Freedom Of Speech

A forum for respectful discussion & exchange of views on news, current affairs & thought-provoking topics; please read and be aware of the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the News, Current Affairs & Debate subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions relating to news, current affairs, or philosophical & 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 Pity » 17th February, 2017, 6:48 pm

We aren't debating vaccinations in here, y'all.

(but if anyone is wondering my position, I think all kids should be required to get vaccinations to enroll at public school. otherwise, they can do online school/homeschool)
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3042
Likes received: 489
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Arty » 17th February, 2017, 7:34 pm

TheBrunswickian wrote:
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.



Jesus Christ this isn't the point :rofl: :rofl: Why are you focusing on that and not at the topic at hand


OT: Okay so this is hilarious, PEWDIEPIE was branded a racist by WSJ... PEWDIEPIE, damn it.
User avatar
Arty
Fialure
 
Posts: 1950
Likes received: 14
Joined: 30th November, 2013, 6:09 pm

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby bluesunstorm » 17th February, 2017, 8:27 pm

Pity wrote:
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.

Are we really to the point where we can't label a man who wants "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and a "homeland" for whites a "neo-Nazi"? I mean if it walks and quacks like a duck... It's like the white people who post on Yahoo! about African-American crime statistics and stereotype and label all as intrinsically evil/thugs, judge white crime on an individual basis, but how dare you call them racist!
I loves Kylie Minogue, rainbows, sprinkles, teddy bears, Lisa Frank, Hello Kitty, pop & dance music, and Lindsay Lohan movies.
User avatar
bluesunstorm
Member
 
First name: Casey
Posts: 679
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 17th February, 2017, 8:33 pm

@Blue, call him whatever you like. Stick to the point of the thread.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3042
Likes received: 489
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Mawd » 17th February, 2017, 10:02 pm

Pity wrote:@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.


No you're not. Freeze Peach is strictly a protection from government censorship. No one has an innate right to be given an elevated speaking platform, Milo had to be invited before he was given a platform at UC Berkley yet others have the right to protest the decision to invite him.

The rioters that disrupted his speech were in the wrong, same as how threats made from movements Milo was a figurehead of in the past prevented female speakers from giving conference talks after threats of mass shootings and kidnapping.

However an actual peaceful protest is something anyone is allowed to organise seeing as it's everyone's right.

Arty wrote:
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.


Liter? Huh? Is that some new shit way of name calling? Is this a schoolyard fight now? :lol:

'Left wingers' are talking about peaceful resistance. When people like Alex Jones or organisations like Brietbart talk about rising up in the streets and forcibly putting Washington in its place they're a) using more violent language than most left wingers, b) they're actually using the language of revolution which tends to be violent by default.

The violent occurrences are usually from political fringe elements or they're from angry people who want to start shit. Right wing pundits have been working hard to correlate a minority of trouble makers with the rest of the left wing protest groups. As you can see from Pity's language earlier even if they have backed down from calling it a majority they're still trying to argue a plurality.

I think that word is misused though seeing as it means:
1.
the fact or state of being plural.
"some languages add an extra syllable to mark plurality"
2.
US
the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority.


Which combined with his statement:

Pity wrote:While correct, but an overwhelming plurality are not.

He's saying that an overwhelmingly large group of of people have been violent. taking the second definition literally he's saying that of all the left wing protesters, violent protesters are the largest group, but they do not make up the majority of the protesters. This is a false statement that shows ongoing attempts to characterise these protests as being violent.

Also ah leftist media, or rather most professional media outlets have written to comment and condemn the violence.
You can see articles from The Atlantic, Huffpo, WaPo, NYT, etc all condemning the actions of the Black Bloc protesters.
However the problem is that these outlets practice the professional form of journalism where you cover the story and leave the opinions for the editorials, for the opinion columns and so on. People are expected to take it as read that almost all violence is a terrible thing that shouldn't occur because most of the time it doesn't have to occur. This is often contrasted by some right wing news pundits who frequently structure their stories around several overarching talking points.

p.s. if you don't want threads derailing because of stupid analogies don't use them. Vaccines reinforce herd immunity, even a small proportion of unvaccinated people significantly increase the risk of everyone catching the disease. This is why the personal decision to not vaccinate a child endangers everyone around them.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7344
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 » 17th February, 2017, 10:41 pm

I think the spirit of the Milo protests were anti-free speech. It is their right to protest, but they cannot call themselves tolerant.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3042
Likes received: 489
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby PHMED » 17th February, 2017, 11:32 pm

We need to vaccinate our children, simple as that. In America and most government, policies are directed by scientific evidence (in some cases). Vaccines are not a belief. it's science--scientific evidence that could save lives.

Vaccinations are the reason why children are now expected to live through childhood, and that's CAUSATION, not correlation. Vaccinations are also the number one reason why the quality of life/lifespan of individuals have increased. This is basic public health science.

So, of course it should be mandated for children to get vaccinated. That is irresponsibility for not taking care of your children, and it has the potential to affect others.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 97
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Pity » 18th February, 2017, 1:37 am

THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT VACCINATION OMFG.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3042
Likes received: 489
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby PHMED » 18th February, 2017, 3:26 am

Pity wrote:THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT VACCINATION OMFG.

