Free Speech Isn't Just for People That Agree With You!


With the increasing calls for, and admissions of censorship here in the US and around the world, and given the fact that on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on "The content filtering practices of Social Media" which is a nice way of saying "censorship" I thought I should share my take on Free Speech.


Free Speech Isn't Just for People That Agree With You!

There are many disturbing editorials that call for ending free speech, one by the NYT, quoting several academic professors:

"When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”"

"To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.“

Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”"

If you are wondering what kind of people are quoted in this article saying that people with opposing political viewpoints should not have free speech Catherine A. Mackinnon is also a Feminist Leader who thinks all heterosexual sex is rape:

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129.

That is the kind of people that are endorsing ending free speech.

Saying everyone including certain groups of people have the right to free speech is not the same as endorsing what those people say. Saying communists, nazis, and pro-second amendment groups, or groups calling to end free speech, have the right to free speech just like everyone else does not mean you automatically endorse what they are saying. Just as saying feminist have the right to free speech is in no way endorsing their lies, hatred of men, hatred of free speech, or of heterosexual sex.

Free Speech Isn't Just for People That Agree With You!

On "hate speech" and social media:

Much ado has been made about social media/internet search engines downranking/deplatforming and "shadow banning" people and organizations online. The usual excuse is they are guilty of "hate speech". What is "hate speech"?


That's right the notion of hate speech is designed to make people accept censorship. Not only in online platforms, but from governments as well. In Germany, Michael Stürzenberger, a journalist posted an historical picture of the at the time Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shaking hands with a high ranking Nazi, was arrested, tried and convicted for literal hate speech laws. I'm not kidding that is what they are called!

Free Speech Isn't Just for People That Agree With You!

If the government or through them a social media company doesn't like what you say, they call it "hate speech" you are censored and/or arrested. Ironically this is the exact censorship that the Nazis and later the Stasi engaged in.

Dictator-for-life of Venezuela Nicholas Mudaro, also passed "anti-hate" laws to control the Venezuelan media, and jail political opponents of his regime.

All of these laws from Europe to Venezuela to Vietnam to China, are branded as combating "hate speech" what they really are is censorship.

As well the big tech Monopolies/Oligopolies are pushing to block (shadow ban) derank (in the case of search engines and NewsFeeds) and deplatform, or crash the devices of those found guilty of "hate speech". What they mean is anyone who says something they don't like or certain governments don't like!

There are people out there who say the most vile, repulsive, disgusting, hateful things, and they are wrong in doing so. But do not be fooled the call to silence or punish them for "Hate speech" is a call to censor everyone online and off! DO NOT FALL FOR IT!

Free Speech Isn't Just for People That Agree With You!
Free Speech Isn't Just for People That Agree With You!
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Girls

  • jellyroo
    Agreed. I see a few people arguing that "yes, you can speak freely but there may be consequences" - sure, the consequence of people disagreeing with you, thinking that your argument is stupid and so on is fine.
    But how far should these consequences go? Being heavily protested and threatened with violence? Having people DEMAND that you're banned from any possible platform you may speak on? Losing your job? Being physically assaulted?

    That doesn't sound like free speech to me. If you have to live in genuine fear to speak your mind because someone may hurt you or your livelihood, how exactly are you going to be comfortable exercising your "right" to free speech?

    Speech isn't free if the "consequences" go beyond disagreeing and giving counter-arguments. Speech isn't free if the government itself and other official institutions will regulate how your speech should be used, what speech is "okay" (obviously this doesn't go for ACTUAL hate speech where you actively want to incite hatred or violence towards people).
    Is this still revelant?
    • Yes take this case from NJ. A kid remakes he is worried because his "school security is lax", so the school sends the State police to his house, and suspends him for the rest of the year for daring to criticize the school. They even say this is a "consequence" of free speech to the kid!

      Consequences=censorship. People disagreeing with you is just free speech!

  • Anonymous
    What a lot of people fail to understand in regards to free speech and censorship is just that... free speech is for /everyone/. We can say what we want, but people have as much of a right to say f-you because well... it's free speech. Not even considering ot specifying particular political parties/cultural viewpoints, true free speech goes both ways.
    Is this still revelant?
    • Guanfei

      Problem isn't that people says fuck you, problem is that those people ask it to be illegal for you to say anything they don't like.

    • Anonymous

      @Guanfei I do feel that "hate speech" should be heavily regulated, like if an official or someone in the public community/space makes racist/especially harmful remarks that makes the recipient feel like they're being put in possible danger. Not everything that someone says can be controlled, but if one MUST say it, it's best to keep it in the privacy of their home.

