Freedom Of Speech

A forum for the respectful exchange of views on thought-provoking topics, whether sexuality-related or otherwise; please read the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

Is the direction Freedom of Speech is heading positive or negative?

Negative
11
58%
Positive
3
16%
Neither
5
26%
 
Total votes : 19

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Mawd » 16th February, 2017, 10:02 pm

Freeze peach means you can be a cunt but using free speech to be a cunt to someone wearing a Maga hat is authoritarianism?

Huh. Pretty weird doublethink there.

Mainstream wingnut pundits were chewing at the bit over the idea of a Hillary win, they talked about mass protests and 'the people' rising up to take back Washington by force if necessary, couched in their usual barely-below-calling-for-violence fever pitch.

"Someones gotta do something! We need a hero to rise up and do something! I'm so sick of all the crime these liberals and minorities think they can get away with. They're afraid of our guns because they have every right to be!"

Yet millions of people are rising up in peacful protest and wingnuts are doing everything they can to portray them as majoritovely violent riotings instead of the smaller occurances they are.

Don't pretend that most of the people aren't taking part in completely peacful activism.

Also I'm sure its been pointed out already but freeze peach is about government censorship not about private citizens telling people to go fuck themselves.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7357
Likes received: 111
Joined: 6th March, 2011, 5:37 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 16th February, 2017, 10:21 pm

Mawd wrote:Freeze peach means you can be a cunt but using free speech to be a cunt to someone wearing a Maga hat is authoritarianism?


Mawd wrote:Yet millions of people are rising up in peacful protest and wingnuts are doing everything they can to portray them as majoritovely violent riotings instead of the smaller occurances they are.


Where were the wingnuts claiming the women marches were violent? Oh, right, that didn't happen. Small protests you say? Smashing windows and burning a car on fire because Trump was inaugurated must be a small protest. Destroying businesses, looting stores, and assaulting people because Milo Y. was going to speak at U.C. Berkley must also be a small protest.

Mawd wrote:Don't pretend that most of the people aren't taking part in completely peacful activism.


While correct, but an overwhelming plurality are not. This violence is not happening on the right. I know, I know, you will bring up right-wingers attacking Muslims and gays (although quite a few of these cases have been debunked), but they are not happening in protests.

When you participate in a protest specifically to limit free speech, you are still part of the problem.

Also I'm sure its been pointed out already but freeze peach is about government censorship not about private citizens telling people to go fuck themselves.[/quote]
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3028
Likes received: 477
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Mawd » 16th February, 2017, 11:39 pm

Pity wrote:
Mawd wrote:Yet millions of people are rising up in peacful protest and wingnuts are doing everything they can to portray them as majoritovely violent riotings instead of the smaller occurances they are.


Where were the wingnuts claiming the women marches were violent? Oh, right, that didn't happen. Small protests you say? Smashing windows and burning a car on fire because Trump was inaugurated must be a small protest. Destroying businesses, looting stores, and assaulting people because Milo Y. was going to speak at U.C. Berkley must also be a small protest.


It's a small event in a larger protest. People were talking about violence in the airport protests.
Of the few thousand people that protested at Berkley, a group of around thirty were identified as black block protesters, with their behaviour, a small group of people are suspected to have joined in making perhaps 100 people total. A small group of people can 'destroy' a business if you reduce the definition of 'destroying a business' to breaking windows and stealing some stock. Again it only takes a small group of people to do the damage you're talking about, if it was a very large amount of people then the numbers would have been higher.

Campus investigates, assesses damage from Feb. 1 violence

Correction, the actual numbers of the rioting protests is estimated at 150 people from UC Berkley's report. 150 in 1500 10% of the protesters which is a significant number, however this group of 'paramilitary' themed protesters clearly operates outside the known values of the majority of left wing protesters. You're talking about a specific group of people that set out to organise and do this. The fact is that the majority of left wing protesters are not out throwing molotov cocktails and burning cars.

It is important to note that Berkley chancellor Nicholas Dirks made the statement that
“We appreciate the efforts of our police and Student Affairs staff to protect the rights of both speaker and protesters and their commitment to public safety and minimizing injuries.”

This highlights that Berkley does not condemn the actions of the protesters themselves in exercising their free speech. He instead condemns the actions of the 150 odd rioters.

Yet the narrative you're listening to is doing its best to correlate the two groups as one and the same.

Pity wrote:While correct, but an overwhelming plurality are not. This violence is not happening on the right. I know, I know, you will bring up right-wingers attacking Muslims and gays (although quite a few of these cases have been debunked), but they are not happening in protests.

When you participate in a protest specifically to limit free speech, you are still part of the problem.


Protesting to limit free speech? That sounds like a very sensitive double standard. People are giving voice to their problems. They're exercising their free speech. They're exercising themselves because they are not being heard through the normal means of communication, they're exercising themselves because the government is not listening to their concerns and in many cases is choosing to actively ignore them -see the town hall debates or Trump failing to recognise that he's been contacted by the CBC.
These protests are specifically to make the current political establishment account for the millions of people they've inherited power over that they are currently making life worse for through their policy decisions. In the case of UC Berkley it's a demonstration of the disapproval many people have for a highly toxic political activist being invited to give a speech which many see is a tacit form of legitimisation. It's to show that while some people agree with him and find value in his words, many people disagree with him, and do not agree that he should be given an elevated platform. They're just there to voice their opinions.

