SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Canpinter]

Speech no matter what its content only has a purpose if it can be heard by someone. therefor if you prevent someones speech from being heard you have in effect silenced them. asking people to limit the volume of their speech in order to allow everyone who wants to the hear the content of of other peoples speech results in a net increase in the amount of speech, because content is usually more important then method.

[Endus]

Speech no matter what its content only has a purpose if it can be heard by someone. therefor if you prevent someones speech from being heard you have in effect silenced them.

Repeating this isn't helping you, because me expressing my speech in no way silences yours. It merely contradicts and competes. That's what the marketplace of ideas is.

asking people to limit the volume of their speech in order to allow everyone who wants to the hear the content of of other peoples speech results in a net increase in the amount of speech, because content is usually more important then method.

And here, you go back to trying to determine which speech has the most "value" and thus should be protected while other speech is silenced in its favor. Which is directly against the principles of freedom of speech.

Free speech says that the guy shouting "BANANA DUCKS ARE COOL" has just as much right to do so as the guy trying to give a passionate and informed lecture about current events, right next to him. That the first guy's message is dumb and pointless to you does not in any way matter.

[Canpinter]

Repeating this isn't helping you, because me expressing my speech in no way silences yours. It merely contradicts and competes. That's what the marketplace of ideas is.

If your speech is so loud that no one can actually hear mine then yes it silences me because without other peoples right to listen the right to free speech is worthless.

[bassfu]

Lol it's always trannies, queers, and negros getting pissy about safe spaces.

[Canpinter]

And here, you go back to trying to determine which speech has the most "value" and thus should be protected while other speech is silenced in its favor. Which is directly against the principles of freedom of speech.

Free speech says that the guy shouting "BANANA DUCKS ARE COOL" has just as much right to do so as the guy trying to give a passionate and informed lecture about current events, right next to him. That the first guy's message is dumb and pointless to you does not in any way matter.

that's CONTENT not METHOD, im only in favor of social rules of decorum that limit method slightly in order to greatly improve the amount of content that can be discussed.
i mean really whats a better situation for everyone? person A B and C all being able to state their views because they don't try to shout over each other or person A and B being unable to share their views because person C is so loud no one trying to hear A and B can?

[Zecora]

If your speech is so loud that no one can actually hear mine then yes it silences me because without other peoples right to listen the right to free speech is worthless.

Should we then force the company that can afford the largest ad campaign to refrain from it so it doesn't drown out the smaller companies? Shall we force the political parties with the deepest pockets to refrain from using that for political ads so they don't drown out the smaller parties? Shall we force the majority view to curb their information so they do not drown out the anti-vaccination minority? etc, etc...

No, in this case Endus is correct. Having the right to free speech does not mean that you are free to speak without interruption or other, louder voices.

[Canpinter]

Should we then force the company that can afford the largest ad campaign to refrain from it so it doesn't drown out the smaller companies? Shall we force the political parties with the deepest pockets to refrain from using that for political ads so they don't drown out the smaller parties? Shall we force the majority view to curb their information so they do not drown out the anti-vaccination minority? etc, etc...

No, in this case Endus is correct. Having the right to free speech does not mean that you are free to speak without interruption or other, louder voices.

private company selling add time vs public space so not really applicable, and i don't want to FORCE anything just treat people who think drowned out their opponents is an ethical strategy with scorn.

[Endus]

If your speech is so loud that no one can actually hear mine then yes it silences me because without other peoples right to listen the right to free speech is worthless.

This is just incorrect. Your entire argument boils down to "nobody has any right to speak but me". And that's obviously false.

The person shouting has just as much "right" to turn your argument around and claim YOU shouldn't be allowed to try and silence THEM. This is why it's a nonsense argument that can only ever work if you ignore all perspectives but your own individual one.

Which means you're not talking about people's rights, you're protecting your privileges from their rights.

that's CONTENT not METHOD, im only in favor of social rules of decorum that limit method slightly in order to greatly improve the amount of content that can be discussed.

Method is content, in many cases. Regardless, you have no objective measure for this. Speech is speech. You don't get to silence speech that disturbs you, just because you don't want it around you.

i mean really whats a better situation for everyone? person A B and C all being able to state their views because they don't try to shout over each other or person A and B being unable to share their views because person C is so loud no one trying to hear A and B can?

The first situation is an impossible ideal. You don't get to control C's speech and make it conform to that ideal or be silenced, not if you're going to claim to be defending freedom of speech.

You're literally arguing that speech should be controlled and managed to ensure decorum, and that's so wildly against the principles of free speech that it's pretty shocking. To you, the protests by African-Americans against the civil rights abuses should never have happened. Women protesting to get the vote should have never happened. They should have quietly asked and then just accepted it if those in power didn't agree.

Well, that's not how free speech rights are meant to work. It's a direct assault on that principle.

[Sama-81]

Around these parts, which happen to be the parts regularly claiming the top spots in the "most democratic countries"-list (just for one), willfully interrupting a political meeting by making noise is actually illegal. Which certainly is as it should be. Our society isn't always perfect, that much is for certain, but I sure am grateful that we, opposed to some others, actually care about the spirit of free speech.

[Polyxo]

Repeating this isn't helping you, because me expressing my speech in no way silences yours. It merely contradicts and competes. That's what the marketplace of ideas is.



And here, you go back to trying to determine which speech has the most "value" and thus should be protected while other speech is silenced in its favor. Which is directly against the principles of freedom of speech.

Free speech says that the guy shouting "BANANA DUCKS ARE COOL" has just as much right to do so as the guy trying to give a passionate and informed lecture about current events, right next to him. That the first guy's message is dumb and pointless to you does not in any way matter.

