Everything has limits in nature and law. Any rational, progressive mind would agree that boundaries must be set.
I think we draw the line at speech that could potentially endanger another human. That sort of speech translates to literal violence. Websites like Breitbart aren’t used to push idea so much as they are meant to aggravate people and cause division.
I’m not saying we should lock people up for long periods of time for saying offensive things - maybe like a month or two for the most egregious things - but certainly Human Rights Tribunals hold a purpose.
So if it's not "free", then what's the price for it? What are you willing to make someone pay for words?
Thomas Diaz
If you aren't outright threatening violence or purposely being vulgar directly at children thst aren't your own it's free speech.
Jose Cruz
Haven’t been here long but I disagree. Fines will do. Jail time is not needed. Maybe only for holocaust deniers/admitted nazis
Easton Cox
We have hate speech laws. Section 318, 319, 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code
Benjamin Bell
At jewish speech.
Luis Howard
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." , Mao Tse Tung.
"Well the time it is coming for them to get a message of their own, Donald Trump is the ultimate punishment and WE ARE HIS FUCKING EXECUTIONERS, I think it's quite conservitave to say that Tens of Thousands of Men are anxiously awaiting for the words to fall out of the right persons mouth telling us the wait is over, and we can fulfill our purpose in life by competing to see who can kill the most Communist. We are not weak or gentle or unaware of what is being done to us, we are the same ruthless monsters who mastered the art of warfare before your favorite demographic discovered the wheel, but neither are we the dim-witted Communist Revolutionaries or the Islamic Jihadist you fight over today. We are a disciplined, calculating menace waiting for the time to strike. Luckily for us who are anxious for the chance it cannot be far off. We have seen Terrorism, Race Riots, False Flags and Now shots fired, we are not going to sit here and watch you topple an Elected President waiting to see what Democrats prefer to Democracy. We will smash, stab, shoot and bomb you in a manner that will make the Islamic State look civilized by comparison. We'll slaughter your males, rape your women and leave your children in the company of the pedophiles you've set free upon our streets. If anyone is going to impose an UN-elected Government on the Continent of North America it's gonna be us and the only thing we're going to be more liberal with is the fucking death penalty!"
Christopher Cantwell, Libertarian, Former Political Prisoner.
Chistopher Cantwell is a a very emotional man who loves his Country and doesn't want to see it destroyed by Communism.
>hate speech is wrong >I get to define what is hate speech Gas yourself
Jason Hughes
Yes I agree. I don’t know why they keep saying Israel funded 9/11 its really stupid
William Foster
Hate speech is the only speech that needs to be defended. Therefore only hatespeech is free speech.
Christian Gomez
>I think we draw the line at speech that could potentially endanger another human. how do you define "potentially en That sort of speech translates to literal violence.danger?
>That sort of speech translates to literal violence what speech translates to violence?
Brandon White
>What does this subreddit think? My fucking sides, are you even trying faggot?
The entire sjw thing has been to redefine vulgarity and violence. Can’t give an inch. When pride is now vulgar and disagreement is violence, etc
Nathaniel Campbell
I know this is bait but banning hate speech is a slippery slope that leads to total censorship and control. You can see it throughout history and in modern Europe.
Joseph Sanchez
>Where do we draw the line on Free Speech? We don't. Speech is immaterial and if you feel like you have been "hurt" by it, you are a faggot of such weak, loathsome proportions you don't deserve to breath the same air I do.
We don't have free speech to talk about the weather, we have it to say controversial shit.
Caleb Turner
I burn computers with bags words on them that are violent
Kevin Williams
Autokeylinkpostdelete/ But its only natural to question whether or not these shootings had external influences. Obviously they weren’t false flags- I’m not that conspirtarded
Nolan Morgan
imminent threats of violence libel slander that's it >subreddit oh you
Jayden Morales
faggot
Lucas Nelson
>Where do we draw the line on Free Speech? We already did. It ends at credible physical threats. Any other questions?