      With that said, I do agree with the fact that there shouldn't be heavy policing of things that aren't worth policing. Attacking the insignificant can possibly exhaust value energy that could be put into actual dangers/real issues.

    • Guanfei

      But who's gonna say what is "hate speech" and what is not?
      What if tomorrow, someone make "hate speech" any critic against LGBT community or black people, or jew, or whatever.
      They can do and say whatever they want, but if you protest, it's hate speech.
      Or simply making any critic against the government a "hate speech".
      In fact that could go as far as you can imagine, and even beyond.
      As soon as you allow people to dictate what is hate speech, you're just giving to politicians the power to say what you're allowed to say, what you can't. And that can change with who is in charge, and whose votes he's trying to get.
      You'd be fine with that regulation, too, if it impact your free speech? Because that's what will likely happen at some point.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guys

  • OlderAndWiser
    If our freedom of speech depends on the content of the speech, then we have no freedom of speech at all. The majority almost never needs protection, l because their ideas are the popular ideas. It is the unpopular, the fringe, the lunatics, the possessed, and the insane who need to have their speech protected and, when we protect their rights, we protect the rights of all Americans because, otherwise, we only have rights if we concur with the majority.

    Nice MyTake!
    Is this still revelant?
  • Oram52
    How quickly things change. We had to fight for right of free opinion. Look at the rest of the world that don't have free speech. It empowers us as individuals.

    I completely agree with you. Freedom of speech is NOT dependent on the content but it is an inalienable right. Liberty can not exist without freedom of speech. Attack freedom of speech in any form you attack your own liberty itself.
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • CHARismatic110
    You have the right to say what you want, but you also need to be ready to face the consequences. Period.
    • The consequences should NEVER be being silenced, which is what LGBT and Feminist groups are doing now more than rednecks and conservatives.

    • @ronaldo75 I don't feel like anyone should be silenced, but again, of you're spewing hateful things then you better be ready to face the consequences.

    • I still think that's a poor attitude to have. We should be much more forgiving about what people say.

    • Show All
  • DinaM
    "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it."

    However, it seems like these days "free speech" seems to be a term that douchebags hide behind in order to not have to face the fact that they are being douchebags. I see all this intolerant, hateful bile spewed out, and the moment you say "dude, not cool" then the speaker immediately goes "FREE SPEECH!! CENSORSHIP!!"

    The problem, from what I can see, that a lot of these free speech advocates aren't really interested in free speech... they just don't want to hear that what they're saying is mean and insensitive. They're just as eager to silence people who say things they don't like.

    I mean, I see it a BIT too often. how some guy makes a rousing defense of free speech, only to turn around and claim that feminists should shut up or that LGBT people need to stop shoving their sexuality in our faces. And you know, in that case I don't buy their interest in free speech at all. They're just as eager to call for censorship when someone says something they don't like or challenge their worldview.

    Want to advocate for free speech? Cool, more power to ya. But if you do, then commit to it. Don't just use it as an excuse to say mean things.
    • "feminists should shut up or that LGBT people need to stop shoving their sexuality in our faces"
      Telling them to shut up or go away is not the same as shutting them up or making them go away with force or coercion.

      The only people who seem either inconsistent or in opposition to free speech are the control-left progressive types or the alt-right ethnostatist types and perhaps generally the mainstream media to some extent -- they're inconsistent at times too, essentially they fall under the progressive category.

    • DinaM

      @AllThatSweetJazz Oh, I see. When YOU tell someone to shut up, that's not stifling anyone's free speech, but when someone else tells YOU the same, that IS stifling of free speech.

    • They can tell me to shut up too, that's fine. I thought that was obvious, but whatever.
      Does that clear it up for you?

    • Show All
  • JZ909
    I think there are two things going on here:

    1. The concept of free speech is being attacked. I strongly disagree with this. I would never want to suppress a Nazi's right to say what they want, because if I rob them of a voice, I rob myself the chance to debate the narrative that they are spreading, and actually enhance their narrative and make it seem stronger than it is because I can't refute it.

    2. A larger portion of communication is being hosted on platforms that belong to corporations (like the one we're using right now). Corporations must have some right to govern what happens on their platforms or the internet would be utter chaos. That being said, as people get overly eager to suppress offensive speech, there is a risk that company policies will suppress political thought because no one has a platform to consider something that is considered offensive. I think it's important that individuals value free speech and respond accordingly when companies issue draconian terms of use on communication platforms.

