Angel faced Youtuber, Evalion, kicked off the site after sharing racist views

[Deleted]

1. Freedom of Speech is about government censorship. It does not apply to companies or individuals. People can say what they wan't legally, that doesn't mean other people have to put up with their bullshit.

2. There are limits on Freedom of Speech even in the government level. Slander, libel, and instigation of violence are illegal. They are not part of Freedom of Speech in the US.

Freedom of speech has to do with companies aswell, you are either a company for freedom of speech or you serve an agenda.


I can see from your argument you are either not very smart or bad intentioned.
People didnt have to put up with Evalion's bullshit, BY NOT CLICKING ON HER VIDEOS, or leaving after they seen a bit and disliked it.

Normal people like me dont like todays feminism, i dont have to put up with their bullshit videos right? So i dont watch them, i dont demand that youtube take them off. Let the retards have their say.

[Wells]

Freesom of speech has to do with companies aswell, you are either a company for freedom of speech or you serve and agenda.

Son


I have bad news for you




about profit margins.

[nonameelf]

Freesom of speech has to do with companies aswell, you are either a company for freedom of speech or you serve and agenda.


I can see from your argument you are either not very smart or bad intentioned.
People didnt have to put up with Evalion's bullshit, BY NOT CLICKING ON HER VIDEOS, or leaving after they seen a bit and disliked it.

Normal people like me dont like todays feminism, i dont have to put up with their bullshit videos right? So i dont watch them, i dont demand that youtube take them off.

Um, no, most companies don't allow people to say whatever the fuck they want. Just like these forums have restrictions on what kind of topics are acceptable to talk about.

Freedom of Speech is about the GOVERNMENT. Not about individual people or companies. Government. Government.

[Raelbo]

Yeah man, you're right. This dumb girl that no one watches will totally cause the next holocaust.

No, she hasn;t incited any violence. That is false.

She hasn't succesfully incited violence because her content was removed before things escalated to that point. We're arguing the right to free speech here and why certain things should not be permitted under the guise of free speech, specifically why hate speech should be prohibited.

And if you think that, left unchecked, this kind of hate speech is harmless, then I would question how you came to that conclusion. And your reasoning, that her post never resulted in anyone being incited to violence (an unprovable claim to begin with) proves that it was harmless is false, because the banning of her post prevented it from ever testing that assertion.

[Deleted]

She hasn't succesfully incited violence because her content was removed before things escalated to that point. We're arguing the right to free speech here and why certain things should not be permitted under the guise of free speech, specifically why hate speech should be prohibited.

And if you think that, left unchecked, this kind of hate speech is harmless, then I would question how you came to that conclusion. And your reasoning, that her post never resulted in anyone being incited to violence (an unprovable claim to begin with) proves that it was harmless is false, because the banning of her post prevented it from ever testing that assertion.

Hate speech is a pretty undefined term, anything can be hate speech. And just to be clear, im not for banning of hate speech, even if it would be defined.
Lately most cases of violence across the globe are done by leftists at trump rallies, antifa people, and immigrants. Thieves shout thieves!




Why are you people afraid of free speech? Do you fear people might agree with the nazis?
I tell you what, keep your idiotic policies going and the far right will come, make no mistake about it.

[Wells]

Hate speech is a pretty undefined term, anything can be hate speech. And just to be clear, im not for banning of hate speech, even if it would be defined.
Lately most cases of violence across the globe are done by leftists at trump rallies, antifa people, and immigrants. Thieves shout thieves!




Why are you people afraid of free speech? Do you fear people might agree with the nazis?
I tell you what, keep your idiotic policies going and the far right will come, make no mistake about it.

You know, if you're going to try to claim that other people are the dangerous ones and that unrestricted speech is a good thing, maybe don't be so racist and vaguely threatening while doing it. Kind of undermines your message.

[bewbew]

Honestly? Who cares.

Mongholia has a day in honor of Gengis Khan. Gengis Khan can easily be seen as a genocidal bastard who wanted power, wealth and women.

I think most statesman of countries that went to War can be argued as the most pure, noble beings with eyes on "progress" and also as the most evil, murdering maniacs.

