People only want freespeech to promote discrimination and ultimately the extermination of minorities, true?

[purplepoppy]

We all have our views and it's great to express them even if we don't always agree. For example I believe animals are delicious and should be eaten but you might be a vegan. But here's the thing, I don't bang on about free speech and neither do my vegan rivals.

In fact the only people I ever hear use the term "free speech" are the one's who want to be able to aggressively discriminate against people. I would go as far as to say their ultimate goal is to promote the dehumanisation of minorities and their extermination.

[Lliam]

I totally disagree. 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.

[NaultD]

True, but we need to be better then this analysis, that's ultimately the toll of the high road. I wouldn't have it any other way honestly, keeps us practicing being on our toes ready fpr the next fight we know is around the next generation of problems ahead.

Yes people have the freedom of speech but people also have the freedom to not listen. I see the internet as basically an open mic performance and any given website is hosting. If you break terms of service of that hosting service you eventually get that cartoon hook dragged off the stage kick outside. " you don't have to go to your homepage but you can't stay here." No one's getting sent to the gulag. that's how this game works.

"Well the internet is the new public square." If that's the case we as a nation failed in everyway to maintain public squares. Public relations should not have sponsored ads for dick pills, VPNS to hide from government surveillance, flowers and chocolates between every post. On a website owned by the richest person alive who has his own agendas.

Circling back. Yes people demanding "freedom of speech" on the internet are cringey people. We need to be better then them with literally anything else then questioning "freedom of speech." It's fairly easy and it looks like this everytime.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WVJVOATmsBQ?feature=share

[theothersider]

Freespeech is often times misconstrued with " saying what ever it is you want". " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibited the free exercise thereof or abrigding the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people to peacfully assemble and to petition the government to address grievances. " a 1st amendment absolustionist and libertarian would say it is right there in black and white. What the founding fathers meant was freedom of speech in the town square and other public spaces and essentially ensuring the right of the people open discourse and the ability to be critical of the governing class with out fear of reprisal imprisonment or persecution. It is why congress extended the right to private entities and individuals to bar speech that maybe hurtful to them or others in places like work spaces. With non discrimination polices and work place codes of conduct implying it only pertains to the public squar and government. BUT, social media platforms have become a defacto town square primarily due to the fact that our elected class use those platforms to communicate political ideas and said platforms use that power to control the speech of the digital town square to maintainor protect a narrative that is favorable to them. I'm sure now that Elon musk owns the town square the lef... congress will be more than ready to repeal 230 protections for Twitter and Facebook and any other platform they are worried might spread misinformation about the POTATUS and his administration 😉

[Msputiton]

Most of the free speech fighters don't understand the constitution they are fighting for.

Freedom of speech allows people to express themselves without government regulation.

Yup they are free to spew their hate how they want.

But others including companies that hire them are allowed to fire them for violating their terms.

Just like privately owned companies like Facebook, twitter, Instagram and other internet owned companies can ban someone from using their product for violating their terms we all agreed to follow when we signed up.

The problem has been people have allowed people to say and do anything they wanted with no consequences.

Most of these people were raised to think it is cool to be a piece of shit, but people are tired of it, and they are fighting back against it.

Now they realize most people don't like people that have a piece of shit attitude and aren't allowing them to get away with it.

But just like they are free to say what they want others are free to shut them out of their lives and conversations for being a piece of shit.

And if it gets them fired. Well maybe they should've took a moment and said does my racist attitude violate my jobs rules. But ya know they got to use their freedom of speech, but forgot every action has consequences even freedom of speech.

And government did exactly what they wanted. They stayed out of it and allowed them and their job to figure it out.

[PinkMichae]

I disagree. I'm one that feels free speech is important because without it we don't get the chance to decide for ourselves what's true or not having all opinions and facts. When any speech is blocked you're left with one narrative to believe which could be wrong. But you don't have all the facts to even know you are wrong. And being wrong has ruined lives.