Martin Luther King frequently said that riots are the language of the unheard and that we must condemn the conditions that cause riots as strongly as we condemn riots themselves.

Actually I wasn't going to use supposedly debunked cases of violence. Although clearly right wingers have been murdering black churchgoers, Muslims, and gays given the rhetoric inspired terrorism events that have occurred in the recent years.
What I would instead be saying if you hadn't taken the liberty of talking for me is that the right wing news machine is selectively ramping up any event of protesters misbehaving to reinforce a narrative of overly violent protests.

Also if you are going to ignore reports about attacks against minorities spiking in the wake of the current political climate especially when Trump ended up making a statement to call for people to stop then you really do seem to live in an alternate world. These actions are a form of political suppression and it really is people going beyond the bounds of free speech.

Look at the most recent published FBI statistics for hate crimes in the US that was released in Fall 2016.

The overwhelming breakdown of these hate crimes was by race (that was further broken down to be primarily against black people (52%), second was white (18%)) following on from this was hate crimes sparked by religious bias and hate crimes revolving around homosexual bigotry. The top reason for religious hate crimes wasn't anti Muslim sentiment it was anti Jewish sentiment.

Most of the violence was directed against individuals. Most of the violence was against the person rather than property. Most of the violence was classed as intimidation however a mere 4% points behind was simple assaults.

CNN reported that overall it's a 6% increase in hate crime violence from the previous year and a further sharp rise in the number of attacks on Muslims, growing to numbers not seen since 2001.

So yeah it turns out if you look at the raw numbers most of the violence regarding hate crimes falls along standard right wing talking points almost like right wing freeze peach is encouraging people to normalise violence against certain minority groups.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7357
Likes received: 111
Joined: 6th March, 2011, 5:37 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby George » 17th February, 2017, 4:48 am

Look, punching a man who calls for ethnic cleansing is not wrong. After he was punched (twice, I'd like to add, because someone was fortunate enough to recognise him) he published a video, asking whether or not it was safe to openly practice national socialist views because Americans had began to adopt "European [Read, in his words, Baseball Bat Wielding] Anti-Fascism".

Is it so wrong to silence people like him? They most certainly wouldnt tolerate us, or our views, or our way of life. In history, so many movements - the LGBT movement, the Black Civil Rights Movement, the Indian Liberation Movement, the Irish Devolution movement, the Womens' Rights Movement - have all had to use violence to gain what they needed because there are people who simply will not listen to debate. If you could debate people like Spencer, I would advocate it. But if you could debate national socialism it would have been killed at the dispatch box, not in the battlefield.

To be entirely honest, the people pulling the "oh but he's entitled for free speech you're just empowering him" line are really copping out. This is a man that wants to clear the US of non-white races. A man who was called for action against Jews. A man who has "Seig heil"'d at a rally, who has called Gays immoral and curable, and promotes "traditional" [Read; anti-women] family values. Its entirely valid to silence a view like that because it does not fit in in our society, and I feel the exact same way about hate preachers and other groups. Don't ever, ever call me the "tolerant" left. I'm not tolerant. I'm tolerant of people who can't choose to change something about themselves, like their gender, skin colour, or sexuality. I'm intolerant of people who feel that "well he's black ergo he's subhuman" is a legitimate political stance to have. I support equality of people who are ready to accept it, and no more/no less.

In regards to free speech as a whole, absolutely not. Free Speech is being completely abused by people. It is legitimate to have concerns about immigration. It is not legitimate to go on a rant about how you wouldn't want to live nextdoor to Romanians, but Germans are okay, but when someone calls you out you cry "INTOLERANT LEFT SILENCING ME".

In the interests of the Greater Good, the progression of peoples and the preservation of order and societal harmony, Free Speech does need to be narrowed. Criticism of the government, or of ideas, is perfectly acceptable. Debate is perfectly acceptable. "Gas the kikes", is not. Freedom of Speech doesnt exist as a philosophical concept. Its been perverted into a faux-philosophy by people who believe it to be a wide concept rather than a right against a government. You have a right to say things without the government imprisoning you, just as I have the right to use any method under the law to stop you saying it providing I am not an executor of the law itself.
Image
Image Hi, I'm George. Never met Me before? Image
User avatar
George
Diaper Rash
 
First name: George
Posts: 1858
Likes received: 102
Joined: 11th December, 2012, 11:56 am
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 17th February, 2017, 8:13 am

@George *moves George pin on my chart from liberal to communist*

George wrote:Look, punching a man who calls for ethnic cleansing is not wrong.

How is it not? Has he ever committed ethnic cleansing? No. He just has a different opinions than you. Using this logic, I can apply it to anything I disagree with. "Look, punching a woman who calls for free birth control is not wrong." Ridiculous, right?

George wrote:Is it so wrong to silence people like him? They most certainly wouldnt tolerate us, or our views, or our way of life.

Yes, they have the right to speak their opinion, even if you don't like it. I don't care if Spencer or other white nationalists hate gay people; it's their moral and legal right to.

