Nah free speech means the government won’t stop you. It doesn’t mean we gotta listen to you or give you a platform for the hate whether it’s irl or online. Gotta read that first ammendment a bit more throughly my dude
I mean let’s be real, to 90% of these right wing nuts “freedom of speech” really just means “freedom to force other private parties to support, amplify, and endorse MY speech as I stifle the speech of those who disagree.”
Haha I’m guessing he was just in an argumentative mood and assumed all replies would be fighting with him. Sometimes that adrenaline kicks in when you see an Inbox notification.
Why does a foreign country have the absolute say on a principle/ ideology/ human right whatever you want to call it?
It doesn’t make sense. Are you telling me the ideology of freedom of speech only existed and only continues to exist because it is on a bit of paper written in a far away land?
Replace fellating with whatever synonym floats your puritanical boat brother. Nothing wrong with fellating dong but I don’t see the win in pleasuring fascists or otherwise awful people be it literally or figuratively
The meaning of those words is absolutely some law, whether natural or governmental, and depends entirely upon the context of the power structure involved.
If you got slapped in your goofy ass face every time you said, well let me just pull up a real, actual quote from you:
"Women do not want to help men but they expect help from them.
That doesn’t make me miserable that’s just accepting the world the way it is and it’s a life lesson men tend to learn the hard way."
If they slapped your extremely goofy, unserious face and called you a generalizing, pathetic, and small person, that wouldn’t be them hating free speech.
Hell, they’d be exercising it! How wonderful!
Now, if the government came to your door and impounded your 4 wheel drive incompetence with relationships, then you might have a victorious day in court.
Uh yes actually if you physically strike a person when they say something you find “pathetic”, or any other adjective, you are in fact against free speech.
No that’s excercising freedom expression. You are free from persecution from the government, not ostracization socially. Nazis should be punched, not protected. There’s no such thing as free speech for Nazis. Same thing in this case, you say bullshit, people are “free” to react how they will to it.
Freedom to assault and freedom of speech are two different things.
I respect your right to say I got a goofy ass face and generalizing, pathetic, and small person. I’m truly happy you are able to do that. I just don’t think you disagreeing with me gives you the right to assault me.
Obviously that thread was full of generalisations and that wasn’t a all women situation it was more about the everyday occurances of everday men. It was written like that for simplicity rather than needed to and “not all but a lot of” every 5 seconds. Still stand by the spirit if that point, which was the important thing.
See? You just totally abdicated any responsibility to allow others to speak. Why would you be so concerned with making sure it’s only government which has that responsibility, if you didn’t hate free speech?
Responsibility can only be taken, not given. So yeah, if you say that’s not your responsibility, then it’s not your responsibility. But choosing not to adopt that responsibility does indeed make you a hater of free speech.
I don’t hate free speech. There’s just nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation. Especially all the hate and misinformation that’s put me in danger for years because of me being queer or neurodivergent.
There’s nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation
Except for the concept of being open minded. The ethical imperative to face new information that’s not easy to process, so that you can respond to it instead of being blindsided by it.
Free speech is a responsibility held by all members of society, to maintain those channels of communication.
Just like a good general has a responsibility to hear emissaries of his enemy, no matter how bitterly hated that enemy is. There’s nothing that says he HAS to listen to that emissary … other than his responsibility to his troops.
Except when that is hate towards me for being queer or neurodivergent. I can and will block out hate speech towards me or other minorities that’s not based in reality. There’s a point where I will listen except when vitriol is spewed towards me for no reason. You’re attaching a tolerance to intolerance as if we have to listen to n@!is, racists or bigots just attacking everyone else for no good reason other than fox or Trump telling them so that these minorities are some threat that they’re not.
Take a step back and consider how stupid that sounds. The onus isn’t on others while you say stupid shit.
I mean consider even now… I’m not infringing on your free speech by telling you what you just said was misguided at best and as stupid as it sounds at worst.
You still got to say what you want. You can say it again too. Still sounds stupid the second time.
The reality is this isn’t about a person’s ability to say something so much as their bullshit argument.
When someone says “but I have the right!” what they’re really saying is they aren’t intelligent enough to have a good reason or justification. They’re instead screaming “well just cause I can!” It’s a privileged, ill reasoned, temper tantrum of an argument that amounts to “just cause I can.”
Yes, it is. It is natural to want to try and shut people up. Resisting the urge to manipulate and control others is work. We all have a responsibility toward a healthy society.