    That being said, I think it's important we focus on the reason we have the freedom of speech in the first place. In my opinion, the reason is so that we can hear opinions and form our own opinions as individuals. Debating a point, basically any point, however horrible, should be permitted, and someone should not be censored or shouted down for a stating their position.

    However, should inciting someone by using a racial slur be permitted? Should misconstruing a person's intent to make them seem like a psychopath (a rather common tactic in today's political environment) be permitted? Should falsehoods be permitted? Should irrational arguments be permitted? In my opinion, the answer is yes, but all of these things should be frowned upon as well, and refuted in debate. If you resort to using such base tactics, in my opinion you're compensating for a weak position.
    • 1. It is being attacked by governments and corporations.

      2. Corporations do not have the right to defraud customers by promising an open platform and then censoring those they don't agree with secretly. Much of these "algorithms" are not made public, so no one knows up front that these platforms are censoring. As well governments are increasingly using these platforms as third party censorship.

      I agree that all of what you say should be permitted.

    • JZ909

      Just to clarify, I meant that I disagree with the attacks on free speech, not that I disagree that they're happening.

      I can understand why corporations don't make their algorithms public, because people will just find a way around the specific code and essentially say the exact same thing. I can also understand the difficulty in managing all this. You want free speech, but you also don't want some particular group flooding your platform with a single point of view and drowning out every other opinion, essentially denying someone else a voice. It's easy to fairly moderate in a debate between two people, but a lot harder when you're relying an automated process and thousands of people.

    • But by using these algorithms they are already doing that denying people a voice, drowning them out.

  • linds34
    The word "censorship" sounds bad, but if you don't have moderation or guidelines on an online discussion site, intelligent discussions end up getting hijacked by low-quality racist and anti-Semitic posts. Then the good posters stop going on because they can't have a productive discussion. I can't name any site where there are great discussions without some kind of posting guidelines or moderation.
    • Censorship sounds bad because it is. Also, it is done in the dark, no one knows the criteria other than general, subjective guidelines. It should also be pointed out government censorship, should be avoided at all costs. Monopolies/Oligopolies, that individually or together control 80% of internet searches or social media traffic censoring, is basically like the telephone company saying you can't have a phone or you can't say X on the phone. It is absurd, and as I have said can be a workaround for government censorship, like; Hitler, Mussalini, Stalin, etc.

  • slatyb
    "Free speech" means the government cannot suppress speech in most circumstances. Private media companes (newspapers, websites, etc.) are free to control the speech they transmit.

    I agree that laws censoring speech, whether pornography, hate speech, or blasphemy are extremely likely to be used to suppress speech that does not align with the interests in power.
    • No they cannot. They cannot interrupt your phone conversations because they do not like what you say for instance. As well internet companies can and are used by some governments as third party censors.

  • RolandCuthbert
    I don't understand the "take" all.

    You are kind of start out okay talking about free speech, but then you quickly devolve in to an Alex Jones webisode.

    I agree that free speech is not just speech you agree with.

    But you basically slander Catherine Mackinnon. Mackinnon's first quote came in her proposal to have legislation against pornography. She said that pornography is not protected under the free speech. As using your analysis that free speech is not just speech you agree with, there are many "Conservatives" who agree with her.

    Then moving on, you simply a commonly used slander, all sex is rape. She never said that. In fact, the woman who said something approximating that is Andrea Dworkin. And even she denied she used those words.

    So here you are showing what the limits of free speech are. You can't lie about what people said. That should be libelous and subject to legal remedies in our justice system.

    As for other nations, there are many dictatorships and authoritarian regimes out there that limit free speech. Some more than others. I can't do anything about that. I can only fight to ensure freedom in my own country.

    Some people in other nations actually like having their freedoms limited. That's their business.
  • mishanw_1071
    I agree, but I also believe that fee speech is ok as long as its expressed in a way that doesn't harm anyone. You are allowed to say that you dont like gay people (not my opinion). people will disagree or agree and thats ok, as long as its not smt like "the fags should burn in hell" (i literally feel sick typing that) saying "i dont agreed with homosexuals" is a great way of expressing the same view point. again, i am 100% supportive of lgbtq+ i just couldnt think of anything else atm
    • But who decides who is offended? Who decides who "might be offended"? For instance Michael Stürzenberger, the journalist I mentioned was sentenced because the court "felt" his 100% accurate photo "could cause hatred against Islam". So I say "i don't agreed with homosexual" might cause hatred against that group, you are therefore guilty of "hate speech". I agree people say vile evil, and wrong things, but this whole notion of "banning hate speech" is just an excuse to get people to support censorship.

