Free speech takes precedence over individual or group opinions

[Delana]

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.

The spirit of the first amendment also would seem to protect the people's right to speak their mind and participate in the political process, don't you think?

You're so butthurt you lost a fucking election that you have decided it is okay to inflict violence on those that simply disagree with you. I'm legitimately at a loss. Do you want to live in a democracy or a progressive dictatorship? I suppose the latter can be arranged, but not here. Not without rivers of blood anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a nazi.

Desperately trying to make this point. Doesn't help when the other side is in full fucking press to dehumanize the American right. Somewhere along the iine we just stopped having the debate and just skipped straghit to the violence against the opposition. I didn't even know violence was on the list of fucking steps.

[Oftenwrongsoong]

Yes, that is all fine and dandy but fuck that if you call it freedom of speech. As long as someone has right to deny what I have to say, that is not freedom.

I hope this doesn't come as a shock, but the first amendment's freedom of speech is a limited freedom. It only applies to certain actors, in certain places, and concerning certain topics.

[Xeones]

Desperately trying to make this point. Doesn't help when the other side is in full fucking press to dehumanize the American right. Somewhere along the iine we just stopped having the debate and just skipped straghit to the violence against the opposition. I didn't even know violence was on the list of fucking steps.

So your way to make the point is "I'm not a fascist you are!"

Seems effective.

Also the american right is dehumanizing themselves if you haven't been paying attention to politics these days.

[niil945]

It would seem you are correct, my bad.

That's what the ACLU says. I only did a short search, but I haven't found any instance where a college was sued and they lost because they cancelled an event or chose not to host a specific group or person where they were forced to allow a speaker on campus. I've seen numerous notices of specific people being banned, Shapiro and Milo being the most recognizable names. I've found only one event recently where an anti-choice speaker had an event cancelled and the students brought a lawsuit, but that was from January and there hasn't been any outcome. Even then they're suing for a paltry $600 and misc. fees they paid. If you have anything that actually supports the idea that public institutions are required to host public speakers on topics please by all means let me know. Even then, the wide ranging justifications they can use to cancel events that are legitimate reasons not to host a speaker (life safety as the recent example with Milo) mean that the burden of proof for damages is on the accuser, and to win they're going to have to prove that the speaker was cancelled or declined specifically because of disagreement with the topic and not other legitimate reasons. At least that's how I'd estimate it would turn out.

[Delana]

So your way to make the point is "I'm not a fascist you are!"

Seems effective.

Also the american right is dehumanizing themselves if you haven't been paying attention to politics these days.

Lol.

We want to build a wall. Terrible. We've been highly widely by people that have walls around their houses.

We want our president to have the same control over immigration that every other president has has. NO FUCK YOU YOU'RE NOT HUMAN!

A gay jew wants to speak at Berkeley. Literal antifa riots. Woman gets pepper sprayed for wearing the wrong hat.

Please explain how we're dehumanizing ourselves. You're watching too much CNN.

[Xeones]

Lol.

We want to build a wall. Terrible. We've been highly widely by people that have walls around their houses.

We want our president to have the same control over immigration that every other president has has. NO FUCK YOU YOU'RE NOT HUMAN!

A gay jew wants to speak at Berkeley. Literal antifa riots. Woman gets pepper sprayed for wearing the wrong hat.

Please explain how we're dehumanizing ourselves. You're watching too much CNN.

If that makes you feel better about my water being poisoned whatever. Because you know it wasn't too long ago I couldn't drink, cook, or bathe in my tap water and they want me to have that going on again.

[Schattenlied]

That looks like an example of free speech

Speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is something that can be punished.

[May90]

Free speech implies that a private organization can introduce censorship within its scope. Trying to "enforce" free speech in private organizations would be an equivalent of censorship. So, in this regard, I have little issue with anything. There are some words to be said about various social networks limiting marginal speech, about the assault on the p2p networks and so on, but I don't think this is something that plays a major role in Western societies nowadays.

What's troubling is the trend of the governments on expanding the definition of "hate speech", "speech threatening national interests" and so on. It doesn't even always manifest in the actual laws, often it is practical overreacting to people's actions. Like that story, where an American woman googled "pumpkin bomb pie" or something like that and got the FBI knocking in her door - it is not okay to allow the government this much freedom in "enforcing security". And it certainly isn't okay to ban Nazi or Commie rhetoric: as malicious as those ideologies are, they should be discussed and destroyed in an open debate, not be closed in a safe, while slowly gaining the status of martyrdom - as well as giving a handy precedent to the government which it can use to slowly start infringing on people's right to speak their minds in general.

Then again, this trend has existed since the dawn of civilization, and it probably is much weaker today than it was merely decades ago.

[Delana]

If that makes you feel better about my water being poisoned whatever. Because you know it wasn't too long ago I couldn't drink, cook, or bathe in my tap water and they want me to have that going on again.

Dude believe me when I say that I feel for ya man. I grew up in a mining town. I know all about not being able to drink the water.

I do think it's cool that your neighbors have work though.

The point is that these decisions get made in the real world. None of these problems (or their solutions) are as easy as either side would like to make them out to be. If they were that easy, one side might actually be evil. The truth is reality all shades of gray.

[Luneir]

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.