I don't hate immigrants, (even illegal ones) lgbt community, minority race's, other religions, other political views, and really not anyone. Well people who murder, rape, torture, and pedophiles I hate. But that's all I can think of I hate at this time. I don't even hate my president despite how I believe he's hurt our country.

I know it can be hard for most people to stop stereotyping people based on their beliefs. Including me. But I try to keep it in the back of my mind so I'm more fair to people. Lots of people stereotype me as a republican because I have some Republicans views. But I have some liberal views too. So I don't like to label myself.

[PinkMichae]

Oh, and don't forget that there are people from minority race's, people who are LGBT+, men and women who all want free speech. It's not just the few rightwing, racist, sexist, or xenophobic white people we have left in America. There's way less of them then you think.

[t-8900]

False since many of the people blocking free speech block minority voices and even take it upon themselves to speak on their behalf. Also they block the distribution of new ideas leading to stagnation. Only serfs and tyrants fear free speech. It's funny that the same people against free speech never bring up Saudi Princes and Radicalized butchers using platforms that eagerly block their political rivals ideas, but not slave drivers, wife beaters, rapists, pedophiles, and warmongers.

I tell people this, in fact I've told this to 5 different people in person in my life when they have issues dealing with the real world (which is something people who hate free speech struggle with), " go back to your momma's tit because you ain't ready for this world." Reality is a real bitch but the fact of the matter is safe spaces don't actually exist.

People who complain about their feelings being hurt or can't take the fact that their world views can be challenged, or that the facts don't align with what they spew are a WEAKNESS to their communities, nations, and the entire human species and are perpetual babies. I'm tired of people with mommy and daddy issues getting catered to because they had deadbeat parents that caused them perpetual drama, or because idiots at University could never be challenged and so taught a whole generation to be just as idiotic as they are.

They're okay telling me how to live my life but they're not okay when I flip the bird in response. Well this buck won't ever comply or conform. If one side gets a free pass for burning down city blocks the other sides should be able to leave a detailed and lengthy response on why those actions were idiotic and why they in turn are idiots. And if you don't allow that bit of free speech well, you get serious retaliations January 6 "riots". "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION." Do you recall that one?

[Friendlybro79]

Really think through what you said? Clearly this isn't how everyone thinks. For ex you clearly don't feel this way hence why you asked.

So even if you're the only one in the world who doesn't believe your generalized statement then you've already contradicted your statement.

Also you did this again in your example below with your food example regarding omnivore diets vs vegan rivals. That example also states they're some people that use free speech for other reasons. So you have proven yourself wrong twice. I'm saying you're incorrect because this is not the only reason why all people want free speech. That said some people use free speech to say discriminatory things. You also talk about how people ONLY want free speech to promote discrimination and exterminate minorities. You make such an extreme statement without having examples to back it up. This is something I notice on this site frequently. I can't tell if people are just saying things out of frustration and forgetting to think logically or they actually believe nonsensical generalized blanket statements like this.

[KostasKouvalis]

Not neccessarily. That's not to say it doesn't happened, but not to the extent as you think. And honestly, no one complains when it's directed towards White people. I don't think it's right to nit pick certain things and telling people how to think. We should be able to question their logic, but I personally think we shouldn't filter anything, but rather we should be using evidence to back up our claims and let people come to their own conclusion.

Just as an example, I don't think it's racist to say that White people are better at running countries, and places with high white populations have higher standards of living and lower crime.
But some people don't like to hear these kinds of facts, because they reinforce the very concepts they claim don't exist.

As far as racist speech goes, I think instead of playing the victim, minorities should start telling themselves, "Oh, THAT'S why they're racist against us. Maybe we should try to better ourselves, instead of playing victim and expecting others to change for us."

[KostasKouvalis]

But if you're talking about reinstating Appartheid, I don't support that, but I'm also not for censoring people who do, because I think it's important to understand why they think the way they do.