    • When someone says something vile, call them out on it. Don't allow governments or big corporations to arbitrarily decide x speech is hurtful, or might be hurtful, because that will resort in censorship, and eventually a nightmare scenario.

    • i agree that the gov. should stay out of it, but sometimes they should step in (in cases of actual danger)

  • _乃尺OЩ刀_TITI
    About that New York times article, it seems to me the article isn't calling for Free Speech to end whatsoever as you say ''That is the kind of people that are endorsing ending free speech''. The article is pretty much an opinion-based article. What's the opinion of the author? Pretty much what the title says, ''How the conservatives weaponized the first amendment''. He's giving his opinion on the state of first amendment in USA. The article is pretty interesting, though I didn't read much of it, some Interesting points been raised there.

    On the issue of Hate Speech. No I don't agree. Hate Speech is real, several countries who had rigid laws about these had profound parts of their history ravaged by hate speech. An example of this was Rwanda which had the biggest genocide since The Holocaust where 800,00 to 1 million died in 100 days of killing, and fairly recent too (1994). The genocide happened at the will of government, mass propaganda of spewing hate speech and reducing to dehumanisation against Tutsis ethnics was rampant. Played on the radios etc. That hate campaign waged on for a long time. That's the remarkable case point of this event, the ones in power did that to make the citizen themselves angry and carry out the genocide themselves in which that exactly what happened.. This is why the article of NY times was quite interesting as I said. ''Weaponizing free speech'', here we got an example of that, the previous government Rwanda was perfectly exercising Free speech purely in terms of technicality, but that speech was propaganda and hate speech. Achieved through manipulation and lies just like how hate speech or any policy can be weaponised. In which case as many people say to suppress free speech and as you say Free Speech=Censorship. I just don't agree. This is why I'm not in favour of getting rid of hate speech laws. Laws happened because of events that tries to prevent it from happening again or prosecute who tries to make it occur again, they didn't just passed out of the blue. Now are there specific aspects of Hate Speech laws that are vague and be manipulated? Sure but of course these laws are varied to countries on what counts as Hate Speech laws, that's why there is revision of laws and should be changed if what constitutes is unjust.
    • (2)
      Now about that German man, Michael Stürzenberger being arrested, tried and convicted for posting a historical photo. I dug a little deeper because the information you had provided was just insufficient. What I found was that

      1) He's not a journalist and many people don't consider him one.. Kinda like Tommy Robinson not regarded as journalist by many people in UK. Regarded as political activist though

      2) He wasn't arrested for just merely posting a historical photo but because of Nazi propaganda as apparently, he has a record of it. He was arrested for posting Swastika symbols without context and that is prohibited in Germany.

      3) He wasn't jailed. He was fined and on probation

    • (3)
      Personally, what I just notice about U. S. political talks is that there is this ''absolutism'' mentality floating around... ''Free speech means free speech even when you disagree with it'' in the quote at the bottom picture you had provided, and I've heard this before from various people. If this is the case, then therefore direct verbal threats or shouting fire or bomb to cause hysteria etc should be let off because FREE SPEECH MOTHATFUCKAAA!! Nowhere else in the world have absolutism freedom. Nowhere, because there will always be limitation due to overlapping. Growing up I've always learnt that rights comes with responsibilities (rights and responsibilities). Seeing discussion about rights, almost every time I see no discussion of responsibility along with it. Shame, people just wants all the good stuff but not the accountability.

    • (4)
      Now as others have said, there will be consequences, but the counter reply is saying ‘but not to silence etc’. Now again the issue of limitation arises, what should be the limitations of these consequences? As of now it’s government cannot prosecute you for your speech. So expand that into private companies enforcing Free Speech like social media can’t kick you off?

    • Show All
  • Phoenix98
    Of course it isn't, free speech is for everyone, that's what makes it free speech the ability for anyone to speak their minds and say anything they'd like to.

    It's the right to speak your mind, it's the right to offend, among other things.
    • Beware people who talk of "consequences" of free speech this is almost always code for some form of censorship.

    • Phoenix98

      I know and those people should be watched closely to ensure they don't ever have the power to enable censorship.