Andrew Bailey
Autokeypostdelete/ lol here they go with that fucking seth rich shit again
Unless speech is being used to literally kill someone (eg shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is there is a modern example), it's free and completely allowed.
>Where do we draw the line on Free Speech? In libel. You're not allowed to lie about someone to ruin their reputation. E.g., you're not allowed to call people racists just because they disagree with you. Other than that, no restrictions. Free speech isn't free if it's restricted.
Parker Young
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Read it, learn it, love it. Calls to action are not protected speech. Pretty much everything else is. Hate speech is not a thing that exists in the US.
Leo White
This is too retarded for anyone to have made unironically.
>Everything has limits in nature and law. Incorrect. The freedom of speech has no limit. Harassment is illegal, speech is not. There is no such thing as hate speech per the Supreme Court of the United States.
Eli Flores
There's an incredibly simple litmus test for this.
Does what you say cause a mass panic or lead to the infringing of someone's rights? Then you didn't use free speech. You committed a call to action.
Example >go out right now and kill a nigger This could result in a citizen being hurt or killed, therefore not speech.
Now, does what you say just hurt someone's feelings? That is free speech and federally protected in the one real country (USA in case you're incredibly thick).
Example >I don't like niggers This wouldn't reasonably lead to infringing on someone else's right. It would more lead to people thinking that you're a dick.
Joshua Richardson
hate speech is the best speech op get raped by a nigger
>It would more lead to people thinking that you're a dick. I don't like pests. Am I a dick for saying that?
Zachary Martin
((( Everything has limits in nature and law. Any rational, progressive mind would agree that boundaries must be set.
I think we draw the line at speech that could potentially endanger another human. That sort of speech translates to literal violence. Websites like Breitbart aren’t used to push idea so much as they are meant to aggravate people and cause division.
I’m not saying we should lock people up for long periods of time for saying offensive things - maybe like a month or two for the most egregious things - but certainly Human Rights Tribunals hold a purpose.
Cantwell is the fucking man. If he can’t talk how he’s inclined to in your country, then your country needs to change
Gabriel Gray
how do you prevent your nation being undermined and subverted if you allow unrestricted free speech? sounds nice in theory to be able to speak your mind and vent frustrations. but what about those who infiltrate the foundations of power within a nation and use those positions to weaken it? i.e. the press, universities, film/radio/tv and even the internet with its vast open communication can be used by foreign agents to cause dissent and shift discussion to divide the people and spread misinformation. Can you really expect the general public to come to a rational consensus if they are brainwashed by these institutions?
The problem with 'hate speech' laws is that it is used as a weapon by those in power against the very people it is supposed to represent. It is traitorous. If we had the right people in power we could put restrictions on those trying to weaken our nation and stop foreign actors sowing dissent, but unfortunately at the price of everyone else liberty. i am unsure what is the best solution. Pure liberty or some degree of statism.
Lucas Ortiz
I think we need a wall between free speech and hate speech.
So, you'd be willing to be told what you can and cannot say? For example, if I told you to shut the fuck about free speech you'd delete this thread like a good boy?
Asher Jones
> HateSpeech™
Jaxon Brooks
Depending on what you mean by pests. But the beauty of the constitution is if you say that here and someone thinks you're a dick and you hurt their feelings, you won't go to jail or have human rights tribunal bullshit.
Easton Johnson
We only drew the line at antisemitism and criticizing the government.
When all those other lines appeared is beyond me but this is how I was raised, this is how I will act, and I will teach my children the same.
Levi Rodriguez
WTF if your problem? He's not lucky. He's earned it!
Lucas Hughes
>Depending on what you mean by pests. It's a supergroup including niggers, obviously.
Justin Ortiz
There is no line. You have the right to say anything you want, provided you accept the results of saying anything you want.