That’s why it’s prosocial when someone steps in for a person who’s being shouted down and puts his own skin on the line to say “let him talk”.
The fact you choose not to carry that burden doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
It’s weird to have someone argue that when the context of all this is support of antisemitism.
Of course it’s a positive to help support the voice of someone who might have theirs oppressed. But why go to such extremes to support the oppressor?
Why do you argue that we must advocate for the oppressor? Are we not allowed the freedom to speak up against those that oppress others? Is that speech not allowed?
You see how it’s a stupid circle of inductive reasoning that does nothing to help anyone? Bottom line is a rigid absolute, a utopia is a more destructive and stupid approach than the free speech for which you claim to advocate. Freedom isn’t possible is you tolerate intolerance.
A lot of people are very much against humans being free to speak their mind. They would like People to be incapable of that or they would like to be protected from it.
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences. If you say awful things people will use their free speech to tell you you’re an awful person. That isn’t hating free speech. It’s hating you. Hating you isn’t illegal.
Homie, I’m Canadian, it’s beyond the constitution of the US. We don’t have unlimited free speech because it fucking leads to genocide and violence. I will fight to the grave to ensure that tolerance only extends to the tolerant. This is what generations fought a nearly world ending world war over. It’s worth fighting over, you don’t have to agree with me.
That’s why I used the word “if”. It’s a conditional set of thoughts that follow from accepting a premise.
My point is that free speech is not just a thing government does. Free speech is a thing like … eating. There are laws about food, but eating is a real-world phenomenon. It exists independent of government and any laws that may control or shape how people eat.
Free speech is a state of affairs. Like “war” or “party” or “rainstorm”. Free speech is an attribute of a social environment, in which a person is free to speak.
“Free to speak” can mean many different things:
It can mean having a mouth and knowledge of a language
It can mean not being physically gagged. As in “When the killer removed the gag and he was free to speak again, he said ‘you can kill me but then you won’t get the gold’”
It can mean sitting at the dinner table knowing your parents can hear about the ugly parts of your inner life without suddenly getting angry and punishing you
If can mean disinhibited, like closeness or new trust in a person allows you to open up to them
It can mean not targeted for punishment by your boss for talking about salaries with coworkers
It can mean not facing ostracization from your neighborhood for revealing that your gay
It can get more extreme and mean not being beaten up or killed for telling people you’re gay
It can mean not going to jail for publishing articles about the USA being corrupt
Basically free speech can exist or not exist legally, physically, culturally, socially, organizationally, and psychologically.
It is true that organizational free speech, like companies that can fire you at will for saying something, is a different domain than legal free speech, like the government putting you in jail for criticizing the president.
The term “free speech” can, and does, in this conversation (as in the whole meta conversation between the Two Sides on the issues of free speech being discussed right now), refer not only to the governmental role in protecting or squashing free speech, but also to the state of affairs within groups of friends, within families, within cultures, neighborhoods, and companies.
Saying that “My government doesn’t protect free speech” only covers like 5% of the ground. Yes you’re legally allowed to either promote or oppose the non-legal, cultural atmosphere of free speech around you, as you see fit.
But there’s so much more to discuss. Now that we know the government is not going to force anyone to allow anyone else to speak freely around them, without doing all the legal things they want to “discourage” (ie punish) that kind of speech, such as firing, shunning, gossiping, then the question arises: is it right to do so? Is it healthy? What are the pros and cons of free speech as a cultural atmosphere?
Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.
Free speech is just that the government shouldn’t be able to punish you for what you say. Nothing else.
What you describe is governed by the social contract. Noone should be forced to listen to what other people say, and people can freely decide to distance themselves if someone says something they don’t agree with.
Also there can be social consequences from what you say, free speech does not protect you from that, despite some people thinking that it does or that it should.
You’ve conflated punishment and consequences. You have the freedom to hold some morally repugnant view like white nationalism, and your freedom of speech protects your right to express those views. But your family can hear those expressions, and cut you out of their lives, publicly condemn those views, or you for holding them, without affecting your freedom of speech. A company can refuse to allow you to use their platform to spread those views without affecting your freedom of speech.
What can’t happen is a politician or government official use their powers to suppress your speech, arrest you, unless your speech act harms people, like shouting fire in a crowded theater. People disagree about exactly what those exceptions should be, but except for a few small but loud conservative groups trying to censor things like LGBTQ content, this basic premise is pretty uncontroversial, at least in the US.