George wrote:Its entirely valid to silence a view like that because it does not fit in in our society


This is easy to deconstruct. Civil rights for minorities did not fit society 60 years ago, so was it okay to assault and kill black people for peacefully protesting and speaking?

At an objective face value, what makes your argument any more valid than, say, a Nazi's? Absolutely nothing. Opinion and political truth is subjective.

George wrote:I have the right to use any method under the law to stop you saying it providing I am not an executor of the law itself.

Yes, you have the right not to attend someone's speech and protest peacefully. That is it.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3028
Likes received: 477
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 17th February, 2017, 8:21 am

Mawd wrote:The actual numbers of the rioting protests is estimated at 150 people from UC Berkley's report. 150 in 1500 10% of the protesters which is a significant number, however this group of 'paramilitary' themed protesters clearly operates outside the known values of the majority of left wing protesters.


10% is still a large number and they still do operate within the left wing. While, yes, many of those are Antifa (Anti-fascist paramilitary group), the protest in general was about silencing free speech. The violence itself was just icing on the cake.

Mawd wrote:The fact is that the majority of left wing protesters are not out throwing molotov cocktails and burning cars.


Correct. But they support that behavior by protesting free speech in the first place. And even if a minority are the ones destroying properly and assaulting people, the percentage is far too large to pretend they don't, at least partially, represent the intolerance of the left.

I know there is a lot of hate violence, but they are not in waves of protests like liberals are doing. I would respond further and more in-depth, but I have to go to school now.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3028
Likes received: 477
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Mawd » 17th February, 2017, 8:25 am

They're not protesting free speech they're exercising their own free speech. Meanwhile the intolerance of the right is shown through the spiking rates of hate crimes.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7357
Likes received: 111
Joined: 6th March, 2011, 5:37 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby JonathanT88 » 17th February, 2017, 8:29 am

Pity wrote:Correct. But they support that behavior by protesting free speech in the first place. And even if a minority are the ones destroying properly and assaulting people, the percentage is far too large to pretend they don't, at least partially, represent the intolerance of the left.


The majority of the protesters were not violent and the majority of the left are not protesters. I don't see how they can partially represent the "intolerance of the left" when they're 1) such a small minority and 2) you have no evidence that those on the left even condone the violence of some protesters (surely the fact that 90% of students HAVEN'T got involved in the less tasteful aspect of the protests suggest this is not the case?) If I am to take the violence of the minority as representative of the partial intolerance of the majority, then surely there's a case to be made for neo-Nazis and white supremacists "partially representing" the intolerance of the right? I don't believe this to be the case, but it's hypocritical for you to suggest otherwise.

The link between left-wing and violence is becoming so tenuous it's starting to look like you're actively trying to discredit leftism by association. You're grasping at straws here.

And before you accuse me of being an intolerant leftist myself, I disagree with the others by thinking that ALL the protesters are wrong. Milo's event was organised by an official university society (the Republican group) and can thus be taken as representative of the (currently less vocal) Republican students' will to see him speak. It was an event set up for a distinct student group by a student organisation, and I think it should have been continued on these grounds. Nevertheless, I don't resent the protesters for rallying against the event, because they are allowed to disagree with me. That's freedom of speech too.
Gudrun wrote:

"How many times have I told you? Homosexuality is only to be used for revolutionary purposes!"

Image ImageImage

ImageImageImage
User avatar
JonathanT88
Horny Jonathan of the Homosexual Intifada
 
First name: Jonathan (duh.)
Posts: 4875
Likes received: 391
Joined: 1st June, 2013, 1:19 pm
Location: Scottish Highlands
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Togetik » 17th February, 2017, 9:16 am

JonathanT88 wrote:And before you accuse me of being an intolerant leftist myself, I disagree with the others by thinking that ALL the protesters are wrong. Milo's event was organised by an official university society (the Republican group) and can thus be taken as representative of the (currently less vocal) Republican students' will to see him speak. It was an event set up for a distinct student group by a student organisation, and I think it should have been continued on these grounds. Nevertheless, I don't resent the protesters for rallying against the event, because they are allowed to disagree with me. That's freedom of speech too.


I feel like an event set up by a student organisation that the majority do not want to occur, with a speaker who is actively saying harmful things about the kind of people who are also students there is perfectly justifiable to be shut down. I don't really understand why you think here that because an official society set it up, that it should be allowed regardless of if it's offensive to other students when most students don't even want it to go ahead? I guess I get the core of the argument, but I disagree
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 589
Likes received: 79
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 17th February, 2017, 10:28 am

@Mawd, I am not saying it isn't liberals' right to protest a speaker, but they are in denial if they claim they are intolerant. Yes, even if you prost peacefully, you are acting against the freedom of speech.

@Jon, see above. Also, I am not blanketedly nassociating liberalism to intolerance, but it is heading in that direction. They are becoming intolerant of anyone who disagrees. I am glad you agree Milo should jave been able to speak.