There's a huge difference between saying that Black communities have a crime problem, and Black people as a whole should be treated worse than Whites.

[Ez-Bri-Z]

I think that a lot of those who claim free speech better understand what it means. It doesn't mean this app or any social media site needs to listen to every brain fart that comes to their head. If it is offensive, it can be blocked because these are businesses that have paying advertisers to worry about.

Free speech also doesn't mean free them from consequences from the public. Sure the government can't do too much here in the US, but I certainly can call them idiots if I so choose and I can boycott their businesses.

These people who lose business then cry about cancel culture being a violation of their free speech is laughable.

I agree with your premise though. They want freedom to oppress but don't want the consequences of doing so.

[Oigit]

The kind of people are talking about want free speech without the consequences that can come with it. So they want to be able to throw around as much hate speech as they want and not get punched in the mouth because someone got sick of hearing it. So in a way it's not about having free speech at all. It's simply them wanting to have their actions come with no consequences.

A big issue is that most people seem too think that whenever someone says they want free speech, they are part of the above group. Another big issue is that when you throw everyone to the same negative group like that you are in fact negatively stereotyping people.

[HighlyVolatile]

One of the primary reasons I'm in favor of free speech is to have a fighting chance, however slim, to persuade people away from discriminatory views.

Take this example from Megan-Phelps Roper who was persuaded away (through free speech) from leaving the hateful Westboro Baptist Church, even though she used to be among those holding up signs like "God hates fags." If she wasn't able to express her former views freely, she never would have encountered her opportunities to be persuaded to change her mind:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bVV2Zk88beY

[HighlyVolatile]

Another example with Daryl Davis who has managed to persuade so many former KKK members from leaving the clan:
https://youtu.be/ORp3q1Oaezw

[crossdressingrihno]

Fact is anyone who has themselves silenced enough is going to complain about free speech it just so happens that racist people get silenced quite a bit because they're racist and no one wants to hear that s*** but they're not the only ones who get silenced.
People who don't believe in abortions frequently get silenced depending on where you live and if you're in the right area they happen to complain about Free speech somewhat often.
In some areas it's highly Catholic and so atheists complain about free speech and vice versa

I used to complain about Free speech quite a bit when I was talking about better immigration policies

[DaveToo]

Free speech is a guarantee, in this country, by our Constitution. "I may not always agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you cannot agree with that statement, then you ARE a racist.

Now let's take the other side of that statement. If you are spewing hate speech, what can I do to stop you from using your first amendment right to free speech? I can sue for defamation of character, I can sue for inciting a riot, and I can exercise my Constitutional Second Amendment right to shoot you, although there are a plethora of laws to punish me if I so choose to do so.

You may spew NAZI hate speech but there are people that take exception to that kind of talk. Unfortunately, there's not much you or I can do to prevent them from doing so.

[joesheks]

@DaveToo hate speech is not defamatory and you cannot Sue for inciting a riot. That would be a criminal action. And there is no second amendment right to shoot people.

[DaveToo]

@joesheks Hate speech is definitely defamatory. If I were to speak in derogatory terms concerning someone of a different race, it's considered hate speech. They can sue for defamation of character.

I may not actually sue someone for causing a riot, but I can be part of a class action that sues for that very thing. As for the second amendment, it doesn't say you CAN'T shoot someone. That falls under another whole set of legal stuff.

[Andres77]

Hey, I love you but... you're way off here.
The only ones that have been censored in the last 10 years are those telling the truth.
It's irrefutable... you're sharp as a tack but even your wit can't rewrite history all by yourself.
Maybe it's the deep seated conquerer in you that hates that your long departed offspring have more rights than you.
Poppy, you're a treasure but... you're not always right.
One day I still want to drink a few bottles of wine with you, Miriam Margolyes and my wife and just tell stories.
I really think you're a woman of tremendous quality... i just don't agree with everything. I'm not saying I'm right. I just don't agree. But... I also can't lose you. You fascinate me. one day I hope, if you're ever willing, to speak with you over the phone.
I'll wait for years. Your mind fascinates me.
I wish you well.