Just googled banana ducks. Was not disappointed.

[Canpinter]

This is just incorrect. Your entire argument boils down to "nobody has any right to speak but me". And that's obviously false.

The person shouting has just as much "right" to turn your argument around and claim YOU shouldn't be allowed to try and silence THEM. This is why it's a nonsense argument that can only ever work if you ignore all perspectives but your own individual one.

Which means you're not talking about people's rights, you're protecting your privileges from their rights.



Method is content, in many cases. Regardless, you have no objective measure for this. Speech is speech. You don't get to silence speech that disturbs you, just because you don't want it around you.



The first situation is an impossible ideal. You don't get to control C's speech and make it conform to that ideal or be silenced, not if you're going to claim to be defending freedom of speech.

You're literally arguing that speech should be controlled and managed to ensure decorum, and that's so wildly against the principles of free speech that it's pretty shocking. To you, the protests by African-Americans against the civil rights abuses should never have happened. Women protesting to get the vote should have never happened. They should have quietly asked and then just accepted it if those in power didn't agree.

Well, that's not how free speech rights are meant to work. It's a direct assault on that principle.

when have i called for controlling anything, all im calling for is a general acceptance that drowning your opponent out is a shameful silencing tactic. i mean the reason this site has a spam rule is because if it didn't anyone could shut down any discussion they didn't like with spam. shouting to drowned out your opponent is just verbal spam and i don't even want to ban it.

[Kraenen]

Why is it not surprising the person with so little understanding of nuance and human behavior can't stop thinking about enforcing speech laws?

[Endus]

when have i called for controlling anything, all im calling for is a general acceptance that drowning your opponent out is a shameful silencing tactic.

You keep arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's an attack on free speech, yes?

Because if you're just saying "it's a dick thing to do, but totally legitimate and within their rights", I'm pretty sure you'd be agreeing with me, since that's my argument.

You not liking their speech is not grounds for trying to eliminate it.

i mean the reason this site has a spam rule is because if it didn't anyone could shut down any discussion they didn't like with spam. shouting to drowned out your opponent is just verbal spam and i don't even want to ban it.

Said rule is enforceable largely because this isn't a public space and freedom of speech doesn't exist as a protected right outside of said public spaces.

If you come to my bakery and say "I LIKE BANANA DUCKS", I can kick you out for that. No matter how adorable banana ducks may be.

Why is it not surprising the person with so little understanding of nuance and human behavior can't stop thinking about enforcing speech laws?

We're talking about freedom of speech, which is explicitly a legal concept.

If you want to talk about voluntary guidelines for encouraging civilized discussion, well, fine, but that's got nothing to do with free speech.

[Canpinter]

We're talking about freedom of speech, which is explicitly a legal concept.

If you want to talk about voluntary guidelines for encouraging civilized discussion, well, fine, but that's got nothing to do with free speech.

freedom of speech is a concept outside of law, law is our best attempt to codify it into some enforceable form with some flaws

[Endus]

freedom of speech is a concept outside of law, law is our best attempt to codify it into some enforceable form with some flaws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech
https://ccla.org/focus-areas/fundame...-expression-2/

It's almost exclusively a legal concept, used to describe people rights and freedoms, which are again, legal concepts.

You keep trying to make it about some voluntary unenforceable "rules of decorum and debate", which isn't what free speech is fundamentally about, anywhere.

And regardless, your argument is still fundamentally about identifying "good" speech and "bad" speech, to promote the former and suppress/eliminate the latter, which is directly opposed to this principle.

[Deleted]

You keep trying to make it about some voluntary unenforceable "rules of decorum and debate", which isn't what free speech is fundamentally about, anywhere.

What? You can go to prison in Sweden for disrupting public meetings. So, take your anywhere and replace it with "In some places".

[darkwarrior42]

when have i called for controlling anything, all im calling for is a general acceptance that drowning your opponent out is a shameful silencing tactic. i mean the reason this site has a spam rule is because if it didn't anyone could shut down any discussion they didn't like with spam. shouting to drowned out your opponent is just verbal spam and i don't even want to ban it.

In other words, you wish to control how people are allowed to speak.

Whether or not it's a good idea, that's what you're after. Saying you don't want to control anything is at best wrong, and at worst an attempt to play word games to make yourself look better.

[Deleted]

Should we then force the company that can afford the largest ad campaign to refrain from it so it doesn't drown out the smaller companies?

Negative margin trading is illegal in many places.

Shall we force the political parties with the deepest pockets to refrain from using that for political ads so they don't drown out the smaller parties?

Most states have maximum donation rules, and some minimum support from the state.

Shall we force the majority view to curb their information so they do not drown out the anti-vaccination minority? etc, etc...

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." J. S. Mill

No, in this case Endus is correct. Having the right to free speech does not mean that you are free to speak without interruption or other, louder voices.

They dindu nuffin!

infracted - forbidden topics

[Endus]

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." J. S. Mill

You realize Mill's quote there speaks directly against your argument, right?

The guy shouting is the "one person" who you're trying to silence, so the "majority" listening to the speaker can be undisturbed. He's literally condemning the exact thing you're trying to support.

[Sama-81]

What? You can go to prison in Sweden for disrupting public meetings. So, take your anywhere and replace it with "In some places".

Indeed. Some people seem to not understand that disrupting political meetings by way of using noise, as an example, absolutely isn't automatically legal, just because your country in question embraces free speech. There is nothing fundamental about that what-so-ever, not even remotely so - particularly not seeing as how some of the most democratic countries there are on this planet, disagrees altogether with that particular notion. It is quite naive, really, to assume that something is fundamentally so, just because your own country believes it is the right way yo go.