Yes, yes, yes. I don't care if I agree with someone else's political views or not. Censoring them is *not* okay. Besides, I want to know other people's views. I like to keep an open mind philosophically and politically. If there is legitimacy in an argument that I am on the opposing side of, I want to be a part of that, and possibly have my ideals shifted. I want to be as well informed as I can, truly. As long as the arguments aren't based in religious beliefs, I'm really all ears. Even then, I am open to discuss religion in, of itself. It's an intriguing topic.

The only thing that should really be censored and punished, is threats towards a particular person or group of persons. Threats are not okay. Intention of harm is not okay. Same goes to religious people. I strongly believe in freedom of religion, as long as said religion is not based in or around violence or threats. Even if I am not religious myself, I don't think it is okay to make everyone else feel the same way. With that said, along with freedom of speech, comes with dealing with the outcomes of whatever you say. If you say something despicable, and everyone else thinks you are despicable for that, that's your problem bud.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is something that can be punished.

If you finished that section of the wiki you'd have seen:

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".

[derpkitteh]

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

i believe every single member of that riot should have been hunted down and jailed for years.

it was clearly an attack on freedom of speech, and it should NEVER be tolerated.

[DeadmanWalking]

You don't even know what a Nazi is. Pro tip. The people that punch the other political party are the Fascists.

If you really think the entire American right is the new Nazi party. Then maybe we should just have a civil war now and save ourselves a lot of time and aggravation. You're too out of touch to be reasoned with.

Thats the problem with people like you, You don't know what I think and so you leap to assumptions, all you know is I said Nazi's are bad and punch worthy and that triggered you to get all butt hurt so now you are lashing out. I don't think the majority of righties are Nazi's, I think what the Nazi-alt-wrong represent is so small in population that they have to hide behind internet anonymity while pretending to be righties because even racists don't like to be called racists. I think the Alt-wrong are irratating leeches hanging off the asses of proper Righties. The Majority of righties don't want Nazi's in their party but they can't kick the alt-Reich out because they just show up again wearing a different T-shirt. Hell half the conservatives I know don't even know what the alt-wrong are.

Pro-tip, if you don't know who the hell you are talking to try not to make shit up in your head. I know you like to paint yourself as the victim, it helps justify treating others like shit, but you can't spend your days turning everyone who disagrees with you into the boogie man, it's time to put on the big boy pants and own up to your own problems rather than blaming everyone you pretend causes your problems.

[Deleted]

I am not sure if tolerating intolerance is working.

As like tolerating a fascist talking about removing human rights. Or as like tolerating obvious lies by someone who calls himself "president".

Violence is no answer. But responding to those who dont know tollerance is. And not voting for bigot racists is. And using vuvuzelas and whistles at nazi events as like Milo Hypocritopulous open air muslim-hate shows is.

[DeadmanWalking]

The spirit of the first amendment also would seem to protect the people's right to speak their mind and participate in the political process, don't you think?

You're so butthurt you lost a fucking election that you have decided it is okay to inflict violence on those that simply disagree with you. I'm legitimately at a loss. Do you want to live in a democracy or a progressive dictatorship? I suppose the latter can be arranged, but not here. Not without rivers of blood anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



Desperately trying to make this point. Doesn't help when the other side is in full fucking press to dehumanize the American right. Somewhere along the iine we just stopped having the debate and just skipped straghit to the violence against the opposition. I didn't even know violence was on the list of fucking steps.

The first amendment only protects you from being punished by your government. According to the spirit of the law you are welcome to speak your mind, but the 'spirit' of the law does not protect you from the consequences of your speaking your mind from anything but Government. You can't tell your boss to go kill himself and claim first amendment when he fires you. You can't go into a day care and tell all the kids how you are going to bang their moms then claim first amendment when the owner calls the cops on you.

The constitution also says you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.

Truth of the matter is had you been born in another country of another race and religion you would of thought that was the superior race/religion/country because you, like many people, are incapable of looking outside their own existence and always put yourself on the highest column of importance and social worth. Everyone does it to the point that one person going out there telling the world that their race/creed/country is the best is ridiculous and infantile at best.

[Dezerte]

Freedom of speech, freedom from consequences and freedom to a pedestal to preach from. These three seems to get confused with each other all too often when speaking of free speech.

[Zecora]

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.

You've got a Prez who has seen to that all mentions of climate change is removed from government sites, and issued a gag order on climate scientists. Just burn your first amendment already, it's clearly not worth the paper it is written on.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

i believe every single member of that riot should have been hunted down and jailed for years.

it was clearly an attack on freedom of speech, and it should NEVER be tolerated.

It's not an attack on freedom of speech unless it's the government that's doing the attacking.

Freedom of speech is between the person and the government...that's it. It doesn't apply to anything else.

[derpkitteh]

It's not an attack on freedom of speech unless it's the government that's doing the attacking.

Freedom of speech is between the person and the government...that's it. It doesn't apply to anything else.

that's just a convenient way to excuse the silencing of anything you don't like to hear.

freedom of speech must be expanded and forced. anyone threatening it should be punished in the most severe of ways.

[Vargur]

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 now you see why by after some very long intertwined analysis inferring from your post that anarcho-communism is Earth's future.

inb4 "my comment has nothing to do with what you said"