Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
People who support censorship are those who only want THEIR opinions promoted. They are intolerant of other opinions but happy to shove their own opinions down other's throats. They are the ones who love to be offended and display moral outrage. They are the PC crowd. They support authoritarianism, not peace and justice.
In the U. S., Democrat supporters and the "new" brand of liberals call anyone who disagrees with them Nazis, homophobes and/or racists even when it couldn't be further from the truth. They attack comedians, protest lectures at colleges, and scream hate at political opposition.
The tactic is used by governments, too. Israel uses it to shut down pro-Palestinian speech around the world. Democrats use it to shut down public personalities who right-wing views.
We see governments use media to promote one sided information across the board. The media is a unified echo chamber that gives one, and only one, point of view when it comes to international policy. We are subjected to the very definition of propaganda. The work of Edward Bernays has been perfected. Goebbels would be jealous.
Honest investigative journalists are deplatformed, demonetized, slandered, fired, and even arrested or murdered for reporting information that calls official narratives into question. They are accused of being "conspiracy theorists", spreading "fake news", disclosing state secrets, endangering our security, troops or operatives, or having loyalties to foreign enemies. At the same time, presstitutes are rewarded.
And if all that isn't bad enough, we saw censorship lead to mass misery, torture and death under the official covid narrative. The only voices we were allowed to hear were those who supported the official narrative. It was manufactured consensus. Thousands of medical and scientific experts, many of them being the most brilliant in their fields, were viciously censored, blocked, banned, ridiculed, slandered, threatened, and fired for simply disclosing their scientific findings to the public.
It's ironic that those who are most responsible for spreading false information accuse others of spreading "fake news".
We are living in an Orwellian era.
The big question is, who are the gate keepers? Who is qualified to determine what information should be censored? Should we suspect their agendas? Are we supposed to believe that people are incapable of forming their own opinions when rational and convincing information is made available?
If an opinion cannot be won on its own merits, then it has no merits.
Quotes on the value of open debate:
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/debate-quotes
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U. S. constitution prohibits government from infringing upon freedom of speech and the press. I support that 100%. It should apply to "social media" corporations, as well.
People should be able to say what they want it's just important that people learn to tell the difference in what people say and what they really mean. I've said it a million times I rather someone feel comfortable telling me how they really feel vs them not feeling free to speak there mind and try some stupid coward shit behind my back.
Most ideas are great when they are new, but over time idiots will find a way to mess it up.
Freedom of speech, and later the internet, was introduced to help the truth come out and to promote goodness and justice over evil. Then evil thought it was losing, so it created cheap access to everyone to say whatever worthless thing they want, in order to flood out and drown good.
I just wish the news and headlines would stop making a big deal of crimes, and so would stop stroking the ego of crimimals by giving them their very own special segment on national tv. The crimes could all be listed in a public archive where anyone could easily access the details, but the criminals wouldn't become as famous as celebrities who LITERALLY work their butts off to become famous.
We have free will for a reason. With free speech you will be able to know who to surround yourself with. Being honest is really helpful in many ways. You track down killers, , pedos and murders this way.
People need to handle that some people dont agree with the majority or the popular opinion all the time. As time continue people have gotten so soft that there is a rise on mental illnesses. Think about it, people who think everyone should think their way or the mass way or else you are CANCELLED or bullied carry the same mentality as Kim Jung Un (dictator mentality).
Opinion
28Opinion
For simple people in a simple context yes it’s fine.
Now those same simple people and not simple context, like where people use free speech to just lie about shit.
Well you have a situation where those simple people start believing lies, then as soon as anyone challenges, it’s censorship.
Then there is where people have free speech but not freedom of choice.
Also all those other countries outside of where those simple people live, can take advantage of this free speech and use it to influence their society as people are not allowed to challenge free speech.
Then you have situations where people want free speech but then want to decide what the media can or cannot say.
if the media say something contrary to what the government of the simple people want to hear.
just generalised a lot of this.
however as @purplepoppy says people need to be held accountable for what they say.
Neither. There are reasons - GOOD reasons - why we have libel and defamation laws, among other things. You can't just pretend that what you say in a public space will not have consequences, whether good or bad, minor or significant. Screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, or calling the police to report a crime when one is not actually taking place, will have serious repercussions for those who engage in such irresponsible behaviour.
Free speech never was truly free, if by "free" you mean unlimited and without consequences.