The government punishing people. I am not the government. I can point out that you are a fool to think you are otherwise immune from the consequences of what you say.
What in the world ever made you think that was a reasonable thing to say? Do you really believe that its your right to not only say what you want, but also never have anyone have a negative opinion of it? That is completely insane. Like actually I’m worried about your mental health. Seek help.
Dude… They’re not disliking freedom of speech, they’re disliking the contents of your speech. You’re free to say whatever the hell you want. We’re also free to call you an idiot if we’re so inclined.
Do you believe that Ben Shapiro is merely speaking his mind when tries to argue that allowing children to transition will increase the suicide rate when literally all available data about trans children shows the exact opposite? Do you believe that Steven Crowder is merely speaking his mind when he “proves” global warming is fake by showing that Antarctic ice levels are higher in October than they were the preceding August while ignoring the steady downward year-over-year trend modulated by the seasons? Do you believe that Donald Trump was merely speaking his mind when he called for his followers to march on the white house, or, more recently, called immigrants vermin?
But speaking your mind isn’t proof of anything. The ability to speak freely is freedom of speech. I’ll support anyone that is for freedom of speech and i think everyone should have the right of freedom of speech as long as it doesnt impact someone elses freedoms.
Trump. I’m not even sure what point you are making about freedom of speech, you seem to be talking about intent not about freedom of speech. I’m not actually familiar with the point you mean.
i think everyone should have the right of freedom of speech as long as it doesnt impact someone elses freedoms.
If you are against people using their freedom of speech in an attempt to take away the rights and freedoms of other people, then I’d think you’d find that most people do support freedom of speech the way that you do.
People do hate free speech though.
Nah free speech means the government won’t stop you. It doesn’t mean we gotta listen to you or give you a platform for the hate whether it’s irl or online. Gotta read that first ammendment a bit more throughly my dude
Lol cracks me up that there are people out there thinking free speech means people have to pay them advertising money no matter what you say.
I mean let’s be real, to 90% of these right wing nuts “freedom of speech” really just means “freedom to force other private parties to support, amplify, and endorse MY speech as I stifle the speech of those who disagree.”
You misread me, first ammendment protects you from the govt, not from others refusing to listen to you. Man you’re dense
They’re in agreement with you I believe ^^^
Ironic that you said they misread you…lol
Haha I’m guessing he was just in an argumentative mood and assumed all replies would be fighting with him. Sometimes that adrenaline kicks in when you see an Inbox notification.
Why does a foreign country have the absolute say on a principle/ ideology/ human right whatever you want to call it?
It doesn’t make sense. Are you telling me the ideology of freedom of speech only existed and only continues to exist because it is on a bit of paper written in a far away land?
Removed by mod
Oh look a leftist using sexual imagery as an insult. What a surprise.
Is…is that all?
Did you get triggered because of an analogy?
Replace fellating with whatever synonym floats your puritanical boat brother. Nothing wrong with fellating dong but I don’t see the win in pleasuring fascists or otherwise awful people be it literally or figuratively
People can hate or love whatever that bit of paper is.
But freedom of speech (the meaning of those words not some law) is not something most of the world likes.
The principal meme is that the bottom text is incorrect. He is wrong.
But he isn’t wrong people do hate freedom of speech.
The meaning of those words is absolutely some law, whether natural or governmental, and depends entirely upon the context of the power structure involved.
If you got slapped in your goofy ass face every time you said, well let me just pull up a real, actual quote from you:
"Women do not want to help men but they expect help from them.
That doesn’t make me miserable that’s just accepting the world the way it is and it’s a life lesson men tend to learn the hard way."
If they slapped your extremely goofy, unserious face and called you a generalizing, pathetic, and small person, that wouldn’t be them hating free speech.
Hell, they’d be exercising it! How wonderful!
Now, if the government came to your door and impounded your 4 wheel drive incompetence with relationships, then you might have a victorious day in court.
Uh yes actually if you physically strike a person when they say something you find “pathetic”, or any other adjective, you are in fact against free speech.
No that’s excercising freedom expression. You are free from persecution from the government, not ostracization socially. Nazis should be punched, not protected. There’s no such thing as free speech for Nazis. Same thing in this case, you say bullshit, people are “free” to react how they will to it.
Freedom to assault and freedom of speech are two different things.
