SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Endus]

the content of your speech is what matters and that is preserved, only your volume is effected, and only when your artificially increasing it to silence others. i mean your literally admitting here your goal is to make it so your opponents cant be heard.

My goal is to demonstrate that shouting down people you disagree with is fundamentally (arguably THE most fundamental) an expression of free speech. You're trying to restrict that speech, which is an assault on that freedom.

You don't have to like how other people express their freedoms. I might dislike that the overweight guy at the beach is wearing a speedo, but that's his right, and I've got no business trying to make him cover up.

[Canpinter]

The right to free speech does not determine what speech has the most "value" to determine which is to be preferred over other speech. That's not how it works, at all.

how is it hard to understand that if everyone has been stopped from being able to listen to you then it dose not matter if you can say anything? words only have meaning if they can reach other people.

[Deleted]

Leftist dream - let's shout over ourselves, doing random noise using megaphones. Got it. Nice free speech. No wonder Detroit and other "democratic" cities are in the state they are.

[Endus]

how is it hard to understand that if everyone has been stopped from being able to listen to you then it dose not matter if you can say anything? words only have meaning if they can reach other people.

The issue here isn't that I don't understand your argument.

It's that I dismiss that argument, because you're trying to manufacture some sense of a right to an audience. If your audience can't hear you, speak up. Get closer. Go somewhere quieter. What you don't have any justification to do is silencing dissenters for opposing your speech with their own.

[Canpinter]

My goal is to demonstrate that shouting down people you disagree with is fundamentally (arguably THE most fundamental) an expression of free speech. You're trying to restrict that speech, which is an assault on that freedom.

You don't have to like how other people express their freedoms. I might dislike that the overweight guy at the beach is wearing a speedo, but that's his right, and I've got no business trying to make him cover up.

free speech is about the ability to openly share your views, if you use your ability to do that in such a way that it prevents me from doing the same you have assaulted my freedoms

- - - Updated - - -

The issue here isn't that I don't understand your argument.

It's that I dismiss that argument, because you're trying to manufacture some sense of a right to an audience. If your audience can't hear you, speak up. Get closer. Go somewhere quieter. What you don't have any justification to do is silence dissenters for opposing your speech with their own.

again where have i said anything about forcing them to be silent, im saying to be so loud you drowned out your opponent just makes you a dick. all im calling for is enough civility that everyone can openly argue.

[Endus]

free speech is about the ability to openly share your views, if you use your ability to do that in such a way that it prevents me from doing the same you have assaulted my freedoms

Shouting over you doesn't do either of those things, however many times you make the claim that it does. I haven't prevented you from speaking. I've prevented you from having a quiet, peaceful public venue, but you never had any right to that.

again where have i said anything about forcing them to be silent, im saying to be so loud you drowned out your opponent just makes you a dick. all im calling for is enough civility that everyone can openly argue.

If you're talking about what's polite or civil, then you're moving goalposts, since we were talking about what was within people's rights.

And being an asshole is absolutely within people's rights. I never said that shouting at people wasn't often a dick move. It very often is, though protests are often justified and reasonable, even if they behave that same way.

But your right to free speech is not infringed because I'm being an ass and shouting at you.

[sethman75]

My goal is to demonstrate that shouting down people you disagree with is fundamentally (arguably THE most fundamental) an expression of free speech. You're trying to restrict that speech, which is an assault on that freedom.

You don't have to like how other people express their freedoms. I might dislike that the overweight guy at the beach is wearing a speedo, but that's his right, and I've got no business trying to make him cover up.

Endus you have stated your position well but it is incorrect because of one fact.

The leftist group were purposefully creating noise so the other group could not listen.

If they were holding their own peaceful discussion across the street and stating their own point of view, nobody could say shit.

Fact is they were only there to disrupt the other point of view. It seems to be a common tactic for the regressive left.

[Canpinter]

Shouting over you doesn't do either of those things, however many times you make the claim that it does. I haven't prevented you from speaking. I've prevented you from having a quiet, peaceful public venue, but you never had any right to that.

if no one can hear me what is the point of speaking? if i fallow you around in public with an air horn and blare it every time you try to talk i have IN EFFECT silenced you because speech involves two people, a speaker and a listener. i again ask what value do words have if no one can hear them?

[Endus]

Endus you have stated your position well but it is incorrect because of one fact.

The leftist group were purposefully creating noise so the other group could not listen.

If they were holding their own peaceful discussion across the street and stating their own point of view, nobody could say shit.

Fact is they were only there to disrupt the other point of view. It seems to be a common tactic for the regressive left.

The right to free speech includes a great deal of room for noisy, distracting, interfering protests. I agree they shouldn't have gotten physical, but the shouting? Totally within their rights. Just like it was when civil rights activists marched down streets, chanting their slogans. Same difference.

[KayRule]

I think the worst part about SJWs is the lack of self-awareness. They think everyone is on their side. They don't realize how embarrassed people feel for them, how much of a joke they are.......just sad.