I think freedom of speech is good thing but it has to balanced to not contradict or lead to problems with other basic rights like the freedom of religion or the fundamental rights of groups of society.
The problem with that is it could lead into civil war or anarchy because when everybody to say anything about anyone with out rules people will start insulting each other with no limit.
That will lead to aggression and people starting to attack each other.
Therefore there always has to be some kind of limit though I agree that freedom of speech should be as wide as possible you can't have a functioning state or society without any limits.
I guess I believe in the principle of “don’t let your tongue get your teeth knocked out.” There’s no real “right” or even possible way to control what comes out of people’s mouths before it happens. All we can do is, collectively and individually within society, regulate one another’s speech to whatever our culture settles on as being broadly correct. Anyone is free to not comply, but no one is free from the possibility of repercussions from other individuals or collective society. If you’re being that much of an asshole and irresponsibly using your right to free speech, that’ll sort itself out eventually. The nosebleed is nature’s entry-level attempt at keeping us all honest.
There is no such thing as "free speech".
What people usually mean is either "speech without consequences" - which doesn't exist. or "speech protected within law" - which does in various forms.
No society has ever functioned by allowing everything - there must be laws and criminality as well as protected/censored speech. It's how business and government can work.
Even if you take the full anarchist model of "no government, no rulers" there must still be a leader or collective that must have their speech and power protected in order to referee or progress matters.
It’s a positive thing, Humans should be allowed to insult there governments or say what they want no matter if it’s offensive rude or you disagree with it. The left want to take away freedom of speech. This is why there can’t legally be a definition of hate speech in the United States because we have freedom of speech. The counter to bad speech is more speech
of course we should have free speech. and we should keep a very strong line conceptually between "hatespeech" (incentiting physical violence to specific people or a group of people) and "stuff that one feels offended by", cause the latter can never be a reason to take someones right of speech away.
we should all keep in mind that someone saying "there's only 2 genders" is very distinct from someone that says "kill all the jews".
i think free speech is good for society. there will of course be negative like people saying things we may disagree with but id rather have people be able to say things i dont like than to have a goverment control what we are allowed to say
I will never understand free speech advocates. Because they don't want free speech.
They want freedom from consequences. Adults deal with consequences of their behavior.
Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences
speech should be free, but lying intentionally and propaganda is another story. That isn't "free", that's manipulation and distortion. There should be fact checkers which are fact checked. In general, a lot of "truth" is subjective to the viewpoint and is concluded by the masses. e. g. did a plane hit the twin towers? The answer is likely yes, but some think it didn't. I'd let them express their view.
Free Speech wasn't meant to protect popular speech; it literally exists to protect unpopular speech. Aside from blatantly breaking the law (death threats, doxxing, criminal accusations like false rape charges, etc.) I fully believe in Free Speech. I can't believe three Twitter cucks actually sided with censorship and oppression.
Freedom of speech isn‘t really a thing where I live, nobody ever talks about such a thing. Instead people talk about a pretty similar concept called freedom of opinion. You are allowed to hold and voice every opinion you might have. Denying the holocaust for example is illegal though and that’s okay cause the holocaust not having taken place is not an opinion it‘s a lie. And tbh I don‘t see why speech should be free when actions are not. Freedom of opinion is important. Freedom of speech is just an unnecessary extension of that.
I think one thing that you can’t do is tell someone how to make a bomb. And they should probably reasonable arrest you if you said you were going to plan an attack somewhere.
If you express an opinion (say your distaste for how the current government is), then that’s fine.
Absolutely free speech sounds good in theory but in practise it means:
Unregulated ability to harass people online for example
Option to organise violence and acts of terrorism
Capacity to spread libel and defamation.
(if online) becomes a platform to distribute conspiracy theories with lethal results e. g. Antivaxx
My biggest problem is the Confederate Flag. It should be handled the same way the Nazi Flag is handled in Germany. If you have had a relative in the war, you may privately own the uniform, and the flag. Public displays are illegal.
I am a free speech absolutist, with the caveat that you don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you.
Those that see free speech as an enemy of democracy would do well to remember that I most other countries on the planet their opinions could get them jailed or even killed if they aren't careful.
Obviously there are limits, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater or send an angry mob to overthrow a legitimate election.
No. For the simple reason people need to be responsible for what they say.
You can't yell fire in a crowded room when there's no fire. That's not what free speech is meant for
Republicans will do anything to get away with being assholes, basically. And that's not what our constitution is about
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions