Do you BELIEVE in Freedom of Speech?

[GennGreymane]

A shame most people don't even understand what it is

At least in the US it is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

of course there is plenty of case law much later.

- - - Updated - - -

Certainly, that example doesn't qualify as suppressing objectionable content upon review.
It's completely shortsighted. In fact, it's false, as per the wikipedia article. But I prefer shortsighted, because it often stems from ignorance of consequences.
And you're not even reading my responses. Me ejecting you from my platform can be censorship, but it might not be.

So it must only be objectionable content?

Also no, your response is moot. I say this because I never had a right to your platform, your property in the first place. How can you censor me if I never even had a right to use your property?

[veehro]

Then you're arguing that the "civilized thing" is to assault freedom of speech you disagree with.

Don't you folks usually take issues with hate speech legislation? Since hate speech is directly harmful in ways that the websites you're complaining about are not.



Yeah, that's abject nonsense. Those girls were suspended over their actions. All the Internet outrage did was get their actions noticed.



Did their parents get fired? I'm guessing by how you said "tried", they didn't.

So no. I don't see how they're a "hazard". I see you complaining about people being free to say things you personally disagree with.



Oh, bollocks. Suspensions almost never involve "a conversation", other than perhaps a short discussion between teachers and the administration of the school.
You don't have to ask the girls to explain; it's obvious from the image.
It doesn't matter if it was "just a joke"; it's still worth a suspension.

And they didn't "miss the whole year". It was a 5-day suspension. Don't exaggerate ridiculously.

And again, they were suspended for their actions. Not because a bunch of people complained. That's not how anything works.

Endus listen mate you can pretend you don't understand the problem so let me simplify it then.

In a normal society people talk to each other and the best ideas come on top.

How ever lately there are some ideological driven people who refuse to talk to any one. They impose their ideology upon others. And when some one refuses to follow their ideology or challenges it, they join in groups and get people fired in order to make an example of what happens to people who challenge them.

An example of such ideology here in europe can be massive uncontrolled imigration. If you talk against it then its hate speech and you will have no border activists who will try to get you fired.
How ever at no time where people polled or asked if we're ok with it it was just dictated down upon us by the rulling elites.


Now if people like you are saying that getting other fried is free speech. Then i will have to find like minded individuals (and believe me it wont be hard considering my youtube channel is getting 70k subs now) and have a dialogue with these no border activists by doxing and trying to get them fired in return.
and also have a dialogue with companies that have rules against these things by calling them out and offer social pressure upon them. Because while they are free companies and can do whatever they want, so too as individuals can have the power to do whatever we want and publicly shame those companies and make memes out of their brands.

And i honestly don't see how you can complain since you've just said that this type of activism is now considered free speech and is nothing wrong with it.

[Deleted]

So it must only be objectionable content?

Also no, your response is moot. I say this because I never had a right to your platform, your property in the first place. How can you censor me if I never even had a right to use your property?

I must find it objectionable. If it is or it isn't is subjective.
Censorship has nothing to do with rights. And neither does the Churchill quote that you're failing to abide by.

[GennGreymane]

I must find it objectionable. If it is or it isn't is subjective.
Censorship has nothing to do with rights. And neither does the Churchill quote that you're failing to abide by.

Uuuuhhhhhhhh...... are you aware of what free speech is considered? Or was this just an elaborate joke.

[Deleted]

Uuuuhhhhhhhh...... are you aware of what free speech is considered? Or was this just an elaborate joke.

Are you aware that governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. ?

[GennGreymane]

Are you aware that governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. ?

If speech is not A right according to you, then it's irrelevant

[Endus]

Endus listen mate you can pretend you don't understand the problem so let me simplify it then.

In a normal society people talk to each other and the best ideas come on top.

How ever lately there are some ideological driven people who refuse to talk to any one. They impose their ideology upon others. And when some one refuses to follow their ideology or challenges it, they join in groups and get people fired in order to make an example of what happens to people who challenge them.

I get that you want this to be true, but it isn't. There's no mechanism for the public to "get people fired". The employer in question is firing that employee for their own reasons, not because some crowd of people somehow forced their hand.

You're just flat-out ignoring that the outcry you're complaining about is just speech, and the employers are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, including ignoring them.

An example of such ideology here in europe can be massive uncontrolled imigration. If you talk against it then its hate speech and you will have no border activists who will try to get you fired.

And? Explain how your views aren't racist.

That's what free exchange looks like. Not you trying to silence those you disagree with.

How ever at no time where people polled or asked if we're ok with it it was just dictated down upon us by the rulling elites.

Oh, bollocks. European nations are pretty much all democratically elected governments. You get your say when you vote.

Now if people like you are saying that getting other fried is free speech. Then i will have to find like minded individuals (and believe me it wont be hard considering my youtube channel is getting 70k subs now) and have a dialogue with these no border activists by doxing and trying to get them fired in return.
and also have a dialogue with companies that have rules against these things by calling them out and offer social pressure upon them. Because while they are free companies and can do whatever they want, so too as individuals can have the power to do whatever we want and publicly shame those companies and make memes out of their brands.

And i honestly don't see how you can complain since you've just said that this type of activism is now considered free speech and is nothing wrong with it.

You realize that's not a new threat, right? Folks like yourself have been doing this stuff for decades, if not centuries. Look at the outcry against the Dixie Chicks, when they dared speak out against George Bush. That outcry already exists, and you don't see me calling for it to be silenced.

[Deleted]

If speech is not A right according to you, then it's irrelevant

You're the one railing against the reasonable idea that censorship is not exclusive to states and legislation.
Something no reasonable person would argue. Something that I offered here as something that often causes an outrage. Something that you predictably mounted an outrage about.
Free speech is a right as it concerns the US legislation. That, in no way denies that censorship is not only performed by states.

- - - Updated - - -

How ever at no time where people polled or asked if we're ok with it it was just dictated down upon us by the rulling elites.

Democracy, son. You people voted your representatives. Get used to it, for it's a wonderful thing.

[Vyuvarax]

No one with a functioning brain thinks you should be able to say anything you want publicly without fear of repercussion.

[GennGreymane]

You're the one railing against the reasonable idea that censorship is not exclusive to states and legislation.
Something no reasonable person would argue. Something that I offered here as something that often causes an outrage. Something that you predictably mounted an outrage about.
Free speech is a right as it concerns the US legislation. That, in no way denies that censorship is not only performed by states.

- - - Updated - - -


Democracy, son. You people voted your representatives. Get used to it, for it's a wonderful thing.

no we used the term reasonable in describing my dad sending me to my room. Hate to say I would have no constitutional grounds agasint him.

[Deleted]

no we used the term reasonable in describing my dad sending me to my room. Hate to say I would have no constitutional grounds agasint him.

You would not. Because him censoring your attitude is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but more importantly, completely within the law.

[GennGreymane]

You would not. Because him censoring your attitude is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but more importantly, completely within the law.

So via the government?

[Deleted]

So via the government?

I don't understand.

[Hablion]

Freedom of Speech you have the Right to Say what you want, however, you are not immune of the Consequences of what you Speak. Hence why police say "You have the right to remain Silent, Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand.

What GennGreymane is saying the same comment you made could be used in regards to the state as well (at least that is what i think he is saying)

[Deleted]

What GennGreymane is saying the same comment you made could be used in regards to the state as well (at least that is what i think he is saying)

I still don't understand. But generally yes. Many things can be said about other things.

[Theodarzna]

I think they're actually convinced.
Or at least sees it as a consistent retort to complains of censorship. Which is what's actually at stake: the legitimacy of the heckler's veto.

Though, to be frank, I find the exchange entirely dysfunctional on either end.
On the one side you have people pretending provocateurs like Milo to be upstanding defenders of free speech. They fail to strong man their argument.
On the other, you have shrieking snowflakes that never bothered to understand what power is. That will bite them in the ass long term.

Speech has always involved consequences, but in the past these consequences were primarily local and involved direct social relationships. As I alluded earlier, the issue is now that the heckler can just be anyone from anywhere who can wield disproportionate levels of power and may personally have zero connection the events or discussion.

Plus I'd seriously doubt the point of people being allowed to hold a political or any opinion but never being allowed to practically articulate it. That is akin to saying I can use my native language all I want, I'm just never allowed to speak it around anyone because I might be assaulted if word of it gets out.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of Speech you have the Right to Say what you want, however, you are not immune of the Consequences of what you Speak. Hence why police say "You have the right to remain Silent, Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

Who governs what is a proportional response?

Lets play this game, lets say someone holds a view you don't like. Can you try and break up that persons marriage? Can you dox and hack their personal information and create fake blogs about them that is claiming they are a sexual predator? What is the line or limit of the Hecklers Veto anyway? I know some here feel its whatever can be gotten away with in their Might Makes Right worldview, but I don't see that as ethical.

[Hyxi]

Freedom of Speech you have the Right to Say what you want, however, you are not immune of the Consequences of what you Speak.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

In the context of the 1st Amendment, it literally means there should be no consequences from any entity covered by the 1st Amendment.

The goto for stopping people from exercising their rights these days is the threat of their employer being harassed into firing them over shit that shouldn't even qualify as controversial. This is that "consequences" bullshit and it shits all over the spirit of the 1A.

[Hablion]

Speech has always involved consequences, but in the past these consequences were primarily local and involved direct social relationships. As I alluded earlier, the issue is now that the heckler can just be anyone from anywhere who can wield disproportionate levels of power and may personally have zero connection the events or discussion.

Plus I'd seriously doubt the point of people being allowed to hold a political or any opinion but never being allowed to practically articulate it. That is akin to saying I can use my native language all I want, I'm just never allowed to speak it around anyone because I might be assaulted if word of it gets out.

- - - Updated - - -



Who governs what is a proportional response?

Lets play this game, lets say someone holds a view you don't like. Can you try and break up that persons marriage? Can you dox and hack their personal information and create fake blogs about them that is claiming they are a sexual predator? What is the line or limit of the Hecklers Veto anyway? I know some here feel its whatever can be gotten away with in their Might Makes Right worldview, but I don't see that as ethical.

Someone Can but they will likely end up in legal issues since there would be consequences for doing such things which could vary from Slander to harassment which in return would lead to fines, Lawsuits and or Jail time.

[Theodarzna]

Someone Can but they will likely end up in legal issues since there would be consequences for doing such things which could vary from Slander to harassment which in return would lead to fines, Lawsuits and or Jail time.

All of which takes time, the effects of their actions however have still happened. The question is, what is a proportional hecklers veto or is there one?

[Hablion]

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

In the context of the 1st Amendment, it literally means there should be no consequences from any entity covered by the 1st Amendment.

The goto for stopping people from exercising their rights these days is the threat of their employer being harassed into firing them over shit that shouldn't even qualify as controversial. This is that "consequences" bullshit and it shits all over the spirit of the 1A.

What it means when the police say that is you have the RIGHT to remain silent so you do not unknowingly incriminate yourself since everything you say can/will be used against you if you go to court for whatever it was reason it was you were arrested. For Example if you were on trial for murder and told the cop on site that you murdered those people in cold blood then that can and would be used against you since you willingly gave that information.