Free speech takes precedence over individual or group opinions

[niil945]

I think you misunderstood the OP. I'm talking about how certain groups do not want free speech. I know the government isn't censoring anyone. Thanks.

Then you're not talking about free speech, so it's not a matter of me misunderstanding the OP, the OP was written incorrectly. Certain groups wanting to limit the speech of other groups, if the former groups aren't the government then you're not talking about free speech. You're talking about wanting a public platform for anyone to say anything they want without social repercussions (such as protests, shouting people down, etc.) Except your right to speak in public doesn't trump their right to respond by doing anything legal, including shouting you down or protesting you.

[Mister Cheese]

A citizen punching a Nazi is not a violation of the 1A.

It's assault. You're only okay with violence as long as it's against people with different opinions than you. I don't know why the hell anyone even listens to you. You don't get to decide what a Nazi is.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No you do not.

Would it not be fair then for me to say you don't value free speech? as a value in it of itself.

No it would not be. Because the Free Speech is not an agreement between you and I.

I'm not stopping you from saying what you want to say...I'm just not going to give you my microphone.

Go buy your own microphone.

[Bodakane]

Shouldn't free speech also be a cultural, personal and moral value?

No. People can have their own vaules, I just don't want the government silencing me or the media.

It's a fucked up country that values guns over freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

That's EXACTLY what we have here with Trump.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's assault. You're only okay with violence as long as it's against people with different opinions than you. I don't know why the hell anyone even listens to you. You don't get to decide what a Nazi is.

Sure, it's assault....but it isn't a violation of the first amendment.

[Elba]

A moderated space or institution is subject to the biases of the owner. I may for example wince and be displeased at discussions that are hostile to one thing or another and seek to suppress that. Which is legally my right, its my building, its my club and I own it.

But my advertisement for it as a place of "Free Speech," or "Free Thought," would be requiring an asterisk next to it.

An unmoderated forum is like a horde of chimps throwing feces against each other. Free speech and free thought are impossible because they would be drowned under the shit.

[Mister Cheese]

Sure, it's assault....but it isn't a violation of the first amendment.

It has nothing to do with the first amendment because punching someone in the face because you disagree with them, and calling them a nazi is virtue signaling. Nothing more than that.

[Elba]

It's assault. You're only okay with violence as long as it's against people with different opinions than you. I don't know why the hell anyone even listens to you. You don't get to decide what a Nazi is.

Never said it isn't. And different opinions? Way to trivialize dehumanization and genocide, dude. Spencer wants to create a white ethno state. I don't have to decide whether he is a Nazi. He did so himself.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It has nothing to do with the first amendment because punching someone in the face because you disagree with them, and calling them a nazi is virtue signaling. Nothing more than that.

Exactly...it has nothing to do with the first amendment...which is all the guy you were responding to said.

[iLurk]

Never said it isn't. And different opinions? Way to trivialize dehumanization and genocide, dude. Spencer wants to create a white ethno state. I don't have to decide whether he is a Nazi. He did so himself.

Nah dude it's totes different because Spencer wants peaceful ethnic cleansing. It's like Bosnia in the 90s but with hugs instead of death squads.

[PACOX]

Why do people so often confuse the 1st Amendment with individuals having to listen to everything someone else says?

Free speech means the the government can't censor or jail you because you disagree with it, it doesn't mean that others have to tolerate your asinine opinions.

[Torgent]

But i thought you wanted to talk the growing trend of censorship...rather than the lack of it.

I don't think @Typrax knows what he wants to talk about. He just wants to speak and sound like he's informed about the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people so often confuse the 1st Amendment with individuals having to listen to everything someone else says?

Free speech means the the government can't censor or jail you because you disagree with it, it doesn't mean that others have to tolerate your asinine opinions.

Because they didn't pay attention in school.

[Dhrizzle]

From another thread:

Are you saying that guy shouldn't have been allowed to Tweet what he did?

- - - Updated - - -

I do think it's important to let people like Milo speak. If you don't like what he says, beat him in a debate. Don't destroy your own community and physically assault people to prevent him from speaking. That's just going to make people more curious about what he has to say.

Free speech means Milo is allowed to say the things he says and the government can't stop him. It doesn't mean venues have to give him a platform or people have to listen to him.

Don't forget the protests (which were largely peaceful before the vandalism happened) are also an example of free speech.

[Deleted]

Free speech should be absolute and without limits, if niggers get offended at a joke it's their own problem.


[Infracted]

[Dhrizzle]

No you do not.

Would it not be fair then for me to say you don't value free speech? as a value in it of itself.

In a sense I don't value free speech in a value in it of itself.

For example if people are discussing or researching evolution in a science class I don't think any time should be given to discussing Creationism.
If people are discussing or researching geology or climate change I don't think any time should be given to discussing whether the Earth if flat.
If gay people are discussing ways they still have problems exercising their rights I don't think any time should be given to discussing whether they have a moral right to exist.
If black people are discussing challenges they face in modern society I don't think any time should be given to discussing whether they are qualitatively inferior to white people (and you can switch those for any minority and majority races in a given country.)

[minteK917]

Free speech is only against the government. Not toward other citizens or groups.

[Dhrizzle]

It has nothing to do with the first amendment because punching someone in the face because you disagree with them, and calling them a nazi is virtue signaling. Nothing more than that.

Considering the nazi-puncher covered their face to stay anonymous it's difficult to see how they managed to signal their virtues to any benefit.

On the other hand using the phrase "virtue signalling" is the most obvious form of virtue signalling, it's my favourite autological phrase mostly because of the implied hypocrisy.

[Delana]

Free speech stops censorship by the government.

The only place that is close to happeneing, is the way Trump is targeting the media.

Do you believe that the media has a responsibility to report objective truth. As in, are they free to say things that are patently false without repercussions?

I know that we then need to discuss what constitutes objective truth and who decides, but let's establish the above first.

- - - Updated - - -

Free speech is only against the government. Not toward other citizens or groups.

This is bullshit. "Congress shall make no law...."

[crewskater]

No. People can have their own vaules, I just don't want the government silencing me or the media.

It's a fucked up country that values guns over freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

That's EXACTLY what we have here with Trump.

I'd argue more people value the 1st amendment compared to the 2nd, especially when you look at how many anti-gun people there are versus anti-speech.

What is fucked up is you would rather defend libel and slander by the media instead of actual journalism, which we don't seem to have very much of anymore. Look and see how many articles are click bait or adds that are displayed as "new."

[DeadmanWalking]

Oh look another thread where the alt-right screams about their 1 amendment rights being violated but don't know what their first amendment rights really are.

The first Amendment protects you from your GOVERNMENT punishing you for your speech, it does not protect you from a citizen harming you. Assault laws are designed to protect you from being physically attacked, but that does not mean you won't be attacked or that the attacker won't be punished if caught.

That is why when someone is attacked for talking shit the person who attacked gets charged with assault and not assault and breaking your first amendment rights.

Yet another reason why nobody should listen to an alt-righty whining that they can't be assholes to anyone they wish, they don't even know what their rights really are.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people so often confuse the 1st Amendment with individuals having to listen to everything someone else says?

Free speech means the the government can't censor or jail you because you disagree with it, it doesn't mean that others have to tolerate your asinine opinions.

You will notice that the people screaming about first amendment rights are also the ones telling liberals to sit down and shut up about Trumps presidency. They ain't quite right in the head to begin with.