I respect your right to say I got a goofy ass face and generalizing, pathetic, and small person. I’m truly happy you are able to do that. I just don’t think you disagreeing with me gives you the right to assault me.
Obviously that thread was full of generalisations and that wasn’t a all women situation it was more about the everyday occurances of everday men. It was written like that for simplicity rather than needed to and “not all but a lot of” every 5 seconds. Still stand by the spirit if that point, which was the important thing.
See? You just totally abdicated any responsibility to allow others to speak. Why would you be so concerned with making sure it’s only government which has that responsibility, if you didn’t hate free speech?
Yeah not gonna gaslight me, buddy. It’s not my obligation to give anyone a platform for anything. Try again.
Responsibility can only be taken, not given. So yeah, if you say that’s not your responsibility, then it’s not your responsibility. But choosing not to adopt that responsibility does indeed make you a hater of free speech.
I guess I hate free speech, too, because I’m blocking you now. Die mad about it.
I’m just curious if I can still reply, when you’ve blocked me.
I probably won’t. I don’t even know who you are.
I don’t hate free speech. There’s just nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation. Especially all the hate and misinformation that’s put me in danger for years because of me being queer or neurodivergent.
Except for the concept of being open minded. The ethical imperative to face new information that’s not easy to process, so that you can respond to it instead of being blindsided by it.
Free speech is a responsibility held by all members of society, to maintain those channels of communication.
Just like a good general has a responsibility to hear emissaries of his enemy, no matter how bitterly hated that enemy is. There’s nothing that says he HAS to listen to that emissary … other than his responsibility to his troops.
Except when that is hate towards me for being queer or neurodivergent. I can and will block out hate speech towards me or other minorities that’s not based in reality. There’s a point where I will listen except when vitriol is spewed towards me for no reason. You’re attaching a tolerance to intolerance as if we have to listen to n@!is, racists or bigots just attacking everyone else for no good reason other than fox or Trump telling them so that these minorities are some threat that they’re not.
“Responsibility to allow”…?
Take a step back and consider how stupid that sounds. The onus isn’t on others while you say stupid shit.
I mean consider even now… I’m not infringing on your free speech by telling you what you just said was misguided at best and as stupid as it sounds at worst.
You still got to say what you want. You can say it again too. Still sounds stupid the second time.
The reality is this isn’t about a person’s ability to say something so much as their bullshit argument.
When someone says “but I have the right!” what they’re really saying is they aren’t intelligent enough to have a good reason or justification. They’re instead screaming “well just cause I can!” It’s a privileged, ill reasoned, temper tantrum of an argument that amounts to “just cause I can.”
Yes, it is. It is natural to want to try and shut people up. Resisting the urge to manipulate and control others is work. We all have a responsibility toward a healthy society.
That’s why it’s prosocial when someone steps in for a person who’s being shouted down and puts his own skin on the line to say “let him talk”.
The fact you choose not to carry that burden doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
It’s weird to have someone argue that when the context of all this is support of antisemitism.
Of course it’s a positive to help support the voice of someone who might have theirs oppressed. But why go to such extremes to support the oppressor?
Why do you argue that we must advocate for the oppressor? Are we not allowed the freedom to speak up against those that oppress others? Is that speech not allowed?
You see how it’s a stupid circle of inductive reasoning that does nothing to help anyone? Bottom line is a rigid absolute, a utopia is a more destructive and stupid approach than the free speech for which you claim to advocate. Freedom isn’t possible is you tolerate intolerance.
You’re free to speak. Other people are free to hate you for what you say. That’s how it works.
People do hate freedom of speech though.
A lot of people are very much against humans being free to speak their mind. They would like People to be incapable of that or they would like to be protected from it.
What you are saying no way contradicts that.
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences. If you say awful things people will use their free speech to tell you you’re an awful person. That isn’t hating free speech. It’s hating you. Hating you isn’t illegal.
Of course it is. What on earth could “free speech” possibly mean if not “you won’t be punished for what you say”?
What do you think free speech is, other than a commitment to refrain from punishing people for speaking?
Punished by a government. That’s where free speech begins and ends.
Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.
If you consider the US constitution, the rule government must adhere to is to refrain from interfering with free speech.
Homie, I’m Canadian, it’s beyond the constitution of the US. We don’t have unlimited free speech because it fucking leads to genocide and violence. I will fight to the grave to ensure that tolerance only extends to the tolerant. This is what generations fought a nearly world ending world war over. It’s worth fighting over, you don’t have to agree with me.