  • Celtero
    If people say stupid, wrong things, then it should be easy to prove them wrong verbally and change their mind. If you can't, they maybe you're the one who's wrong.
  • Browneye57
    TLDR, but yes. Only the progressive left wants to limit speech. And the precious snowflakes on college campuses - all that 'hate speech' and they get 'triggered'. pfft. What a f'ing joke.
    • While I agree there is a disturbing amount on the political left right now, calling for censorship, there are also elements on the right, not in ascendancy, that would censor as well.

  • VaIiant
    You're allowed to say whatever you feel like, but everyone around you has the right to disagree, as well as to force you to face your consequences. Thats life.
    • "everyone around you has the right to disagree" that is just free speech. As for "consequences" that is often just code for censorship, as with all of these hate speech (read censorship) laws. For instance the "consequence" under Hitler/Musalini/Lennin et al, was you were put in a work camp or killed.

  • goaded
    You should be free to express your opinions, but there have to be serious laws in place to protect people against defamation.

    People should face swift legal consequences if they claim, for example, that their political rival's father was an accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald.
    • linds34

      Good example, I'm not sure how many people will get it :)

    • goaded

      @linds34 Thanks, I wondered that, too.

      In these days of social media, it shouldn't be beyond the skills of the companies to ensure that every recipient of a posting receives a copy of a court-ordered retraction; at the moment, retractions of fake news don't propagate as far as the original because people don't like to admit mistakes.

      The answer to bad speech is more, good, speech, but that only works if everybody hears both.

  • Lliam
    Censorship isn't about protecting people from being offended or preventing violence.

    Giant social media corporations, just like mainstream news outlets, are guilty of propagandizing by promoting certain points of view and burying others. They create manufactured consensus by allowing people to see only certain information. They prevent people from developing informed opinions by withholding the information to do so.

    Academics, researchers and independent journalists who write opinions that are counter to the official corporate/government are robbed of a platform. Documentation that sheds negative light on aspects of vaccines or big-pharma is buried. Photographs and other documentation on Israeli crimes are considered antisemitic hate speech. Doing research into any details on the accepted holocaust narrative is considered antisemitic hate speech and severely punished. Sharing research that calls into question the U. S. government narrative about places like Syria and Venezuela is blocked.

    Mountains of information are being hidden from the public. This isn't an effort to censor hate speech. It is an effort to control people's minds. It's just being sold to the public as an effort to protect them from hate and disinformation. I am ashamed to say that many of my fellow "liberals" are the ones falling for it. Their desire for peace and love is driving them to support the exact opposite. They don't seem to see the value of liberty or the fact that abating the liberty of others diminishes their own. We are being led on a path toward Orwellian authoritarianism.

    On social media, we have the ability to ignore or read opinions. We can write comments, agree or disagree. We can block or unfriend those with whom we no longer wish to associate. But we do NOT need a third party to monitor our conversations or protect us. Everyone is perfectly capable of doing that for themselves.

    The consequence for voicing unpopular views is to be marginalized by those who hear us. I absolutely oppose any other consequences. I believe there are already criminal consequences for those who actually call to incite violence.

  • UncleJessieRabbit
    In my opinion, people should be free to express any idea or position whether it's popular or not. Some people will never change their thinking or ideas anyway, no matter how much society wants to change them. People also brought the "guilt by association" into things.

    This being said, I'll express that MacKinnon's extremist view that all heterosexual sex is rape very frightening and shall she be publicly shunned for her views. We shouldn't allow this to one day maybe become mainstream.
    • That feminist veiw is becoming mainstream. Not only is she not the only one to have it we see this in the rape culture myth and on regret sex becoming rape, and the mere accusation of rape or sexual jarassment are to be beleived.

    • @genuinelysensitive This does scare me a lot and I can only imagine what society will be like 10 years from now if these social trends continue in their direction.

      This is not at all socially "progressive".

  • IndieGirlJess
    Free speech doesn't give someone the right to spread false information, especially if you are talking about someone else's reputation.
    • It actually does, that doesn't make it right, or what any decent person would do though.

    • Actually it doesn't. Certain people in government are not allowed to talk about certain things. If they try and spill the beans they might wind up dead and any others they know through collateral damage. So free speech isn't always a good thing.

    • It is a good thing and it is 100% legal to "spill the beans" that is how many criminal organisations get brought down. Killing someone that is illegal.

  • ObscuredBeyond
    To feel that threatened is to have no security in one's own positions. Only an insecure, power-hungry tyrant is that terrified of their worldview being challenged.