Maybe being a Statesman is precisely being both.

I actually enjoy when people's response to the inconvenient or absurd is not this moral outrage. It gets old fast.

[May90]

Why are you people afraid of free speech? Do you fear people might agree with the nazis?
I tell you what, keep your idiotic policies going and the far right will come, make no mistake about it.

Unrestricted free speech is like unrestricted freedom of movement, unrestricted freedom of action, unrestricted freedom of economy, etc.: it doesn't work in the modern society. If you make speech completely free, you will have crazies standing on central squares, chanting, "Death to the whites/blacks", inciting violence. You will have military people revealing classified information to the press for a reward. You will have jerks say things that will make everyone else's skin crawl on a daily basis. I can go on and on...

In a more progressive society, it would work. As it stands, there are too many things a lot of people are willing to do, if given the freedom, that will destabilize the society. It is not about cowardice, it is about pragmatism.

[Deleted]

You know, if you're going to try to claim that other people are the dangerous ones and that unrestricted speech is a good thing, maybe don't be so racist and vaguely threatening while doing it. Kind of undermines your message.

Im a racist? hahaha
There is no point in denying your idiotic accusation, as im sure you do not believe it aswell, you just follow your leftist retarded rethoric.
You guys fucking amuse me, but i remember one guy post, with this immigration, how much untill a racist accusation becomes a title of glory?

Now i dont know what message and threats you are refering to, i stated facts.

[Slant]

It doesn't mean much, no. But I easily get tangled in explanations.
Anything else to clarify?.

Nah, it's all clear to me. 1. You don't give a fuck what's being talked about, 2. You start shittalking... seems simple enough to me. See ya.

[Deleted]

Unrestricted free speech is like unrestricted freedom of movement, unrestricted freedom of action, unrestricted freedom of economy, etc.: it doesn't work in the modern society. If you make speech completely free, you will have crazies standing on central squares, chanting, "Death to the whites/blacks", inciting violence. You will have military people revealing classified information to the press for a reward. You will have jerks say things that will make everyone else's skin crawl on a daily basis. I can go on and on...

In a more progressive society, it would work. As it stands, there are too many things a lot of people are willing to do, if given the freedom, that will destabilize the society. It is not about cowardice, it is about pragmatism.

I am for freedom of speech, not for violence.
The military people revealing information are under a signed agreement i assume, if they are to be hired they musnt do A, B etc.

[nextormento]

Nah, it's all clear to me. 1. You don't give a fuck what's being talked about, 2. You start shittalking... seems simple enough to me. See ya.

I care about the conversation enough to engage.
Not about your projection: not the one where you need to tell people what they really think, not the one where you desperately think I'm desperate.

[TheLimonTree]

Why not?

.

Because it has nothing to do with her or youtube's actions. It's like seeing a news magazine titled "Local bottle cap collector jailed for DUI" it's superfluous.

[May90]

I am for freedom of speech, not for violence.
The military people revealing information are under a signed agreement i assume, if they are to be hired they musnt do A, B etc.

The military example was just there to demonstrate that there are natural freedom of speech restrictions that exist for a reason and not because of cowardice. Unrestricted freedom of speech is something akin to unrestricted economy: some people will abuse the system badly and make the existence of everyone else miserable.

[Deleted]

This isn't true. Thanks for demonstrating how thoroughly you're going to misconstrue things.

No, we are not leaving this.

So does free speech necessarily entail a freedom from reprisal for the speech?

[/B]No, it requires that you not be prevented from speaking. Particularly when we're talking about everyone else's comparable freedoms, in defining said "reprisal". Your freedoms don't trump everyone else's.

The only way to parse this sentence is that You have free speech, as long as you are not prevented from talking.
Which is fundamentally divorced from reality.
The concept is not complicated - Its recognised, it exists - To protect people from undue reprisal from speech.
Which was all that i claimed.

Freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence. When will people learn this.

You do get that freedom from consequence is actually a part of free speech? - Oh why the fuck do i even bother.

Full context.
Does free speech, Contain within itself, SOME degree of protection from consequences?

No, because that society is harshly restricting his employer's freedoms.