[AimeeKyle]

Not true at all. The individuals/groups that don’t want to debate and are unwilling to openly discuss topics are the people who don’t want free speech….. they will call people names (like racist, homophobe, Nazi, White supremacist or any other derogatory slur) in order to distract / divert attention from the real topics at hand. They want to control the story / narrative at all cost. And why you might ask…. A couple good reasons…. A “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality (because they believe they are “smarter” than the rest of us) or they know their arguments won’t hold water when clearly discussed /debate a topic.

Free speech in my mind is listening to and debating with individual (s) whom you are diabolically opposed.

[Anonymous]

you kinda missed it then. Can you name a time where you've ever been banned from a message forum, or social media for saying you like to eat meat? I'm betting no. But there are a literal shit ton of people who have been banned in recent years from various sites such as Twitter for saying things that the current "media" says is false. But, like the Hunter Biden laptop have turned out to be very factual.

If you really don't see it as a problem to have your speech silenced when you have something to say other than the "accepted narrative", then you've missed the entire point of the existence of free speech in the first place.

[Djaay]

Politicized free speech is designed from political correctness to deny GOD and his commanded commandments and to silence those of truth and rightuousness. To deny speech of others who have wisdom from the Holy Spirit and to instill fear into those others so they will not fight back. Politicized free speech empowers those who use it to attack defensively to change the narritive into another truth. Feminism does the same exact principle with equality = authority , being equal in authority to man that way women dont need to answer to men.

[DaveJord]

Well if that is all you hear when comes to free speech then you are NOT listening very well. I think your perspective is totally wrong. Everyone from LGBTQ to Black Lives matter talks about free speech to promote their beliefs... unless you are saying LGBTQ and Black Lives Matters are inherently discriminatory in their views and way they exercising their free speech rights.

[Femphile_xoxo]

I think in the case of Twitter, folks don't remember that it's a private company, so they can do whatever they want. Additionally, there is a place where free speech stops when it causes public harm or is flat-out slander. That loud minority of people that you're talking about don't understand the difference between moderation and free speech, which doesn't even exist on a private company's platform.

[SignedAutographs]

They don't understand the first amendment. REPUBLICANS DONT

[Prinny2]

@SignedAutographs is that why now that Elon is taking over twitter that they are screaming for the government to regulate them?

[SignedAutographs]

@Prinny2 Yeah

[SignedAutographs]

@Prinny2 Republicucks, as I like to call them, don't understand the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, LIKE TWITTER

[Prinny2]

@SignedAutographs is that why send are complaining about the same things now that Elon bought twitter. I can tell you like to name call. But that really isn’t an argument. That is how weak people try to win when they have no real point. And I’m not a republican. I am against censorship of all kinds. And the whole private company argument is just dumb since they have protections from the government to protect speech. If they want to do censor. Then no protections.

[SignedAutographs]

@Prinny2 The first amendment doesn't protect private businesses, LEARN SOMETHING YOU FUCKING IDIOT

[Femphile_xoxo]

Aye, people got freaked. If a private business wants to censor, or moderate, what happens within their company, that's fine. I can understand that, if someone in the company was spewing fantasies, I wouldn't want to keep them. Additionally, there are federal restrictions on the First Amendment, such as disturbing the wellbeing of others, (saying "bomb" on a plane or "fire" in a crowded theatre).