    The only time smen want to completely and totally control every word and thought of other men, is when they either believe they are doing God's work, or seeking to become gods themselves.
  • coralee
    Freedom of Speech does not mean what you think it means. Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from the consequences of that speech nor is it right to a platform. It also doesn't protect you from the social consequences of that speech. Private businesses absolutely have the right to distance themselves from people who proclaim messages that are against their beliefs and or values. It is funny that the people proclaiming censorship the loudest are the same people who burned Dixie Chicks Cds when they said they didn't like Bush or tell celebrities that they don't have a right to an opinion on Trump.
    • Private businesses do not have the right to defraud customers by claiming to be an "open platform" and hearing "all sides equally" then secretly censoring views they don't like. They do not have the right to corner the market and become Monopolies/Trusts. Governments do not have the right to use private companies to censor the populace.

      " It is funny that the people proclaiming censorship the loudest are the same people who burned Dixie Chicks Cds when they said they didn't like Bush or tell celebrities that they don't have a right to an opinion on Trump." I have never done those things, but I must ask, just because you don't like some of the people "proclaiming" it, does it mean they are wrong?

    • coralee

      Yes they absolutely do have the right to distance themselves. Especially considering it may affect their bottom line. Freedom of Speech is not a go ahead to say whatever you want without social consequences. Social consequences are how any functioning society functions. Fear from public ridicule is a great deterrent.

    • Yes, social consequences, but just because an idea is ridiculed doesn't mean it is wrong either. Keep in for instance, the notion of protecting civil rights was ridiculed at certain times as well.

  • FatherJack
    It seems that George Orwell's 1984 , is being used by many " governments " worldwide as an instruction manual. There is growing , stealthy , censorship of those that do not subscribe to the Cultural Marxist PC views. Totally agree and good take , liberty is being removed by stealth... there are very powerful hidden agendas at work.
  • worldscolide
    I will just quote Dr Jordan Peterson and say awesome MyTake.. Sadly in the UK and in Canada Freedom of speech no longer exists

    “In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive,” he said. “I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth … And that is what you should do … More power to you, as far as I concerned.”
  • kespethdude
    You should tell a certain someone in Washington, DC that...
    • I have, they don't just listen to one person. Which is why we should all tell these certain people in Washington DC!

    • Not exactly what I meant, but that's a good point too.

  • HungLikeAHorsefly
    Anybody with an ACLU membership card knows this already.
    • I am curious what you think of the ACLU tweeting what seems to be support for making catcalling illegal in the US.

    • You should provide an example for that. What tweets?

    • Ah, don't bother. I assume you're referring to the deleted ambiguous tweet in response to the French law on catcalling.

      I think it was a dumb tweet and that it's so inconsistent with their stance on other free speech issues that it's not reasonable to assume they're in support of a ban on catcalling unless they explicitly say so. They should explain their tweet, though. Not doing so just gives people who hate the ACLU room to speculate about all kinds of crazy shit.

    • Show All
  • lazermazer
    There’s line between “speaking your opinion” and ”insulting someone”
    • Facts don't care about your feelings. - Ben Shapiro.

    • @Trollfather Someone will kill you. - Lazermazer

    • You can try. I'm not afraid to fight a snowflake. I can take 10 of em at the same time I bet.

    • Show All
  • CubsterShura
    One reminder: freedom of speech does not give you the right to misuse it. And I don't believe anyone has the right to:
    1) Say hurtful, rude things.
    2) Give false information intentionally or unintentionally. It's very important that you verify your facts before you say it to other people, or at least mention 'I might be wrong.'
    3) Deceive people.
    4) Spread rumors and get into gossiping and badmouthing.
    5) Disrespect elders and seniors.
    6) I could carry this on.

    Either say what's good/helpful, or shut up. Only because doing certain things won't get you arrested, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do them. Because when you use freedom of speech to say something hurtful, it's like taking advantage of the fact that no one will arrest you for not brushing your teeth. It's gross but hey, it's not illegal, right?
    • No people do have the right to do all those things.
      Just like anything else, having the ability to do something doesn't mean you *should*.

      The issue isn't so much that people "Want to say hurtful things for the sake of being hurtful" it's the inability to state facts solely on the grounds that people take offense to those facts.

      I can state that MS-13 should face harsh penalties and spend their lives behind bars. Now, MS-13 *happens* to be comprised of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. This does not change the nature of their hideous crimes, but it does mean that people will choose to take offense by asserting that any disparoging remarks against MS-13 are a veiled attack against Mexicans as a whole (Not true, but I can see why people need it to be).

