SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[sethman75]

I wonder what outrage i would cause if me and a few friends started doing the same thing at anything we don't agree with?

[Asotcha]

Didn't get it at first. Rip me.

To be fair, I didn't get it either until I saw your comment and realized there was something to get in the first place lol

[Rennadrel]

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.

Not so much how I think, but more when.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'd expect anyone to have some nuance in them to realize free speech as a moral, practical value and philosophical concept isn't only hindered by government interference.

But how else would the dumbfucks who go straight to the lawbooks play armchair lawyer?

[Deleted]

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.

Shouting is not an opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Okay Endus, as the representative of the great state of Sweden, that apparently invented free speech, since its only a legal thing, and we were the first with the law (1766, So bye bye Yanks) - Sama gets to take it from here.

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.

[Raetary]

er... what "violence"?

[Endus]

Shouting is not an opinion.

Neither is talking. These are means of expression.

What I'm shouting, however, is an opinion.

[Deleted]

Neither is talking. These are means of expression.

What I'm shouting, however, is an opinion.

Again then, chanting 'two legs bad, four legs good' is not an opinion.
At that point you are just making noise.

[Endus]

Again then, chanting 'two legs bad, four legs good' is not an opinion.
At that point you are just making noise.

It's exactly as much an opinion as anything else. What you're doing, here, is explicitly trying to determine what speech is "good" and which speed you can discard and choose to not protect, because you don't think it's worth protecting.

That's pretty much diametrically opposed to the spirit of free speech.

[Deleted]

It's exactly as much an opinion as anything else. What you're doing, here, is explicitly trying to determine what speech is "good" and which speed you can discard and choose to not protect, because you don't think it's worth protecting.

That's pretty much diametrically opposed to the spirit of free speech.

No it isn't.
The spirit is meant to safeguard the free expression of ideas, not of noise.

[Endus]

No it isn't.
The spirit is meant to safeguard the free expression of ideas, not of noise.

And your entire argument is about suppressing/eliminating certain ideas that you don't like, and label as "noise" in the effort to so suppress them.

You don't get to determine what speech is "valid" and what isn't. That's not how free speech works. Everyone's speech is of equal "value".

[Canpinter]

And your entire argument is about suppressing/eliminating certain ideas that you don't like, and label as "noise" in the effort to so suppress them.

You don't get to determine what speech is "valid" and what isn't. That's not how free speech works. Everyone's speech is of equal "value".

NO we are not suppressing certain ideas we don't like they can say the exact same thing just do it in a way that doesn't overwhelm other peoples words as well.

[Endus]

NO we are not suppressing certain ideas we don't like they can say the exact same thing just do it in a way that doesn't overwhelm other peoples words as well.

Trying to control other people's speech is not a position based on the principles of freedom of speech.

[Canpinter]

Trying to control other people's speech is not a position based on the principles of freedom of speech.

IT is if that control helps to boost free speech overall. We ban threatening people because threats intimidate people into silence, banning threats controls other peoples speech to a small degree but the net result is a greater ability to speak for everybody.

[Endus]

IT is if that control helps to boost free speech overall.

It clearly doesn't, since your entire position here is based on denying/removing certain speech.

We ban threatening people because threats intimidate people into silence, banning threats controls other peoples speech to a small degree but the net result is a greater ability to speak for everybody.

No, those aren't protected because they are threats to public safety. Not because they're speech that we don't like.

[Canpinter]

No, those aren't protected because they are threats to public safety.

They are still forms of speech, just ones we as a society have decided do far more harm then good.

- - - Updated - - -

No, those aren't protected because they are threats to public safety. Not because they're speech that we don't like.

it has nothing to do with the fact i don't like what they are saying, it has to do with the fact they are saying it so loudly and being so INTENTIONALLY disruptive that everyone else cant realistically say anything.

- - - Updated - - -

It clearly doesn't, since your entire position here is based on denying/removing certain speech.

restricting it in a small way in order to boost it in a much larger and more important aspect. i mean which is a better situation for society and everyone involved? Person A B and C all able to say what they want and anyone who wants to listen can, OR everyone has to listen to C because hes so loud no one else can be heard over him?

- - - Updated - - -

i mean your supporting a position where they only person able to speak in public is the one able to make the most noise

[wowaccounttom]

1> No "violence". Some crowded pushing. I saw more "violence" when I went to a Great Big Sea concert.

2> The video opens with a statement that there were white noise machines "blaring" throughout, and there's no white noise anywhere in the video, so I have to chalk that up as a lie.

now we knows what this guy looks like..


damn hippies

[Endus]

They are still forms of speech, just ones we as a society have decided do far more harm then good.

On the very narrow grounds of being a threat to public safety. Nothing of the sort is true for the speech you want to have silenced. It's just speech you don't agree with, personally.

it has nothing to do with the fact i don't like what they are saying, it has to do with the fact they are saying it so loudly and being so INTENTIONALLY disruptive that everyone else cant realistically say anything.

Which boils down to "you don't like it". None of this is a valid reason to attack free speech expression.

restricting it in a small way in order to boost it in a much larger and more important aspect. i mean which is a better situation for society and everyone involved? Person A B and C all able to say what they want and anyone who wants to listen can, OR everyone has to listen to C because hes so loud no one else can be heard over him?

Your entire argument here is that somehow, you're "improving" free speech by saying that rather than letting A, B, and C all speak their minds, only A and B should be able to.

Person C being louder does not restrict Persons A and B's capacity to speak. You keep falsely insisting that it does.

- - - Updated - - -

i mean your supporting a position where they only person able to speak in public is the one able to make the most noise

No, I'm supporting a position where EVERYONE gets to speak, and we don't silence people just because we don't like what they have to say.

Which is exactly what your position involves.

[Canpinter]

Your entire argument here is that somehow, you're "improving" free speech by saying that rather than letting A, B, and C all speak their minds, only A and B should be able to.

Person C being louder does not restrict Persons A and B's capacity to speak. You keep falsely insisting that it does.

If C is so loud no one can hear A or B then A or B speech is meaningless, speech only has purpose if it has the capacity to be heard. Do you honestly think a man locked in a soundproof room right to speech has any practical use? in my situation C can still say whatever they want jsut not in a way that stop A or B from also being heard.

[Endus]

If C is so loud no one can hear A or B then A or B speech is meaningless, speech only has purpose if it has the capacity to be heard.

This is both fundamentally incorrect (speech's value as a right is independent of whether it's heard), and is predicated on banning speech you don't like.

A and B are free to speak up, or speak elsewhere. Their rights are not negated by someone else expressing theirs.

Do you honestly think a man locked in a soundproof room right to speech has any practical use?

This happens all the time. Prisoners are denied communications. They still have free speech rights, even if there's no one around to communicate with. Those rights have not been restricted.

Your argument is a small step away from banning any contradictory opinions because they make your "correct" opinion less likely to be heard. It's a VERY fine line between the two, and it's so fine because you're so far outside what free speech, as a right, entails.

Which is that EVERYONE's speech has value, and they should be allowed to speak freely. Not "within these arbitrary restrictions we've created to manage how speech is conducted". That's directly against the principle of free speech.


What next, deny people the right to use billboards because it's "unfair" for those who can't afford them? Deny political signs on lawns because not everyone has a lawn? Your entire argument is about selecting speech you don't like, and banning it. That's not "free speech".