SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Rennadrel]

Remove a government and see how many rights you have. Only first world kiddies that never lived in a lawless state would think that "Freedom of speech" would exist. If you bothered reading any form of literature outside of hard right fantasies you would know that without the application of law freedom cannot exist.
You also do not have freedom of speech from other citizens. How does one having the right to state an opinion yet another not having the right to voice their rejection of that opinion constitute "freedom of speech"?

Because that is censorship because you dislike another's opinion. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion, regardless of what their stance is. That is why people have an issue with speech restriction, because the freedom of expression includes the right to express your opinion. Personally, I hate laws that protect individuals because of cultural beliefs, because somehow that is hate speech but those same people preaching death for non believers is ignored by the law.

[The Silver Prince]

Because that is censorship because you dislike another's opinion. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion, regardless of what their stance is. That is why people have an issue with speech restriction, because the freedom of expression includes the right to express your opinion. Personally, I hate laws that protect individuals because of cultural beliefs, because somehow that is hate speech but those same people preaching death for non believers is ignored by the law.

Right and the right of freedom of speech/expression is a two way street. Its like why in America we let the KKK hold rallies through the street. Why we have hate groups who will walk through the streets in their public rallies screaming "No <insert epithet>! No <racial epithet>! They all have to go!" because they are free to spew it. This does not protect them from having a group protest their hate rallies. They are free to hold them and the citizens are free to protest them. That is freedom of speech. You can state what you like but you have to accept that someone will call you an asshat. Don't like it? Tough.

[Theinquisition]

Dude, I want it but my wife has said I cannot because I have to finish painting my Black Templars. Painting three companies despite Templars being an easy color scheme is not easy.

I have about 2k points worth of figures that I need to paint, but I spend 4-5 hours per figurine...so...yeah

[Canpinter]

Of course, it's a legal right and a principle; the problem is that some people interpret the right of free speech to mean that others have to listen to their opinion or ideas. You're free to hold and express an opinion, but I don't have to associate with you, and you can't force me to listen to it. You also can't stop me from disagreeing with you or challenging your views while you express them.

The shouting and screaming you see at protests and demonstrations are childish and unproductive, but they have little bearing on the principle of free expression. A Trump supporter who is shouted down at a protest is still capable of expressing his views elsewhere, unlike a person in Austria, for example, who tries to write a book critical of the validity of the Holocaust. I'm sure you'll agree that having someone shout at you at a protest does little to silence you in contrast to a jail sentence.

comparatively maybe, but if your protest is so disruptive that it keeps me from being heard by the audience that has come to listen to me then you have silenced my right to free expression. The right to say something is meaningless without the ability for others to listen.

[downnola]

See they honestly do not see that because they in truth do not care about freedom of speech. They want to say what they want to say free of opposition. If they could they would enact laws that would violate free speech in its philosophical and legal form and make it where it protects them while punishing those who dissent with their opinions. Just look at their arguments and you see the logical conclusion.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the camp who whine about leftist "fascists" tend to be the very same people who cheer and rave whenever Trump rails against and threatens the media with libel lawsuits.

[Livnthedream]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the camp who whine about leftist "fascists" tend to be the very same people who cheer and rave whenever Trump rails against and threatens the media with libel lawsuits.

Shouldn't the media have to do things like fact checking before throwing stones? For example Gizmodo with Ken Bone?

[Theinquisition]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the camp who whine about leftist "fascists" tend to be the very same people who cheer and rave whenever Trump rails against and threatens the media with libel lawsuits.

the press have an obligation to print the truth, if they are reporting mistruths, they should be held accountable.

[downnola]

comparatively maybe, but if your protest is so disruptive that it keeps me from being heard by the audience that has come to listen to me then you have silenced my right to free expression. The right to say something is meaningless without the ability for others to listen.

It depends on the context. I agree with you if it's a private setting on private property, then it becomes a matter of disturbance. That doesn't fly in public settings though.