@Toge, so what if the majority of students want him there? There's an easy solution: don't attend! Ah, yes, the Jewish faggot who is exclusively into black guys is so harmful to the campus and has to be shut down for having right-wing positions. If I, or College Republicans, find(s) a liberal transgender speaker offensive because he/she talks down to white cisgender straight men, does this mean I/we should protest and march in the streets?
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3028
Likes received: 477
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Togetik » 17th February, 2017, 11:08 am

Oh boy sure are pulling out the "I'm the real victim" straw men now, aren't we

You're talking about silencing the voice of the majority because you don't agree. "If the majority doesn't like it, they should ignore it" is the literal antithesis of free speech and you're advocating for the silencing of the majority in favor of letting some antisemetic alt-righter speak for a tiny group of people.

Hate speech targeted at students that attend the venue sure is exactly the same as you being a little baby about superficial traits on a speaker
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 589
Likes received: 79
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Arty » 17th February, 2017, 11:25 am

bluesunstorm wrote:Calling ideas "ignorant" is often warranted, especially when those ideas seek to limit the rights of others. I don't think it makes me a bigot if I don't treat the opinions of someone who's a neo-Nazi (Richard Spencer) as equal or worthy of wasting my time debating. It's not like people with extreme viewpoints are likely to ever change them anyway, no matter how logical, rational, or factual a counterpoint is. I'm not going to treat the advocation of "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and "gay marriage shouldn't be legal because gay men aren't interested in monogamy anyway" as equal to any ordinary opinion. The last opinion ignores gay women, is a straight man speaking on behalf of gay men, and seeks to limit equal civil rights. That's an aspect of this "freedom of speech" argument I have an issue with - people are "intolerant" if they don't want to entertain opinions like these or see them as equal/normal, especially when said opinions promote social inequity, discrimination, white supremacy, stereotyping, scapegoating, etc.


It does make you a bigot, and I never said you can't call ideas ignorant or people ignorant, it's just nonintellectual and doesn't help progress anything, which is what Liberalism is in 2017 so I don't know why I expected that point to be well received to be honest...

As for Richard Spencers opinions being unworthy of your time debating, that's fine, no one said that you MUST debate him. If you think it's a waste of your time to do it, don't, other people will. Silencing him and punching him does NOTHING but encourage his views and reinforce his view and gives him mass media attention. Debating an opinion is anywhere the same as holding it to be equal/normal. It doesn't matter how illogical an argument is, that's not grounds for silencing it. Like I've said before, who decides who's entitled to Free speech? Being a Neo Nazi is undoubtedly stupid and most people consider it stupid, but being an Anti-vaxxer is stupid too, should we shut them down too? They indirectly cause the suffering of a lot of people, so if anything they do harm and promote an ideology that's far worse than modern day "Neo Nazi's"

Example wrote:you can say whatever you want
just be ready for the consequences after


:applause: :applause:

Togetik wrote:The only people complaining about free speech in the western world are right wingers who either don't understand it, or are using it disingenuously.

You do not have a right to be listened to, accepted or given a platform for your speech. You do have a right to your own opinions, you don't have the right to be free from consequences of said opinions.

To claim otherwise is literally the antithesis of free speech.


Your argument makes no sense, like, at all.

Freedom of Speech: the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

I think you have the right to be free from consequences when they're literally illegal avts of assault :rofl: . No one has said that you have the right to be free of consequences, you should have the right to not be fucking assaulted for expressing your view. No one has claimed anything you just said, having a right to your own opinions is an inherent and obvious right that doesn't need to be reiterated, the government has no way of knowing your opinions before they come out by way of speech ect, it's not the "having", it's the "expressing".

The whole "you don't have the right to be listened to" thing doesn't make sense to me, no one ever suggested that, I mean, obviously? :applause: It doesn't really tie into the current debate anyway.

Ω wrote:I think the issue is many right wingers misinterpret the right to freedom of speech as the right to be a cunt.


This isn't worthy of debate and is just a catchy phrase people have been throwing around that doesn't make sense.

Mawd wrote:Freeze peach means you can be a cunt but using free speech to be a cunt to someone wearing a Maga hat is authoritarianism?

Huh. Pretty weird doublethink there.

Mainstream wingnut pundits were chewing at the bit over the idea of a Hillary win, they talked about mass protests and 'the people' rising up to take back Washington by force if necessary, couched in their usual barely-below-calling-for-violence fever pitch.

"Someones gotta do something! We need a hero to rise up and do something! I'm so sick of all the crime these liberals and minorities think they can get away with. They're afraid of our guns because they have every right to be!"

Yet millions of people are rising up in peacful protest and wingnuts are doing everything they can to portray them as majoritovely violent riotings instead of the smaller occurances they are.

Don't pretend that most of the people aren't taking part in completely peacful activism.

Also I'm sure its been pointed out already but freeze peach is about government censorship not about private citizens telling people to go fuck themselves.


Okay you liter
What you described as what the right were doing is literally exactly what the left is doing right now, so many left wingers are talking about "resistance" and what not, Celebrities you name it.
I don't know who's ever said that they're "Majoritovely" violent protests, but a lot of the protests have had violent elements and the leftist media do nothing to condemn it.



George wrote:Look, punching a man who calls for ethnic cleansing is not wrong. After he was punched (twice, I'd like to add, because someone was fortunate enough to recognise him) he published a video, asking whether or not it was safe to openly practice national socialist views because Americans had began to adopt "European [Read, in his words, Baseball Bat Wielding] Anti-Fascism".