      If I criticised a white gang, nobody cares. If I criticize a Mexican gang, people get hurt.

      Just because there are people who want to find ways to be offended and make everything about race, does not make me obliged to censor myself.

    • @ThatPersonOverThere there will always be some sentiments regarding these matters and criticizing a group can get backaches, but yeah as long as it's constructive criticism and not a hate speech then it's fine.

    • First of all YES IT DOES absolutely give you the right to do all those things. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it is the moral, correct, or even best thing to do. But the thing comes when people are censored or punished for say "hateful" things, who decides what is hateful? Is criticizing a dictator, hateful? It is in countries like Venezuela.

    • Show All
  • JustWorthlessMe
    This is Trump's America!

    Hating non-white races and hating women is encouraged and celebrated now.

    The pathetic, sniveling, worthless racists and sexists now can be a little less cowardly.
    • zagor

      Nice way to avoid commenting on the issues brought up by diverting with irrelevance to the subject matter.

    • @zagor Because it has everything to do with free speech. All the cockroaches are coming out and trying to destroy the Constitution because they want free stuff.

    • Bjorn9977

      Haha yeah trump a racist haha i repeat everything snl puts into my head haha

  • Juxtapose
    lol! The amount of people commenting who don't even understand what free speech means is ridiculous.

    I hate how little people want to protect unpopular speech.
  • Dude_1820
    Yes! I received flack from my peers regarding the Sanders situation when she was kicked out of the restaurant. My opinion is that the business owner has the right to make that decision, despite me disagreeing with his decision, he still has the right
  • Aynsof
    The concept of free speech only applies to government interfering
    And every democratic society that heralds free speech has things that are exempt
    You have no right of free speech on social media
    You are also not exempt from consequences from exercising your free speech if you get fired for saying something it does not in any way shape or form violate your right to free speech
    You are right though that hate crime legislation that can be enforced against speaking does violate the spirit of the concept
    So it comes to the paradoxical dilemma
    Can you protect free speech by denying it
    • The concept of free speech only applies to government interfering

      Many are interfering and using tech firms as a third party, as and "agent of the police" (look it up) As well no it doesn't just apply to governments. Private companies cannot read your letters, listen to your phone calls, or deny you access to phones. In the new internet age online communications are as vital as both of those, if not more.

      "And every democratic society that heralds free speech has things that are exempt"

      The only exemption is threats of or calls to violence.

      "You are also not exempt from consequences from exercising your free speech if you get fired for saying something it does not in any way shape or form violate your right to free speech"

      while technically correct the employer could well open themselves up to lawsuits.

      "Can you protect free speech by denying it"? NO!

    • Aynsof

      Tech companies imposing limits on what you can and cannot do on their platforms is within their rights it does in no way shape or form constitute government interference

      As for private companies reading your letters listen to your phone and all that has absolutely zero to do with free speech it is a privacy issue something completely separate

      Freedom of speech is really exclusively about the government not being allowed to stop you from speaking about well basically anything
      There are of course in most legislature some exceptions made
      What things are exempt differs from country to country
      Here for example it is illegal to insult certain groups such as police officers while performing their duties

      And yes a company firing someone for saying something might open themselves up to lawsuits
      It would be a civil suit and is completely unrelated to the concept of freedom of speech

      I do agree the answer to the question of protecting freedom of speech by denying it is no you can't

    • No, as I have provided, multiple examples of governments using social media as third party censors, where people are literally arrested, fined, and/or jailed because a certain government doesn't like what they said on social media platforms. By doing this alone the mask of "we are just a private company" comes off, as they become an agent of the State.

      The examples given are of the phone company, a private company, cannot deny you service, or moderate your speech on their platform, pointing out that no not even private companies have the right to do this, especially when social media giants have become the way the world communicates.

    • Show All
  • HereIbe
    "Social" networks and "social" platforms are PRIVATE PROPERTY! It is not possible for private property to impose censorship as it pertains to free speech, any more than it would be censorship for me to say "You will NOT say such things in my living room!" You have a right to spew any of the racist crap you want, but they do NOT have any obligation to let you use THEIR PROPERTY as the means whereby to spew it.

    That is one of the fundamental underpinnings of a free market society. The owners of property have the right to say how it is not going to be used.
    • It 100% is possible and it is being done.