[The Silver Prince]

I have about 2k points worth of figures that I need to paint, but I spend 4-5 hours per figurine...so...yeah

So do I, man. I am meticulous with my detail. I remember one night I was painting a Terminator Chaplain and kept on till 11 in the morning. My wife (GF at the time) just shook her head and told me I wasted my day off.

[downnola]

the press have an obligation to print the truth, if they are reporting mistruths, they should be held accountable.

Yes, within reason. There is a certain point when "libel" makes journalism and the reporting of news impossible.

[Canpinter]

It depends on the context. I agree with you if it's a private setting on private property, then it becomes a matter of disturbance. That doesn't fly in public settings though.

If i'm in a public setting and you intentionally try to make it so no one can hear me, how is that fundamentally different from stopping me from talking in the first place?

[The Silver Prince]

the press have an obligation to print the truth, if they are reporting mistruths, they should be held accountable.

Yes, and the press should be one of the most scrutinized institutions since it was only given freedom of speech due to its obligation to speaking truth. Unfortunately, the media are for profit corporations looking to make as much money as possible. Then again the granting of personhood to corporations is an abomination of the law.

- - - Updated - - -

If i'm in a public setting and you intentionally try to make it so no one can hear me, how is that fundamentally different from stopping me from talking in the first place?

In a public venue, you are at the mercy of the majority. In a private venue, you can say what you like free from others. In public, however, it's like making out with your partner and getting mad that people are hooting and hollering. There is no obligation that people have to respect what you like or dislike. As long as they violate no civil law they are free to do what they like. I was having a conversation with a friend when a drunk girl ran up screaming "Hey guys!". She disrupted our conversation and was a nuisance, should I have called the police and have her arrested for disrupting my free speech?

*note* she could have been arrested for drunk in public but I am not an ass.

[downnola]

If i'm in a public setting and you intentionally try to make it so no one can hear me, how is that fundamentally different from stopping me from talking in the first place?

That's still disorderly conduct. You'll have to provide a better example than "a public setting".

You're also missing my point; freedom of expression is not a license for you to say whatever you like unopposed.

[Ethenil]

Question: what were those banners on Ancient Rome all about? What were they criticizing? With what side were they with?

[Endus]

comparatively maybe, but if your protest is so disruptive that it keeps me from being heard by the audience that has come to listen to me then you have silenced my right to free expression. The right to say something is meaningless without the ability for others to listen.

If i'm in a public setting and you intentionally try to make it so no one can hear me, how is that fundamentally different from stopping me from talking in the first place?

It's different because you have a right to speak. You do not have any right to be heard, or to have an audience.

You are grossly mischaracterizing what freedom of speech fundamentally is. You can't claim to defend its principles while seeking to condemn those who are expressing their own speech, in response/outrage to your own.

It's like the "right to property". You own your land, I own my land. Let's say your land backs onto a gorgeous view down the hill to the river, and you build a deck to enjoy that view. The problem is, I own the land between you and the river. Nothing had been built on that, but I decide to change that, and build a big casino, with flashing neon lights and the whole shebang, right in your view.

Your right to your property ends at your property line. You had no "right" to the view, and if you wanted to protect it, you needed to own the land that composed it. This obviously gets complicated with building codes and the like, since the right to property is nowhere near as concrete as the right to speech, but it truly does not matter how much you liked that view, or if you paid a premium for your property because of it, not unless that view was included in the property deed. And even then, that would simply mandate that certain sightlines be maintained, not that your view be unchanged.

Your rights end where someone else's begins. Your right to speech, to bring this back around, ends right where anyone else wants to speak out against you. You're free to respond to that, with your own speech, for the same reason, but you can not try and tell me that those speaking out are infringing on your rights for expressing theirs, not without fundamentally failing to understand that rights apply to everyone.