Is it so wrong to silence people like him? They most certainly wouldnt tolerate us, or our views, or our way of life. In history, so many movements - the LGBT movement, the Black Civil Rights Movement, the Indian Liberation Movement, the Irish Devolution movement, the Womens' Rights Movement - have all had to use violence to gain what they needed because there are people who simply will not listen to debate. If you could debate people like Spencer, I would advocate it. But if you could debate national socialism it would have been killed at the dispatch box, not in the battlefield.

To be entirely honest, the people pulling the "oh but he's entitled for free speech you're just empowering him" line are really copping out. This is a man that wants to clear the US of non-white races. A man who was called for action against Jews. A man who has "Seig heil"'d at a rally, who has called Gays immoral and curable, and promotes "traditional" [Read; anti-women] family values. Its entirely valid to silence a view like that because it does not fit in in our society, and I feel the exact same way about hate preachers and other groups. Don't ever, ever call me the "tolerant" left. I'm not tolerant. I'm tolerant of people who can't choose to change something about themselves, like their gender, skin colour, or sexuality. I'm intolerant of people who feel that "well he's black ergo he's subhuman" is a legitimate political stance to have. I support equality of people who are ready to accept it, and no more/no less.

In regards to free speech as a whole, absolutely not. Free Speech is being completely abused by people. It is legitimate to have concerns about immigration. It is not legitimate to go on a rant about how you wouldn't want to live nextdoor to Romanians, but Germans are okay, but when someone calls you out you cry "INTOLERANT LEFT SILENCING ME".

In the interests of the Greater Good, the progression of peoples and the preservation of order and societal harmony, Free Speech does need to be narrowed. Criticism of the government, or of ideas, is perfectly acceptable. Debate is perfectly acceptable. "Gas the kikes", is not. Freedom of Speech doesnt exist as a philosophical concept. Its been perverted into a faux-philosophy by people who believe it to be a wide concept rather than a right against a government. You have a right to say things without the government imprisoning you, just as I have the right to use any method under the law to stop you saying it providing I am not an executor of the law itself.


Punching anyone iswrong, punching anyone for their opinions is counter-productive, pointless and regressive. What does it achieve? Rien. That lovely list of unacceptable opinions you listed isn't an argument, I don't know what you think you're achieving by saying "look how bad his views are of course we should punch him". This is exactly the same frame of thought that restricted Gay rights and every other minority rights you can think of. "being gay is unacceptable in our society" blah blah. I'm obviously not saying that Neo Nazis and gays are the same but I'm saying, in a broader spectrum, silencing views you think are wrong is regressive, it wont progress society, that's why we should allow the expression of all views, so we can learn and progress as a society, as it happened with gay rights. If an idea is outdated, stupid and unacceptable for the majority of people, it wont gain traction anywhere, it will die, or say stagnant.

what is legitimate? saying you don't want to live next to Romanians is bigoted, yes, but it shouldn't be illegal to say that :rofl: . I mean, do you genuinely think it should be illegal to say "I don't like Romanians"?

If someone were to make a satire of a Liberal, it would be you. I'm sorry. You're a walking caricature of everything that's wrong with Modern Liberals, you can't change the definition of free speech and restrict it, when you restrict free speech, you restrict democracy, and liberty, pillars upon which western civilization stands. Everyone who has ever restricted free speech and enforced opinions on people thought that their opinion was the best, and the rest are unacceptable. That is what you are doing.

We've censored, attacked, destroyed the extreme right, Fascism, Nazism, because of it's past. Yet we as a generation largely embrace Communism, an ideology that has killed so many more people than Fascism has? Leftism gets let off the hook.

Togetik wrote:Oh boy sure are pulling out the "I'm the real victim" straw men now, aren't we

You're talking about silencing the voice of the majority because you don't agree. "If the majority doesn't like it, they should ignore it" is the literal antithesis of free speech and you're advocating for the silencing of the majority in favor of letting some antisemetic alt-righter speak for a tiny group of people.

Hate speech targeted at students that attend the venue sure is exactly the same as you being a little baby about superficial traits on a speaker


HOW THE HELL IS A JEW ANTI-SEMITIC????? you are confusing taking action to respect free speech which is what happened at Berkeley to expressing your own views. the latter is right and the former is wrong. Telling the Majority to not oppress the views of the Minority is literally the opposite of silencing people, you mug. No one said the Majority can't express their views and debate the opinion, me and pity have been advocating debate instead of shutting down free speech
User avatar
Arty
Fialure
 
Posts: 1950
Likes received: 14
Joined: 30th November, 2013, 6:09 pm

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby freakism » 17th February, 2017, 12:23 pm

being an Anti-vaxxer is stupid too, should we shut them down too?

...yes

Their "beliefs" have no factual basis and are dangerous to society. By allowing them to be debated rather than ignored one provides a level of legitimacy to their belief by putting it on an equal footing with someone who has a large body of evidence to show why they are wrong.
A similar thing happens with climate change, particularly on the BBC which has to provide "balanced" coverage. They usually try to achieve this balance by having someone with opposing views come onto a show. If a well respected scientist comes on the radio or television to discuss the causes and effects of climate change, providing a wealth of evidence then there's usually another person, often with less respect and certainly less evidence. They say that the evidence is "wrong" or "false" or can't be used as evidence at all, and when someone goes around like that it's becomes rather difficult to rebuff them beyond saying "well you're quantifiably wrong". This puts the anti-vaxxer, the anti-climate changer, etc. on a similar footing, with a similar precedence, to someone with a beneficial and often rigorously supported idea.

