You may have a case for public universities, but private businesses are under no obligation to host you.

The OP's post implies that somehow someone with a supposedly unpopular opinion feels entitled to an audience, and the audience is saying "we don't have to listen to you."

In reality what happens is the person has "an opinion" and a willing audience, but certain groups who do not like that person will mobilize to try and draw negative attention to the establishment hosting them, or physically protest to disrupt or prevent the person from having a platform, not at all the same thing as "showing them the door". Instead of just not listening, they are going out of their way to stop a person from speaking at all, even to a willing audience that may have even payed for attending.

I am pretty sure in the case of public universities that receive government money, they have an obligation to allow freedom of speech, and as an educational institution they should also feel a responsibility for allowing and protecting controversial speech regardless.

>xkcd

Get the fuck and stay the fuck

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
The internet is the modern day tow square you nigger faggot commie cunt.

>I am pretty sure in the case of public universities that receive government money, they have an obligation to allow freedom of speech, and as an educational institution they should also feel a responsibility for allowing and protecting controversial speech regardless.
Yes, as I said you probably have a case there. However, the other is more an issue with corporation's fear of backlash and poor enforcement on the streets to prevent violent protests shutting down an event.

I made this argument on the Bar exam last week actually, specifically towards facebook/twitter but literally the exact same argument.

The only fun thing he makes are his What Ifs

>Tfw you will never live in 1950 when this was common