    • HereIbe

      Okay, try coming into my living room and forcing me to not get you to leave.

    • I was referring to social networks, and your argument of private property being able to deny service is wrong, they cannot deny service to people because of their skin color, for instance that is illegal. They cannot engage in fraud either, say by claiming to be an open and free platform while censoring people who do not call for violence.

      You use the example of saying "don't say x in my living room" ok, but in many cases that is not what is happening. They do not say "if you express x you will be shadow banned or banned" other than calling for violence. If they were open and admitted they will censor based on political views they disagree with that would be something different, but they don't do that.

    • Show All
  • genericname85
    Filtering content and forbidding certain expressions isn't an impediment of free speech... When do people finally understand that?
    • Oram52

      It is impediment of free speech literally. You are deliberetly attempting to hinder someone expressing their views.

    • @Oram52 here are 2 examples.
      A: censoring of inappropriate material. Showing your dick or your pussy is not necessary or appropriate to have a discussion about a topic in order to express an opinion, therefore it's not impediment of free speech.

      B: shouting "Heil Hitler" ist Not a way of conveying an opinion. It's the incriminating expression of being part of the Nazi movement. You can discuss your absolutely legitimated right wing opinion without shouting Heil Hitler, therefore it is ok to forbid this.

      Also B: sometimes chants or straight up repeatedly yelling the same thing over and over in order to overpower and therefore silencing a public speaker for example is impediment of free speech and must be forbidden. As it is not the formulation of an opinion, it's just making noise to prevent others from being heard and therefore doesn't count as free speech.

      Not every noise you make with your mouth can be classified as free speech.

    • Of course critique is legitimate but it must be uttered following the rules of civilized discussion and conversation. If it doesn't, it's not free speech, it's a crime.

    • Show All
  • Trollfather
    Yep. The whole point of free speech is to protect unpopular opinions. That's why the LEFT wants to destroy the first Amendment.
  • JellyDonutguy96
    Free speech is universal

    anyone who tries to block it is a rotten communist
  • Toad-1
    Yeah in fact the reason the first amendment of the U. S. bill of rights even exists in the first place is to protect speech people don't like.

    couple quotes for people to think about:
  • YHL6965
    Yes, people need to be open minded and get out of their safe spaces.
  • Guanfei
    WOW BUDDY! Calm down with your logic and common sense, they're not used to it.
  • zivvk
  • RedRobin
    Nice take
  • AngelicSin
    Nice Take
  • TadCurious
    Excellent piece of work. 👍
  • RedThread
    Free speech always goes both ways.
  • NYCQuestions1976
  • GayHowellMeme
    I agree
  • tinesters
    That's definitely correct
  • Deathraider
    there is no free speech
  • StrawberryMan
    Fuck the government.
  • Anonymous
    It's for everyone but there can still be consequences to it
  • Anonymous
    I disagree with you.
    • Why is that?

    • Anonymous

      I do not think free speech should be the most sacred thing in a society. Certain things, words, ideas, beliefs should trump free speech.

    • Well the fact that everyone has the inalienable right to free speech, and it must be protected is an ideal. What specifically do you think should "trump free speech"?

  • Anonymous
    At first I think it's very very good that the paragraph 13 didn't passed!
    And yes free speech means to hear things you would not hear, but I think at least this is the sense of it. That other people know what each think and if you like it or not is a different thing. It is not possible that everybody on the world thinks in the same way! So why to hide all the thinking differences?
    • I am passionate about this, believe it or not this was originally much longer!

  • Anonymous
    Personally here is my rational thought on the matter. [I am very broad with this matter since I don't want to have a say and who does what.]
    -People do you
    It doesn't matter what people think or do, just do you.
    -If it ain't killing
    If your "speech" will end up getting someone killed. It isn't worth wasting the oxygen to say it then ruin someone else's life.
    -Deal with the consequences
    Whatever you say/do may and will have consequences. Whether it is good or bad, there will be.
    • By killing do you mean death threats/calls to violence? I can agree on that. What exactly do you mean by consequences?

    • Anonymous

      I mean that for example
      Hitler spoke about how any other race is bad. Ended killing millions of Jews.
      Consequences can be good and bad
      I. E. Black lives matter brought tons of attention to corrupt cops. However, it also made a lot of cops hated that haven't done anything.

    • To be fair those are examples of rhetoric. Hitler was trying to justify killing people for instance, mainly because he knew that other people didn't have free speech to defend themselves, and if they did, they were killed or moved to death camps.