If you want to express yourself without risking interruption, that's what private venues are for. Where you can implement such rules, because people's right to express themselves is overruled by the owner of the venue's property rights, in which they stand (they're free to speak without LEGAL consequence, but he can absolutely throw them out for doing so).

[Livnthedream]

So your solution would be to silence the right to free expression of the protesters?
That's the problem with absolute free speech: It's a paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

[Canpinter]

So your solution would be to silence the right to free expression of the protesters?
That's the problem with absolute free speech: It's a paradox.

the solution is to treat the people who try it like an adult who pissed their pants, no legal punishment just the scorn of acting in such a distasteful way.

- - - Updated - - -

It's different because you have a right to speak. You do not have any right to be heard, or to have an audience.

You are grossly mischaracterizing what freedom of speech fundamentally is. You can't claim to defend its principles while seeking to condemn those who are expressing their own speech, in response/outrage to your own.

It's like the "right to property". You own your land, I own my land. Let's say your land backs onto a gorgeous view down the hill to the river, and you build a deck to enjoy that view. The problem is, I own the land between you and the river. Nothing had been built on that, but I decide to change that, and build a big casino, with flashing neon lights and the whole shebang, right in your view.

Your right to your property ends at your property line. You had no "right" to the view, and if you wanted to protect it, you needed to own the land that composed it. This obviously gets complicated with building codes and the like, since the right to property is nowhere near as concrete as the right to speech, but it truly does not matter how much you liked that view, or if you paid a premium for your property because of it, not unless that view was included in the property deed. And even then, that would simply mandate that certain sightlines be maintained, not that your view be unchanged.

Your rights end where someone else's begins. Your right to speech, to bring this back around, ends right where anyone else wants to speak out against you. You're free to respond to that, with your own speech, for the same reason, but you can not try and tell me that those speaking out are infringing on your rights for expressing theirs, not without fundamentally failing to understand that rights apply to everyone.


If you want to express yourself without risking interruption, that's what private venues are for. Where you can implement such rules, because people's right to express themselves is overruled by the owner of the venue's property rights, in which they stand (they're free to speak without LEGAL consequence, but he can absolutely throw them out for doing so).

the right to speak needs the right to be heard, not the right to make others listen to you. just like the right to cast a vote needs the right to have that vote counted or it doesn't mean shit.

[downnola]

So your solution would be to silence the right to free expression of the protesters?
That's the problem with absolute free speech: It's a paradox.


The problem with no restrictions at all is the fine line between just speech and hatespeech/harassment.

Can you link me an example of a guy preaching for the death of non-believers that got acquitted from this?
And I am talking about non-US countries now.

A person who argues for restricting free speech based on hate speech or incitement to violence needs to address why they're not calling for bans on religious texts that call for violence against or incites hatred of Jews, homosexuals, apostates, etc. I'll give you a hint why there isn't an outcry to ban those books: the people who call for censorship are usually the ones offended by attacks on those very books.

[The Silver Prince]

the solution is to treat the people who try it like an adult who pissed their pants, no legal punishment just the scorn of acting in such a distasteful way.

- - - Updated - - -



the right to speak needs the right to be heard, not the right to make others listen to you. just like the right to cast a vote needs the right to have that vote counted or it doesn't mean shit.

No it doesn't. You have every right to say what you like but no one has to provide you with a forum, nor do they have to listen. You could literally hold a public forum and the audience could decided to stick their fingers in their ears and hum to drown you out. Unless its a private venue you have no rights other then to speak. Its the peoples right to respond or ignore.

[Chrysia]

the right to speak needs the right to be heard, not the right to make others listen to you. just like the right to cast a vote needs the right to have that vote counted or it doesn't mean shit.

Except there isn't a single court decision that has found that you have the right to be heard. You can be denied any platform that isn't directly government controlled, and any fully open platform is open to any person who wants to be heard, even if they want to shout over you to try to make themselves heard instead of you.