[SignedAutographs]

Exactly, and that's what republicans don't get

[Femphile_xoxo]

@SignedAutographs Saying Republicans is a rash generalization of a whole party. I have family members who are Republicans, and they completely understand this sort of stuff. It's a small, but loud, sliver of cray cray folks 😜

[SignedAutographs]

REPUBLICANS DONT GET IT

[Femphile_xoxo]

@SignedAutographs Are you trolling rn? 💀

[SignedAutographs]

Not at all. REPUBLICANS ARE PIECES OF CRAP

[DonkeyDan]

Freedom of speech isn't only for negative things though, it's important to fight for freedom of speech because once speech is censored control by the people is lost. It's happening already and has been for some years. If freedom of speech is concerned, at some point in the future you may not be able to say you like eating meat, because someone in power may not agree with that.

[andreasderjuengere]

Free speech - and ''freedom'' in general - is/are a much mis-used term nowadays.
It's like kids experimenting with how far they can go before they get slapped.
I find that foolish.
I'd say that those who have a stronger mental horizon... will insist less on their ''freedoms (in speech, or otherwise).

[Razp_Sorbet]

People who preach free speech often forget that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence for what you say. Plus there's is still limits to the freedom of speech part in the constitution.

I also think it's funny that Americans often brag about having freedom of speech as if other countries don't, we do we just don't feel the need to write it down in a document because it's just a given.

[northwestripper666]

It's funny we brag about not being the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Germany!!! saltmustflow. com Singing in the REEEE!!!

[DarkWinterNights]

Canada is a great recent example of a country that revoked peoples rights on a whim.

[northwestripper666]

@DarkWinterNights How could I forget about Canadia?

[Razp_Sorbet]

You act as if it's life changing.

[joesheks]

@Razp_Sorbet and do you know what the limits to free speech in the US constitution are? Are founders understood that governments are necessary evils that will always try to take freedom away. That’s why it was put Into writing. Perverts will shout “human rights” to condone weird sexual behaviors but freedom of speech is the ultimate human right that these deviants ignore

[Razp_Sorbet]

@joesheks yes I do know what the limits are 🙃

[joesheks]

@Razp_Sorbet and so where is free speech just a given that doesn’t need to be written down? Many so called western “democracies” have speech laws not to mention places in Africa or China. Please enlighten us

[Razp_Sorbet]

@joesheks literally most developed nations. Sure we have laws about certain things like hate speech but it's more there to deter people as it can't actually be prosecuted.

[joesheks]

@Razp_Sorbet literally Information is free en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Freedom_of_speech_by_country

The problem is that hate is an amorphous concept than be used as a cudgel against those with whom you disagree.

A certain scholar wrote a 500 pages boo questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust. The book was not hateful or amateurish. This guy was a professor and thought the subject should be explored. He was sent to jail for years in Austria. A woman in Germany was fined 20k euros because she told some black men she didn’t like them. You may think these are justified, but this is how government eventually takes everything away. You have free speech in Europe as the government decides.

The US is different. In a free exchange of ideas, everything is transparent and sunshine can sanitize bad ideas — not government intrusion.

But without the Constitution, plenty of ambitious politicians would ban speech without a second thought. As governments have always done since the beginning.

[Razp_Sorbet]

@joesheks I'm saying your freedom of speech is about the same as anywhere else. So it's pointless preaching it as if other countries don't have it. Also the constitution is to protect you against the government not any Tom Dick or Larry that disagrees with what you say.

[joesheks]

@Razp_Sorbet yeah that’s my point. Free speech to those who disagree with you — something the left is trying to shut down.

You do not have free speech in Europe when you can be jailed for saying things that are politically incorrect.

[AviatorTom]

"Free speech" should be the freedom for anyone to say whatever they want (within certain limitations), without fear of retribution. However, it seems that many people believe that "free speech" only applies to them, not to others who disagree with them, and that's wrong.

[Anonymous]

Freedom of speech goes far beyond insults. It’s cancel culture and deplatforming. It’s the way Leftists scream at and disrupt speakers on public campuses. If anything not having freedom of speech is bullying. If I am not free to say whatever I want, then that means I can only allowed to say what you want me to say—or I can remain silent.

Fun times right? It’s one hell of a meaningful exchange of ideas. 🙄