And the same thing happens with people who espouse hateful idea and ideologies. Why on earth should we give someone equal treatment if it's clear that it's harmful. Would you like representatives from Daesh/so-called Islamic State to come onto US college campuses and be provided with opportunities to discuss their thoughts and beliefs? Attempting to convert fellow muslims to radicalism, to protect the purity of an arab or muslim race? To defend their beliefs on a woman's place and what to do with homosexuals?
GTF House Cup 2016 - Team Middle Earth
User avatar
freakism
Head tllt boy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
First name: Harry
Posts: 504
Likes received: 127
Joined: 13th June, 2016, 12:44 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Arty » 17th February, 2017, 12:45 pm

freakism wrote:
being an Anti-vaxxer is stupid too, should we shut them down too?

...yes

Their "beliefs" have no factual basis and are dangerous to society. By allowing them to be debated rather than ignored one provides a level of legitimacy to their belief by putting it on an equal footing with someone who has a large body of evidence to show why they are wrong.
A similar thing happens with climate change, particularly on the BBC which has to provide "balanced" coverage. They usually try to achieve this balance by having someone with opposing views come onto a show. If a well respected scientist comes on the radio or television to discuss the causes and effects of climate change, providing a wealth of evidence then there's usually another person, often with less respect and certainly less evidence. They say that the evidence is "wrong" or "false" or can't be used as evidence at all, and when someone goes around like that it's becomes rather difficult to rebuff them beyond saying "well you're quantifiably wrong". This puts the anti-vaxxer, the anti-climate changer, etc. on a similar footing, with a similar precedence, to someone with a beneficial and often rigorously supported idea.

And the same thing happens with people who espouse hateful idea and ideologies. Why on earth should we give someone equal treatment if it's clear that it's harmful. Would you like representatives from Daesh/so-called Islamic State to come onto US college campuses and be provided with opportunities to discuss their thoughts and beliefs? Attempting to convert fellow muslims to radicalism, to protect the purity of an arab or muslim race? To defend their beliefs on a woman's place and what to do with homosexuals?


So we should force vaccinate everyone against their will and imprison anyone who says you shouldn't vaccinate their child? :applause: Stuff like climate change isn't opinion based, whereas politics almost entirely is, I should've probably used a more political example than vaccinations.

Your second point is a complete false equivalency, ISIS advocate murder, oppression and a plethora of other illegal activities... I'm not defending people who incite violence, Richard Spencers views are in my opinion wrong but they don't incite violence against people like ISIS does. Spencer or Milo speaking is harmful how? The only harm is when you refuse to give them freedom of speech and you're setting back western civilization back 200 years.
User avatar
Arty
Fialure
 
Posts: 1950
Likes received: 14
Joined: 30th November, 2013, 6:09 pm

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby George » 17th February, 2017, 2:18 pm

Pity wrote:Has he ever committed ethnic cleansing? No. He just has a different opinions than you. Using this logic, I can apply it to anything I disagree with. "Look, punching a woman who calls for free birth control is not wrong." Ridiculous, right?

By that right, Hitler did nothing wrong. He never committed ethnic cleansing; he told others it was necessary and they did it.
He has different opinions, yes, but opinions which incite hatred, which is not covered under the Freedom of Speech, as seen under the test produced in Brandenburg Vs Ohio. In BvO, the court ruled that Freedom of Speech did not cover statements or actions which incited, alluded to, or produced, an illegal or intolerant action. What Spencer said is not covered under Freedom of Speech.

Pity wrote:Yes, they have the right to speak their opinion, even if you don't like it. I don't care if Spencer or other white nationalists hate gay people; it's their moral and legal right to.

Its not their moral right to dislike gays. Furthermore, it is also not their legal right: Sexuality is a protected minority characteristic, as is Race, Disability, and Gender/Sex. Once again, and I refer you to Brandenburg vs Ohio: They do not have the right, legally, to express an opinion that could cause harm to, or incites harm toward, a protected minority characteristic.

Pity wrote:This is easy to deconstruct. Civil rights for minorities did not fit society 60 years ago, so was it okay to assault and kill black people for peacefully protesting and speaking? At an objective face value, what makes your argument any more valid than, say, a Nazi's? Absolutely nothing. Opinion and political truth is subjective.

Interestingly, people killed and assaulted them anyway. It was minorities using similarly violent actions that got them the rights in the first place: You have to fight for what you believe in, not canvas for it. We killed Nazis - and bear in mind, Spence openly identifies as a Nazi, frequently appearing with swastikas - in an attempt to "stop them". My argument is far more valid than a Nazi's, being as it would, legally, be considered a self defence, to strike back against someone inciting hatred against myself. However the intrinsically of that does not have a set precedent, so don't try to argue its illegal: no one knows. Opinion is subjective, but political truth is not: "I dislike Coffee", is an opinion. "Blacks are subhuman", is a hate crime, and once again, has not place in current, moder society. What do you stand to gain from defending Nazis, Mac? What sort of angle are you aiming for?

