Free speech takes precedence over individual or group opinions

[Xar226]

Free speech is important. Unfortunately, most people who begin threads like this have no idea what it means.

Free speech protects you from the government. It does not, has not, and will never protect you from social consequences. Not only are those social consequences somebody else's free speech, it's also their freedom of association. Nobody has to like you, nobody has to provide you a platform and nobody has to listen passively as you speak. That's not how any of this works.

Say damn near whatever you want. That's your right. Expect others to exercise their rights to say what they think of you and your speech in return.

[xGLxAnubis]

Per the title, I'd like to discuss the growing trend in America to try and censor views that some people find disagreeable. Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment as any speech that does not threaten or guarantee physical harm against someone. Let's discuss how important this right is to having a free society.

Can we also discuss, and clarify, that the 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not private citizens or entities. The Bill of Rights puts sanctions on the GOVERNMENT. Right to Free Speech in no way protects you from consequences outside of that (THE GOVERNMENT.)

[Jinpachi]

Free speech has limits too, but I'm guessing you're not refering to such limits but rather to more extreme ideas of censoring opinions?
Because there are a lot of people who think that spewing hate, biggotry and the like is covered by free speech and defend themselves with "WELL IT'S FREE SPEECH!" and I find that much worse.

As long as the speech isn't threatening or guaranteeing physical harm, it doesn't matter how disagreeable you may find it. It's protected, and is above censorship.

[Bodakane]

Funny. My grandfather earned a silver star fighting the Nazis. Now I get called a Nazi for believing the things he believed.

Yoiu should read up on your history. This is more or less how the Nazis started.

[Jinpachi]

Free speech is important. Unfortunately, most people who begin threads like this have no idea what it means.

Free speech protects you from the government. It does not, has not, and will never protect you from social consequences. Not only are those social consequences somebody else's free speech, it's also their freedom of association. Nobody has to like you, nobody has to provide you a platform and nobody has to listen passively as you speak. That's not how any of this works.

And that's why in the real world sjw's have no place.

[Endus]

The issue with this argument is that's it's rooted in a failure to understand free speech, as a concept.

Freedom of speech means EVERYONE'S right to speak is protected. That remains true even when they're saying stuff you don't like. Even if they're calling you bad names and saying your ideas are stupid. Even if everyone else is paying more attention to the people calling you names and nobody believes the stuff you say as a result. That behaviour is what free speech looks like. You aren't being "silenced", and your choice to silence yourself to avoid social sanction, while it's a personal choice, is not, in any respect, a restriction on your speech. It's you lacking a thick enough skin to face other people's speech in response.

And the same goes for other actions, like your boss firing you (their right, if they don't like what you said), your friends and family disowning you (their freedom of association), and so forth. You cannot limit those things without directly attacking people's freedoms.

That's how freedoms and rights work. They apply to your actions, and nothing more. Everyone else has similar rights, which protect their actions.

Not liking the exchange of ideas, or bemoaning a lack of decorum in that exchange, is not a complaint based on freedom of speech. It's a whine that you're unconvincing, or a whine that people are being meanyfaces.


If you say "I like avocado", that's free speech. If a thousand people then say "hey, check out this guy who likes avocado, isn't that disgusting? Let's all notice how gross this guy is", that's also free speech. If you don't want to risk consequences like that, you have the right to keep your views to yourself. And that's where your rights in that regard end.

[DeadmanWalking]

Funny. My grandfather earned a silver star fighting the Nazis. Now I get called a Nazi for believing the things he believed.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. If it goose steps it deserves a good punching.

I live by the old rule, don't want to get your ass kicked? Don't say shit to people who will kick your ass.

[Sky High]

I agree, we must take a stand against the republican led government in Washington as they attempt to undermine our single greatest right in this country.

[AceofH]

it's by far one of, if not THE, most important of our rights.

i will always support it, no matter what.

in that case whats your opinion of the recent riots at uc berkley against milo and denying his right to free speech?

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, we must take a stand against the republican led government in Washington as they attempt to undermine our single greatest right in this country.

funny cuz it was the left undermining free speech a few weeks ago.

[Hiricine]

Keep in mind the right to Free Speech is in essence an extension of self-ownership. It exists outside of any constitution or government.

Of course, I feel like speaking about free speech in the context that its been brought up in is pointless. What we really need to address is the non-aggression principle and the violations we've seen to it in response to speech (and speech only). If you can use violence as a response to words (at least, non immediately inciting ones) theres no limit to the amount of people you can assault.

[Jun]

in that case whats your opinion of the recent riots at uc berkley against milo and denying his right to free speech?

- - - Updated - - -



funny cuz it was the left undermining free speech a few weeks ago.

His right to free speech was not denied. Freedom of Association.

[s_bushido]

in that case whats your opinion of the recent riots at uc berkley against milo and denying his right to free speech?

- - - Updated - - -



funny cuz it was the left undermining free speech a few weeks ago.

Milo and his fellow shitheels have gotten more attention and notoriety than they ever would have if people hadn't been so vehemently opposed to them. And you'll notice Sky High's post was about government activity. You know, the sort of thing that actually contravenes our rights.

[PosPosPos]

I agree.

10 characters

So what's the problem?

You say there's growing censorship, but the guy who says it's okay to punch x people isn't censored.

[Xeones]

Per the title, I'd like to discuss the growing trend in America to try and censor views that some people find disagreeable. Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment as any speech that does not threaten or guarantee physical harm against someone. Let's discuss how important this right is to having a free society.

And I'd like to discuss how important education is since despite having government as a required class you have no clue what the first amendment is.

Protesting a nazi is free speech. Forcing people to accept a nazi is not.

If anyone is a threat to free speech it's the man who said he wanted to open up the libel laws on the campaign trail.

[Anevers]

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

Unless it's Congress passing a law about silencing Nazis and then punching them; I would love to see Bernie punch a Nazi.

However the 1st Amendment is primarily for protecting the press and those who speak out against government from the government. This might be interesting considering Trump labeled the media the enemy of the people.

[Sky High]

funny cuz it was the left undermining free speech a few weeks ago.

funny in the sense that you flat out missed my point or ignored it? cheeky.

[Oftenwrongsoong]

Free speech under the Constitution affords citizens the opportunity speak freely about issues they have with the government (i.e., "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances").

Free speech only applies to government actors.

If you come in my house, or post on the Blizzard forums, your speech can be as restricted as I or Blizzard sees fit.

[Nasuem]

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

Edge-lord.

And yes, it is. And you will be jailed, or more likely, beat up.

[Xeones]

Edge-lord.

And yes, it is. And you will be jailed, or more likely, beat up.

It isn't a violation of the first amendment. It's just assault.

The only entity that can violate the first amendment is the government.

[Oftenwrongsoong]

It isn't a violation of the first amendment. It's just assault.

It's battery, not assault.