That’s why I used the word “if”. It’s a conditional set of thoughts that follow from accepting a premise.
My point is that free speech is not just a thing government does. Free speech is a thing like … eating. There are laws about food, but eating is a real-world phenomenon. It exists independent of government and any laws that may control or shape how people eat.
Free speech is a state of affairs. Like “war” or “party” or “rainstorm”. Free speech is an attribute of a social environment, in which a person is free to speak.
“Free to speak” can mean many different things:
Basically free speech can exist or not exist legally, physically, culturally, socially, organizationally, and psychologically.
It is true that organizational free speech, like companies that can fire you at will for saying something, is a different domain than legal free speech, like the government putting you in jail for criticizing the president.
The term “free speech” can, and does, in this conversation (as in the whole meta conversation between the Two Sides on the issues of free speech being discussed right now), refer not only to the governmental role in protecting or squashing free speech, but also to the state of affairs within groups of friends, within families, within cultures, neighborhoods, and companies.
Saying that “My government doesn’t protect free speech” only covers like 5% of the ground. Yes you’re legally allowed to either promote or oppose the non-legal, cultural atmosphere of free speech around you, as you see fit.
But there’s so much more to discuss. Now that we know the government is not going to force anyone to allow anyone else to speak freely around them, without doing all the legal things they want to “discourage” (ie punish) that kind of speech, such as firing, shunning, gossiping, then the question arises: is it right to do so? Is it healthy? What are the pros and cons of free speech as a cultural atmosphere?
Free speech is just that the government shouldn’t be able to punish you for what you say. Nothing else.
What you describe is governed by the social contract. Noone should be forced to listen to what other people say, and people can freely decide to distance themselves if someone says something they don’t agree with.
Also there can be social consequences from what you say, free speech does not protect you from that, despite some people thinking that it does or that it should.
You don’t get to change a definition just because it doesn’t suit you.
You’ve conflated punishment and consequences. You have the freedom to hold some morally repugnant view like white nationalism, and your freedom of speech protects your right to express those views. But your family can hear those expressions, and cut you out of their lives, publicly condemn those views, or you for holding them, without affecting your freedom of speech. A company can refuse to allow you to use their platform to spread those views without affecting your freedom of speech.
What can’t happen is a politician or government official use their powers to suppress your speech, arrest you, unless your speech act harms people, like shouting fire in a crowded theater. People disagree about exactly what those exceptions should be, but except for a few small but loud conservative groups trying to censor things like LGBTQ content, this basic premise is pretty uncontroversial, at least in the US.
Negative consequences deliberately chosen to discourage others from speaking up is called punishment.
I don’t agree that’s true in general, and it’s also not relevant to free speech
The government punishing people. I am not the government. I can point out that you are a fool to think you are otherwise immune from the consequences of what you say.
What in the world ever made you think that was a reasonable thing to say? Do you really believe that its your right to not only say what you want, but also never have anyone have a negative opinion of it? That is completely insane. Like actually I’m worried about your mental health. Seek help.
Dude… They’re not disliking freedom of speech, they’re disliking the contents of your speech. You’re free to say whatever the hell you want. We’re also free to call you an idiot if we’re so inclined.
Do you believe that Ben Shapiro is merely speaking his mind when tries to argue that allowing children to transition will increase the suicide rate when literally all available data about trans children shows the exact opposite? Do you believe that Steven Crowder is merely speaking his mind when he “proves” global warming is fake by showing that Antarctic ice levels are higher in October than they were the preceding August while ignoring the steady downward year-over-year trend modulated by the seasons? Do you believe that Donald Trump was merely speaking his mind when he called for his followers to march on the white house, or, more recently, called immigrants vermin?
I don’t know who those first two people are.
But speaking your mind isn’t proof of anything. The ability to speak freely is freedom of speech. I’ll support anyone that is for freedom of speech and i think everyone should have the right of freedom of speech as long as it doesnt impact someone elses freedoms.
Trump. I’m not even sure what point you are making about freedom of speech, you seem to be talking about intent not about freedom of speech. I’m not actually familiar with the point you mean.
If you are against people using their freedom of speech in an attempt to take away the rights and freedoms of other people, then I’d think you’d find that most people do support freedom of speech the way that you do.
And you in no way comprehended what he said.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
When it’s propaganda and misinformation dressing up as free speech, yes.
Why are you attracted to children?