[Endus]

if no one can hear me what is the point of speaking? if i fallow you around in public with an air horn and blare it every time you try to talk i have IN EFFECT silenced you because speech involves two people, a speaker and a listener. i again ask what value do words have if no one can hear them?

Your argument about "value" has no place, because freedom of speech isn't about determining value of speech, at all. Just that you won't face legal or societal sanction for having spoken.

And before someone says it, "societal" isn't synonymous with "social". If you're shunned by your community for your speech, that's hostile to freedom of speech, even if it's not legal action by the government. And by "shunned" I mean nobody acknowledges your presence; storekeepers won't sell to you, nobody will serve you, etc. If it's not across the whole community, it's not "societal". A group within that community hating you or your message doesn't trip this.

[Canpinter]

Endus you have stated your position well but it is incorrect because of one fact.

The leftist group were purposefully creating noise so the other group could not listen.

If they were holding their own peaceful discussion across the street and stating their own point of view, nobody could say shit.

Fact is they were only there to disrupt the other point of view. It seems to be a common tactic for the regressive left.

exactly, no one is saying you cant protest or state your opinion, just please do so in a way that other people can still state their view

[Flarelaine]

More "group B wants to express their own speech in response to speech they dislike", which is freedom of speech.

Group B can express their own speech in response to speech they dislike once they allow Group A their turn.

[Canpinter]

Your argument about "value" has no place, because freedom of speech isn't about determining value of speech, at all. Just that you won't face legal or societal sanction for having spoken.

And before someone says it, "societal" isn't synonymous with "social". If you're shunned by your community for your speech, that's hostile to freedom of speech, even if it's not legal action by the government. And by "shunned" I mean nobody acknowledges your presence; storekeepers won't sell to you, nobody will serve you, etc. If it's not across the whole community, it's not "societal". A group within that community hating you or your message doesn't trip this.

do you just not get that if no one can hear me my right to talk is meaningless? again "CAN HEAR ME" not chooses to listen. speech exists for communicating ideas, if you stop anyone form being able to hear what i said, my right to say it is pointless.

[Endus]

Group B can express their own speech in response to speech they dislike once they allow Group A their turn.

That's not how free speech works, no. You're advocating for decorum, which isn't part of free speech.

It would be polite if they did so, but they don't infringe on anyone's rights if they don't.

do you just not get that if no one can hear me my right to talk is meaningless? again "CAN HEAR ME" not chooses to listen. speech exists for communicating ideas, if you stop anyone form being able to hear what i said, my right to say it is pointless.

To repeat; I understand what you're saying, it's just wrong.

The right to free speech is not a right to be heard. And certainly does not grant you any right to oppose the speech of others to protect your own. Which is what you keep advocating for.

[Deleted]

Endus you have stated your position well but it is incorrect because of one fact.

The leftist group were purposefully creating noise so the other group could not listen.

If they were holding their own peaceful discussion across the street and stating their own point of view, nobody could say shit.

Fact is they were only there to disrupt the other point of view. It seems to be a common tactic for the regressive left.

Yes, it's straight from their playbooks, because of one reason - they have no arguments.
So they create white noise and disrupt anything opposing their dystopian views.

[Flarelaine]

That's not how free speech works, no. You're advocating for decorum, which isn't part of free speech.

It would be polite if they did so, but they don't infringe on anyone's rights if they don't.

To repeat; I understand what you're saying, it's just wrong.

The right to free speech is not a right to be heard. And certainly does not grant you any right to oppose the speech of others to protect your own. Which is what you keep advocating for.

I disagree. The right to free speech is the right to be heard. The right to free speech is the right to get your opinion known to others. How can you still have that right if your voice is drowned out?

[Endus]

I disagree. The right to free speech is the right to be heard. The right to free speech is the right to get your opinion known to others. How can you still have that right if your voice is drowned out?

Because you can still speak. You've never had any right to speak unopposed. The right to free speech necessarily protects the rights of everyone else to speak out against you, even during and over your speech.

You don't have any right to a public venue without public involvement, even if that involvement disrupts what you're trying to say. If that's what you want, that's what private venues are for.

The right to free speech is the right to express yourself without sanction for the content of your message. Not to express yourself without opposition and interruption.


Edit: Consider if we move this away from speech speech, to other forms of expression, like protest signs. You may be real proud of your sign. But me standing in front of you with an even bigger sign is not an infringement of your rights, even if others can't really see your sign any more.

If the argument you folks were holding up held water, then it would work both ways; the person shouting you down has justification to have you silenced so they can freely shout. Because otherwise, you're determining whose speech has the most value, and free-speech legislation does not protect statements based on which is the "best speech".

[Deleted]

Endus... I wonder if you would sing the same tune if same thing happened to your political allies.
I bet you would either stay silent or claim those who would do the same thing to your political allies are doing hate crimes.

Go ahead.
Dont dissapoint me.

[Livnthedream]

Endus... I wonder if you would sing the same tune if same thing happened to your political allies.
I bet you would either stay silent or claim those who would do the same thing to your political allies are doing hate crimes.

Go ahead.
Dont dissapoint me.

They are too intellectually dishonest for that.