I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 97
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Togetik » 18th February, 2017, 4:07 am

Excuse me liberals but your free speech is silencing my free speech, so i'd like you to stop expressing your free speech in the most literal form so that I can listen to a neo-nazi, thanks.
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 543
Likes received: 81
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Mawd » 18th February, 2017, 7:57 am

Pity wrote:I think the spirit of the Milo protests were anti-free speech. It is their right to protest, but they cannot call themselves tolerant.


I'm not sure if you understand. It's been said time and time again that, that's not how free speech works. Tolerant? Maybe not, anti freeze peach? Definitely not.

I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt but when people are being wilfully incorrect I start to wonder if they're just idiots.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7344
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 » 18th February, 2017, 10:28 am

Protesting a speaker who is there for a private event for a private organization is anti-free speech. No one is saying that is illegal, but it is obviously against free speech. Tell me, what would you call people who want to silence a contrarian's opinion because they disagree?
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3042
Likes received: 489
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby freakism » 18th February, 2017, 10:39 am

Pity wrote:Protesting a speaker who is there for a private event for a private organization is anti-free speech. No one is saying that is illegal, but it is obviously against free speech. Tell me, what would you call people who want to silence a contrarian's opinion because they disagree?

There's a difference between protesting and silencing opinion. One is able to protest without saying that the other shouldn't be there.
The ability and right to protest is one of the core tenements of free speech, so if we're going to accuse anyone of shutting down free speech it's those that call for protests to be prevented.
GTF House Cup 2016 - Team Middle Earth
User avatar
freakism
Head tllt boy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
First name: Harry
Posts: 504
Likes received: 132
Joined: 13th June, 2016, 12:44 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Team: The Far East

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby bluesunstorm » 18th February, 2017, 2:10 pm

Didn't that Milo guy cancel some of his college speaking events on his own accord? I don't know how such a vapid idiot is so controversial anyhow, he clearly just wants attention for saying polarizing things. Protesting isn't anti-free speech. One reason people protest is to give their side/opinion on why people like Milo are wrong about various issues. Milo is given more than his fair share of speaking platforms, especially considering the intellectual level of his arguments (it's an opinion, I know), and the idea that his free speech is somehow being limited is baffling. The idea that a public college needs to sponsor any and every viewpoint is still inane though.
I loves Kylie Minogue, rainbows, sprinkles, teddy bears, Lisa Frank, Hello Kitty, pop & dance music, and Lindsay Lohan movies.
User avatar
bluesunstorm
Member
 
First name: Casey
Posts: 679
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby bluesunstorm » 1st March, 2017, 5:08 pm

I guess nobody wanted to mention that Milo's career was essentially and ironically ended because conservatives/right-wingers/Republicans didn't want to entertain his controversial comments/"freedom of speech". I guess liberals and Democrats are the only ones who have to tolerate abrasive and controversial viewpoints from vapid and vacuous idiots.
I loves Kylie Minogue, rainbows, sprinkles, teddy bears, Lisa Frank, Hello Kitty, pop & dance music, and Lindsay Lohan movies.
User avatar
bluesunstorm
Member
 
First name: Casey
Posts: 679
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Togetik » 1st March, 2017, 5:27 pm

Free speech is ok when it's about how we should be killing black people or eradicating the Jews, but it's not ok if it's about gay pedophilia being good
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 543
Likes received: 81
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Lightbringer » 2nd March, 2017, 1:26 pm

Freedom of speech is necessary and it does more good than it does harm. Perhaps targeted harassment is one of the biggest abuses of it, but it needs to exist.

As for Milo:

He who is without mercy now pleads for it. He who is without compassion now begs for it. He who denies sympathy for victims now feels entitled to it. He who pretends words do not have an impact now feels impacted by his own words.
User avatar
Lightbringer
Member
 
First name: Lucas
Posts: 363
Likes received: 19
Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Country: Germany (de)

Re: Freedom Of Speech

Unread postby Oigo » 2nd April, 2017, 9:04 am

As much as I would love for people with such hateful views to stay out of the public sphere, I think that using violence as a means to shut down free speech is a dangerous path to go down. I understand that many people feel they must fight fascism by any means necessary. It really is scary to see that the alt-right views expressed by many of Trump's cohorts were not only widespread, but also much more sinister than I could have ever imagined during the campaign. I of course vehemently rejected this agenda personally, even though it meant voting for Hillary Clinton, someone I felt was also a categorically unacceptable choice for President.

Still, it's a relatively new Presidency and we have to decide how to reject the growing nationalist agenda. Is violence the answer? I would argue no. Once we open that Pandora's box, it becomes increasingly easier to justify violence over small ideological differences. And a society that finds that acceptable is neither a safe nor a free society.
hellojwt wrote:he fiber poibts of ssarcasm wit and irony are wasted on your single brain cellt

Isaac wrote:ruined ones are by far the best
User avatar
Oigo
Really nigga?
 
Posts: 6789
Likes received: 23
Joined: 31st October, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Da Souf
Country: United States (us)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], GaycrazyBoi, Trendiction [Bot], Twitter [Bot] and 37 guests