First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply 73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For
qwueri 
23758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

What happens when those who use violence to attack other's free speech become a tool for law enforcement? Like in Russia and the EU.

You're wrong. You cannot have free speech without arms to defend your speech. On paper, sure people could just talk 'civilly'. It doesn't happen in practice. Neither does 'just letting police arrest those who resort to violence'. When seconds count, the police are minutes away and all that.


When a country opts to use violence to attack free speech, that country is by definition not upholding free speech. Having arms won't change that unless you're suggesting a military solution.

And free speech without the need to arm oneself happens all the damned time. No one discussing a hotly debated issue is doing so while holding pistols to each other. The vast majority of people are capable of holding civil conversation. A threat of violence can come for any number of reasons, but that's immaterial to the general concept and practice of free speech.
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

qwueri wrote:
When a country opts to use violence to attack free speech, that country is by definition not upholding free speech. Having arms won't change that unless you're suggesting a military solution.

.


Having arms prevents that from happening on a large scale in the first place. There's a reason groups like US antifa and BAMN mostly operate in anti gun/anti self defense states, with support of local officials like at Berkley.


And free speech without the need to arm oneself happens all the damned time.

Probably because it is popular speech.


No one discussing a hotly debated issue is doing so while holding pistols to each other.

I never said anything about 'holding pistols' on someone, but okay.


The vast majority of people are capable of holding civil conversation.

And? Doesn't change the fact we have groups dedicated to using violence to silence.


A threat of violence can come for any number of reasons, but that's immaterial to the general concept and practice of free speech

Wrong.
qwueri 
23758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Having arms prevents that from happening on a large scale in the first place. There's a reason groups like US antifa and BAMN mostly operate in anti gun/anti self defense states, with support of local officials like at Berkley.
...
And? Doesn't change the fact we have groups dedicated to using violence to silence.



Having arms does nothing for state sponsored violence, other than ignite a civil war at best and a brutal crackdown on anyone caught using firearms at worst. See: Syria, Turkey, or Egypt for recent examples. When a state condones that kind of violence, they generally going to use armed resistance as an excuse to go full ham.

Which is an entirely separate issue from groups like ANTIFA. Anti-gun laws and liberal social centers tends to be more a correlation than a causation for radical groups like ANTIFA. Correlating the lack of guns with political violence generally ignores the entire history of groups like the KKK, which has been demonstrably more violent over their history than ANTIFA. And the demonstrations in the civil rights era certainly didn't prevail based upon the 2nd amendment.

I know ANTIFA is trending as favored boogeymen by militia groups, but it's law enforcement that actually winds up dealing with them. It seems like many of the "unite the right" style rallies become self-fulfilling prophecies, with deliberately provocative events and messages accompanied by postures of forces bringing outbreaks of violence.
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17
But would they actually... if not that would be a hell of a purge.
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

qwueri wrote:
Having arms does nothing for state sponsored violence, other than ignite a civil war at best and a brutal crackdown on anyone caught using firearms at worst. See: Syria, Turkey, or Egypt for recent examples. When a state condones that kind of violence, they generally going to use armed resistance as an excuse to go full ham.

.


Commie mayors making police stand down while antifa/bamn riots and assaults people in an attempt to shut down events isn't exactly the same as the 'state sponsored violence' in Syria, Turkey etc.


Correlating the lack of guns with political violence generally ignores the entire history of groups like the KKK, which has been demonstrably more violent over their history than ANTIFA. And the demonstrations in the civil rights era certainly didn't prevail based upon the 2nd amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/29/negroes-and-the-gun-a-winchester-in-every-black-home/
*cough*
http://www.shelbycountyhistory.org/schs/archives/blackhistoryarchives/bshangbhisyA.htm
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:



Which is a fine argument until you put a anti-Trump bumper sticker on your car and your boss is a Trump supporter.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123024596
Saying that social penalties for speech are A-OK and not a kind of censorship only hurts everyone in the long run.
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Silentveil wrote:
I wonder if I will get in trouble if I make a poster of this to hang on my wall.

Copyright issue, I mean.


That's non-commercial so it's fair use. Plus, the guy that does xkcd lets people essentially do whatever they want with his work long as its non-commercial and they attribute him.

TL;DR: Go for it.



cyberfaust wrote:
Which is a fine argument until you put a anti-Trump bumper sticker on your car and your boss is a Trump supporter.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123024596
Saying that social penalties for speech are A-OK and not a kind of censorship only hurts everyone in the long run.


Thats a problem with US labour laws.

qwueri 
23758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Commie mayors making police stand down while antifa/bamn riots and assaults people in an attempt to shut down events isn't exactly the same as the 'state sponsored violence' in Syria, Turkey etc.
...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/29/negroes-and-the-gun-a-winchester-in-every-black-home/
*cough*
http://www.shelbycountyhistory.org/schs/archives/blackhistoryarchives/bshangbhisyA.htm


You're right, they aren't the same thing. The government in the US remains Democratic and upholds the 1st Amendment, for starters. As much as you enjoy watching protestors get shot in the dick with tear gas canisters, that's not appropriate for every riot situation.