Apart from the hilarity of you to champion the rights of property owners - That's the way we have it here in Sweden - Admittedly only for public employees but the principle stands.

This is exactly my point; you act as if the speaker is the only person in the entire world with any freedoms worth protecting. They are the only person that exists, somehow.
This isn't about "the principle of free speech". This is about you refusing to accept that A> other people have the same freedom, and B> it isn't the only principle of freedom that exists.
You don't get to constrain other people's actions in the guise of protecting freedoms.

No its that free speech is the most important right and principle - I don't care about it possibly infringing on other freedoms in the abstract.

Even you don't believe this. You've explicitly contradicted this statement.
Do you think I should be able to threaten to kill someone? Should I be able to lie, to commit a deliberate fraud? These are limitations on the freedom of speech.

Oh i think you are confused here - has no limitations. - was sarcasm.

The reason you keep having people point out your contradictions is because your own argument is internally inconsistent. You change your premises on the fly, willy-nilly. You apply them inconsistently.

No you didn't get that i was being sarcastic - the topic is, whether or not free speech necessarily entails protection from consequence.
which his argument 'Bomb on a plane' is not a response to, because it wouldn't be covered under free speech anyway, That would be the fire in a theatre exception,
Since it was stupid, i responded with sarcasm.

- - - Updated - - -

You hold a different opinion of them being allowed to choose what is on their site? That's not an opinion. That's a fact. You choosing to believe that it shouldn't be that way is an opinion. The fact that it is that way is a fact.

I never excused the word cracker, first of all. And second of all, cracker doesn't really carry much meaning behind it.

That is excusing the word.

Goblin, holy shit. How is this that hard for you to grasp? Like seriously, are you just trying to annoy Endus?

What part did you have trouble with?
Was it the sarcasm bit? Do i need to explain how that works to you?

- - - Updated - - -

"Speech has to be free of consequences" might be the most half baked pants on head retarded social theory I've read here.

Lovely straw man - But even lovelier rejection of reality.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't be a decent person then you deserve to have your voice taken away.

Four legs good, Two legs bad!

- - - Updated - - -

1. Freedom of Speech is about government censorship.

Freedom of speech is also a principle.

- - - Updated - - -

In a more progressive society, it would work. As it stands, there are too many things a lot of people are willing to do, if given the freedom, that will destabilize the society. It is not about cowardice, it is about pragmatism.

No, its about you having sufficient delusion of grandeur to think you know better than everyone else, now and for eternity.
You belong in the French rational school of liberalism, as compared to the British.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, it's all clear to me. 1. You don't give a fuck what's being talked about, 2. You start shittalking... seems simple enough to me. See ya.

Slant once again, Literally everyone else that engaged your post, found your post to be pointless.

[Al Gorefiend]

Banning free speech on the Internet, regardless of how hateful and sinister, sure worked well for Reddit last year didn't it? You won't silence these people, you'll only move them to the next platform and their followers will.. Well, follow.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

He didn't excuse the word, try reading again please. Youtube has a right to ban people, it's their site, get over it.

No thanks. I like freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

She hasn't succesfully incited violence because her content was removed before things escalated to that point. We're arguing the right to free speech here and why certain things should not be permitted under the guise of free speech, specifically why hate speech should be prohibited.

And if you think that, left unchecked, this kind of hate speech is harmless, then I would question how you came to that conclusion. And your reasoning, that her post never resulted in anyone being incited to violence (an unprovable claim to begin with) proves that it was harmless is false, because the banning of her post prevented it from ever testing that assertion.

Thats the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

Unless you can prove that something she said lead to violence, then this is a moot point.

[Deleted]

Angel faced? That's one creepy angel then...

[Khadgar]

Youtube is a company, if they don't want racists spewing hateful things on there website, more power to them.

If you were to walk into a company building in the real life and did the same thing they would kick you out.

[Nobleshield]

The issue with "free speech" (besides the fact it doesn't apply on a private website) is that it far too often means that there are "good" and "bad" kinds of free speech, which is wrong. It should be all or nothing, not "Saying hitler was right is bad, saying whites are evil is ok" which is often what it turns into.