Pity wrote:Yes, you have the right not to attend someone's speech and protest peacefully. That is it.

I am legally entitled to attend and protest. Furthermore: if someone at a speech is inciting or calling for actions which are illegal - i.e. ETHNIC FUCKING CLEANSING - I personally support using illegal actions to tackle it. The left needs to stop with this bullshit "holier than thou" stance of not sinking to the level the scum of the right use. If people want to stand up, seig heil, and publish the addresses of every jewish citizen of a town and call for action against them, you can sure as fuck bet I support smacking the shit out of them.
Image
Image Hi, I'm George. Never met Me before? Image
User avatar
George
Diaper Rash
 
First name: George
Posts: 1858
Likes received: 102
Joined: 11th December, 2012, 11:56 am
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby George » 17th February, 2017, 2:23 pm

I would also add, as I have only just seen it, on Arty's point:

We should, absolutely, force vaccinate people regardless of whether they agree or not, unless there is a succinct medical reason why they cannot be vaccinated. Thousands, if not millions, of children every year are killed as a result of diseases which are so easy to vaccinate against, because their parents don't vaccinate them. Furthermore, children too young to vaccinate are also killed because they can't get the vaccination for a few more works (for health reasons) but are killed because the unvaccinated children carry and give them such diseases. We live in the 21st century, there is not intellectual argument for why children should not be vaccinated for everything. We wiped out polio through vaccination, and we can sure as fuck do it with other diseases.

Furthermore, Richard Spence's views do incite hatred. He has called for a race war, actions against Jewish citizens (after posting their addresses and contact details), called for an ethnic cleansing of the US, and he pours a considerable amount of money into organizations linked to domestic terrorists in the US. He's dangerous, and is breaching what is legally considered freedom of speech.
Image
Image Hi, I'm George. Never met Me before? Image
User avatar
George
Diaper Rash
 
First name: George
Posts: 1858
Likes received: 102
Joined: 11th December, 2012, 11:56 am
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Arty » 17th February, 2017, 2:32 pm

George wrote:I would also add, as I have only just seen it, on Arty's point:

We should, absolutely, force vaccinate people regardless of whether they agree or not, unless there is a succinct medical reason why they cannot be vaccinated. Thousands, if not millions, of children every year are killed as a result of diseases which are so easy to vaccinate against, because their parents don't vaccinate them. Furthermore, children too young to vaccinate are also killed because they can't get the vaccination for a few more works (for health reasons) but are killed because the unvaccinated children carry and give them such diseases. We live in the 21st century, there is not intellectual argument for why children should not be vaccinated for everything. We wiped out polio through vaccination, and we can sure as fuck do it with other diseases.

Furthermore, Richard Spence's views do incite hatred. He has called for a race war, actions against Jewish citizens (after posting their addresses and contact details), called for an ethnic cleansing of the US, and he pours a considerable amount of money into organizations linked to domestic terrorists in the US. He's dangerous, and is breaching what is legally considered freedom of speech.



Why do I get put into a position where I have to defend White Nationalists... Jesus Christ why do you do this to me :weep: After a quick google search I found absolutely no information about anything you just said, If I'm wrong feel free to post some receipts, so I don't know where you got the inciting violence thing and supporting terrorists. Stop.Making.Things.Up. He's an advocate for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and although obviously *obviously* I don't support this, and I'm not sure what that would even entail. it's not inciting violence

And about the vaccination thing, it was just an analogy, stop attacking it attack my argument, I wasn't trying to start a debate about vaccinations :noway:
User avatar
Arty
Fialure
 
Posts: 1950
Likes received: 14
Joined: 30th November, 2013, 6:09 pm

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 17th February, 2017, 2:52 pm

George wrote:Hitler did nothing wrong.

He gave the orders to. Stop comparing a white nationalist from Montana to the Führer of Germany.

George wrote:Brandenburg Vs Ohio

Actually, it ruled freedom of speech is allowed unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Richard Spencer is not telling his followers to kill Muslims living in Atlanta on February 28th.

George wrote:It's not their moral right to dislike gays. Furthermore, it is also not their legal right: Sexuality is a protected minority characteristic, as is Race, Disability, and Gender/Sex.

How is it not their moral right? :rofl: It's literally an opinion. Also, the civil rights laws only apply to public businesses and government itself.

George wrote:Spencer openly identifies as a Nazi, frequently appearing with swastikas. He pours a considerable amount of money into organizations linked to domestic terrorists in the US. He has called for a race war, actions against Jewish citizens

All untrue, so I will assume you are confusing him for someone else.

George wrote:What do you stand to gain from defending Nazis, Mac? What sort of angle are you aiming for?

He isn't a Nazi and I do agree with a lot (not all) of his views. Regardless, my angle is that everyone deserves the right to speak. We could be using a radical communist as an example and I would still defend his right to speak at a university or in a public square. I believe strongly in free speech and recognize there is an immediate threat to this human right by liberals.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3028
Likes received: 477
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby JonathanT88 » 17th February, 2017, 4:50 pm

Togetik wrote:
JonathanT88 wrote:And before you accuse me of being an intolerant leftist myself, I disagree with the others by thinking that ALL the protesters are wrong. Milo's event was organised by an official university society (the Republican group) and can thus be taken as representative of the (currently less vocal) Republican students' will to see him speak. It was an event set up for a distinct student group by a student organisation, and I think it should have been continued on these grounds. Nevertheless, I don't resent the protesters for rallying against the event, because they are allowed to disagree with me. That's freedom of speech too.