And posting articles about 1890 in reference to the Civil Rights era, way to not actually respond to the point.
27021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:












Silentveil wrote:

I wonder if I will get in trouble if I make a poster of this to hang on my wall.

Copyright issue, I mean.



21stCenturyGemini wrote:

Should be posted over and over till they get it.



rawratl wrote:

ding ding ding




This is why numbers that OP approvingly quotes like

Rujikin wrote:
Eighty-three percent (83%) think it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech than it is to make sure nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures.


are not to be trusted, are not to be taken as a sign of hope. You don't need to convince anyone that "free speech" is bad, you just need to add enough qualifiers, like the above and the imaginary difference between "offensive" and "hate speech", that you can do all the censorship you want while pretending you're against censorship. And right now the people are convinced.
15784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17
Well, that's dumb. How are you supposed to talk once you're dead? Last I checked, dead people don't speak.
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Rowan93 wrote:
You don't need to convince anyone that "free speech" is bad, you just need to add enough qualifiers, like the above and the imaginary difference between "offensive" and "hate speech", that you can do all the censorship you want while pretending you're against censorship. And right now the people are convinced.


Free speech has never not had limitations and it has never been freedom from consequence. The thing about free speech is everyone else has it too. Yes, its your right to be offensive, but its everyone else's right to exercise their free speech and respond to it. Most of the time when someone starts whining about their freedom of speech or censorship its because they're facing social consequences for their speech.

As this forum has proven a number of times.



31397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:




While true, generally speaking, the government will often try to minimize consequences. It's why people can't be fired for coming out of the closet for example. It's a delicate balance. On one hand, you want to make sure free speech is as free as possible; on the other hand, you don't want to baby people for every little thing they do.
27021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
You don't need to convince anyone that "free speech" is bad, you just need to add enough qualifiers, like the above and the imaginary difference between "offensive" and "hate speech", that you can do all the censorship you want while pretending you're against censorship. And right now the people are convinced.


Free speech has never not had limitations and it has never been freedom from consequence. The thing about free speech is everyone else has it too. Yes, its your right to be offensive, but its everyone else's right to exercise their free speech and respond to it. Most of the time when someone starts whining about their freedom of speech or censorship its because they're facing social consequences for their speech.

As this forum has proven a number of times.





Censorship is a social consequence. "Free speech has never been freedom from consequence" is something that most free speech absolutists would agree with the literal words of, but those words are also on the lips of every would-be censor in any society that thinks itself free.

Because of that, I can't actually tell at all what your position is on free speech beyond the fact that you think I'm a whiner, not from the actual words you're saying anyway, so could you perhaps clarify?

Also since you're responding to my words to the OP, I'll un-spoiler the comic I linked to as my actual response to the xkcd comic, for clarity.
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Rowan93 wrote:
Because of that, I can't actually tell at all what your position is on free speech beyond the fact that you think I'm a whiner, not from the actual words you're saying anyway, so could you perhaps clarify?

Also since you're responding to my words to the OP, I'll un-spoiler the comic I linked to as my actual response to the xkcd comic, for clarity.


Where did I imply you were a whiner? I think perhaps we're both unclear on each other's positions here(?).

My position on the right to free speech is it extends as far as someone else's rights begin and that it likewise ends where inciting violence/hatred begins. Though for clarity I do not mean someone should face legal consequence for simply being a racist dickhead. If you hate the Jews, fine, you're an asshole but whatever. If you're publicly advocating for the murder of Jews on the other hand.

However, as far as censorship goes, there are legitimate reasons for censorship that are widely accepted in every free society. Are you arguing for an absolutist ( as in, all censorship bad regardless ) position on it or?



encrypted12345 wrote:
While true, generally speaking, the government will often try to minimize consequences. It's why people can't be fired for coming out of the closet for example. It's a delicate balance. On one hand, you want to make sure free speech is as free as possible; on the other hand, you don't want to baby people for every little thing they do.


While true ( and that debate has been going on since before the ink was dry on the Constitution ) I find that generally speaking the people that yell the loudest about free speech understand it the least. They also tend to, lets face it, be trying to argue for freedom from consequence from saying/doing things that are morally reprehensible. Plus they would probably be out in full force themselves if speech they didn't agree with was on display. ( Picture NAMBLA holding a public rally ).

As for being fired for being gay, that's treading into the realm of discrimination law and yes, that's one area where freedom of speech is going to hit a wall. Though, as for the specific example of being fired for being gay, yes you still can be in a number of States and Trump's DoJ is looking to make sure it stays that way.





23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:




So you still lurk on these forums 18/7.

The results of posting stupid shit can be very funny too: time.com/4803225/kathy-griffin-trump-photo-head/

Make a photo of you beheading the president then when the consequences hit you blame the president for your acitons.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.