Elijah Allen
Oh. Well some would say you're a dick. I wouldn't because I'm not a gigantic pussy.
Hudson Morris
>I say what I want >the consequence is that someone might not like what I said and call me a dick I'm okay with this
on calls to actions. inciting people to commit violent or disruptive behaviour is the only speech that should be limited
Kayden Perry
the US supreme court has pretty well established limits.
slander, libel, credible threats, inciting unlawful acts, fighting words, and child pornography, and directed harassment are not "free speech".
you can basically say whatever you want, unless you're lying, screaming in someone's face, menacing someone with violence, or taking dirty kiddie pics.
really not complicated.
Nathaniel Campbell
Libel as well. It's just as damaging to spread lies about someone as it is to just tell someone to beat him up.
Lincoln Brooks
>and child pornography wut
otherwise yes
Ayden Morgan
If the nanny of my children took pictures of them naked, I might get a bit upset. It'd be nice, if I had a legal backing as well.
Cooper Morris
At least you wouldn't have to work then huh you piece of shit since all you will do is work in prison. Fucking slave.
Michael Rogers
You don't, faggot
Juan Harris
how is that a free speech issue lol
Aaron Gutierrez
Pictures are a way to express yourself. You're allowed to write "I hate niggers" and show it to your friends, but you're not allowed to take a picture of naked children and show it to your friends.
Colton Foster
so says the supreme court.
someone argued making child porn was protected by the first amendment, and the court was just like "uh... no.... we're not gonna let that one go" and that was that.
Allowing the victims of libel and slander to have a legal framework to restore their reputation and treating direct and specific threats of targeted violence seriously. That's the only limitations on speech I am comfortable with.
You're not allowed to interfere with people expressing their right to free speech. Just like you're not allowed to restrict the freedom of someone by tying him to a lamp post, you're not allowed to yell at him to restrict his freedom of speech.
Jayden Wright
Hate speech was ruled as free speech by the U.S. Supreme Court. Enjoy your cucked country, and your compelled speech.
Thomas Rodriguez
>any rational, progressive mind >what does this subreddit think Good trolling OP, I think you’ve got people really believing you.
the first amendment is insanely broad compared to anything other first world countries have.
we've literally constitutional protection for our porn and us screaming about niggers on Sup Forums or even nazi larp parades through jewish neighborhoods.
it's awesome.
Liam Thompson
>everything has limits in natural law sauce
Christian Gutierrez
Libel and slander are civil matters and they have a legal framework to seek redress of grievances.
Easton Morris
The Supreme Court already drew the line at imminent lawlessness now STFU.
Asher Fisher
nah, too forced you have to be more subtle having a few newfags that dared to answer without proper lurking is easy
Austin Cox
Just don't let them take your guns, or those laws will be very quick to change.
Robert Nguyen
All speech is free speech unless you are inciting people to imminent/immediate criminal actions or endangering someones life
Gabriel Long
One should never allow the mere words of another to dictate their own feelings. Allowing someone else to do so is the mark of a child.
i think the russian "interference" is currently pushing the gun control argument more than any other issue.
because the whole point of the russian subversion isn't to elect a candidate or anything mundane like CNN says. it's a long term plan to weaken the US internally, and thus globally.
driving the gun control issue hard is the number one thing that will cause the USA to balkanize.
people in the US trying to take the guns of other people in the US is going to be the cause of ww3.
Jose Ward
>One should never allow the mere words of another to dictate their own feelings. My mother said she loves me. I didn't let that affect my feelings. She then said that she hates me. I tried not to let that affect my feelings.
Lincoln Anderson
I will endorse this plan so long as I get to be in charge of what is defined as "hate speech" and I get to determine the appropriate punishment. >All communists will get helicopter rides. >Anti-2ndAm speech gets death penalty >Pro-abortion speech gets death penalty >LGBT advocates get the death penalty Isn't punishing "hate speech" great!? (Still sure you want to give this power to govt?)