I feel like an event set up by a student organisation that the majority do not want to occur, with a speaker who is actively saying harmful things about the kind of people who are also students there is perfectly justifiable to be shut down. I don't really understand why you think here that because an official society set it up, that it should be allowed regardless of if it's offensive to other students when most students don't even want it to go ahead? I guess I get the core of the argument, but I disagree


Yes but the majority of students do not have to attend. It's a provision put in place for a distinct group, and if you deprive them of their right to satisfy their political curiosity then you're effectively declaring that the university must abide by whatever allegiance the majority hold. This is unfair, and I don't see what's so offensive about other people listening to something you needn't bother going to. What if universities in Texas or Alabama started blocking speeches from Democratic politicians on the grounds that the majority of student disagree with them, and find their views "offensive?"

Also, @the bash the fasc people: I believe violence is a useful tool for political change as made evident by, well, most major historical movements. That said, it needs to be moderate and short-lived (it so often isn't), and I believe a lot of things can be achieved through revisionism and non-violence (often to much greater subsequent stability). Nevertheless, punching one white nationalist does nothing to advance any cause, but rather reaffirms right-wing stereotypes that the left are loopy and unrestrained. It makes them stronger, and has the possible effect of alienating some observers stuck in the middle. Punching this guy isn't "silencing" fascism, it's stoking the fire, and this is irresponsible, not 'revolutionary.' Let Spencer's ridiculousness speak for itself, and get people to turn away from the right by providing a more appealing alternative.

Pity wrote:@Jon, see above. Also, I am not blanketedly nassociating liberalism to intolerance, but it is heading in that direction. They are becoming intolerant of anyone who disagrees. I am glad you agree Milo should jave been able to speak.


And my point is that you're in no position to determine what "they" are doing, because so few left-wingers are protesters, and so few protesters are violent. The left are not BECOMING more intolerant than the right, it's just that the political climate is such right now that the right have no reason to protest. Besides, if you're going to talk about intolerance then surely homophobia, sexism, etc. (which represents a more impactful form of intolerance: opposition to freedom of lifestyle/action) show that the right are worse? I get your point, but I think it's silly to talk about left-wing intolerance like you're doing, and it feels to me like you're deliberately trying to discredit leftism by association rather than focusing your criticism on a specific group of leftists, something I myself am doing.

P.S. I feel like I'm disagreeing with EVERYONE in this thread in some way. I really ought to learn to pick sides, for simplicity's sake.
Gudrun wrote:

"How many times have I told you? Homosexuality is only to be used for revolutionary purposes!"

Image ImageImage

ImageImageImage
User avatar
JonathanT88
Horny Jonathan of the Homosexual Intifada
 
First name: Jonathan (duh.)
Posts: 4875
Likes received: 391
Joined: 1st June, 2013, 1:19 pm
Location: Scottish Highlands
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 17th February, 2017, 5:58 pm

Arty wrote:
freakism wrote:
being an Anti-vaxxer is stupid too, should we shut them down too?

...yes

Their "beliefs" have no factual basis and are dangerous to society. By allowing them to be debated rather than ignored one provides a level of legitimacy to their belief by putting it on an equal footing with someone who has a large body of evidence to show why they are wrong.
A similar thing happens with climate change, particularly on the BBC which has to provide "balanced" coverage. They usually try to achieve this balance by having someone with opposing views come onto a show. If a well respected scientist comes on the radio or television to discuss the causes and effects of climate change, providing a wealth of evidence then there's usually another person, often with less respect and certainly less evidence. They say that the evidence is "wrong" or "false" or can't be used as evidence at all, and when someone goes around like that it's becomes rather difficult to rebuff them beyond saying "well you're quantifiably wrong". This puts the anti-vaxxer, the anti-climate changer, etc. on a similar footing, with a similar precedence, to someone with a beneficial and often rigorously supported idea.

So we should force vaccinate everyone against their will and imprison anyone who says you shouldn't vaccinate their child?

No one said imprison. The Victorian State Government just introduced a new policy called "no jab, no play" which bans un-vaxxed children from enrolling in early childhood care services. Why? Because not vaccinating your child is fucking dangerous! Parents are not medical experts, they don't have the knowledge to judge whether or not their child needs a vaccination, that's why you have to get them. "But isnt that the government telling us what to do?" yes. thats exactly what it is. Because if you are stupid enough not to vaccinate your child against potentially lethal diseases, you should be reprimanded. The main argument is that vaccinations cause autism. I have problems with that for two reasons. 1) there is no credible, respected, scientific evidence to suggest that there is a link between vaccinations and autism. 2) you clearly are more concerned by the learning difficulty than a potentially deadly disease. There are too many stories of un-vaxxed kids dying because they go to a party or to kindergarten and catch something like measles or whooping cough and die. These are diseases we vaccinate against.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2836
Likes received: 338
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 6 guests