Even if someone is saying something you find offensive, do you think they should be allowed to or do you think they should be prevented from saying those things?
I believe in absolute freedom of speech (where you are still prosecuted on your verbal actions such as instructing someone to murder) but with one exception. The exception is that everyone against freedom of speech should be censored. I do not believe you have a right to something you wish to abolish it. If you wish to abolish a right you should be the first to test the consequences of not having that right.
Restricting people from expressing some clearly delineated ideas (like instructing someone to murder) is not the same as stopping people from speaking altogether.
@goaded You said instructing in your clarification, that's an action not just speech. Its very different to explicitly give someone steps to commit a murder and sharing your ideas.
@goaded Haven't heard of that one, but simultaneously I don't think it was an accurate quote to my case. I make a distinction between speech and actions, in your message you put ideas and actions in the same category which I distinctly don't do. You should be able to say anything, if there is no action associated with it that is. For example, I should be able to say "You should hack facebook" as part of this example. I said the exact same words, but its not a real instruction its an example. So in this case its speech, not an instruction and no actual action. For me that distinction is important BECAUSE it allows us to convey idea's, and I think minus the limitation of free speech every idea should be able to be said.
@findacure4wokeness You indeed need freedom to advocate for censorship, which is exactly why those people should be the guinea pigs of being censored. If their idea of censorship is a good idea, then it will work in their favor.
""Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (also expressed as "troublesome priest" or "meddlesome priest") is a quote attributed to Henry II of England preceding the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While the quote was not expressed as an order, it prompted four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket. The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to express that a ruler's wish may be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates. It is also commonly understood as shorthand for any rhetorical device allowing leaders to covertly order or exhort violence among their followers, while still being able to claim plausible deniability for political, legal, or other reasons."
A lot less inciting than: "“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
Videos from the Capitol during the riot show a man with a bullhorn, reading the tweet aloud to others in the mob. Inside, rioters swarmed the hallways and chanted, “Hang Mike Pence.” "
@goaded So lets compare these fairly then. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" is a wish / demand. Same as "Why has nobody gotten me a drink yet?" or "Would you mind grabbing me a drink?" where we all know its polite or more varied was of ordering something. I think that very much was an instruction, no hiding after the fact. So I disagree that it was not expressed as an order, it very much was as there is no other interpretation I can give it.
Meanwhile the Trump quote you picked is a criticism of Mike Pence's lack of action. What action there is being instructed? In your first example we can pick the literal order from the sentence "rid me of this turbulent priest". In Trump's sentence if I am going to be overly generous I can pick out "USA demands the truth!". So if anything he is inciting people to demand the truth or search for the truth.
You can't attribute the gallow to Mike Pence for a number of reasons, first of all there are usually fake people at these events trying to make stuff look bad. I have seen examples of this where people showed up with Nazi flags despite not being trump supporters and all the trump supporters ganged up on that person demanding them to get away (There was a news camera conveniently nearby so it was definitely a plant). But lets say this one was organic since it probably was, who says that was meant literal and not a figurative get them out of office?
But alright, for the sake of argument ill also give you that they mean it literal (Even though I don't think that to be true). Even then does it not implicate Trump in anything, he voiced a legitimate criticism and a few people who made the gallow (How even? They must have brought in wood earlier) because of their own discontent. Then you still can't connect that to anything Trump incited, because he didn't. He never said anything close to Hang them, he never said anything close to physical violence. He did the opposite of that calling for an orderly and peaceful protest, but that was of course not supposed to happen so he got banned of Twitter shortly after so that people would not see his Tweet to reinforce that.
Oh, really? You're going for the "it was Antifa" defence? The mob was armed, Trump sent them to the Capitol knowing that. He tweeted that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage..." shit, and, unlike the king, he had the knowledge that his supporters were going there, he knew they were talking about killing Pence, and, also unlike the king, Trump had the ability to tell them not to at any moment. He did not.
You know Meadows has been given immunity in exchange for his testimony about that day, right?
I'm pretty much a free-speech absolutist. If you say something fraudulent or slanderous it should be handled in civil court where damages can be proven, but it's not the govermnment's job to police speech.
There is not one second in this lifetime where true freedom of speech has existed. People love, and I do mean looooovvveeee, to hop on the internet or go on rants on television about how we have it, but there have always been legal restrictions on parts of speech, some of which can literally land you in jail in every single country that has "freedom of speech." What you do have and forever will have, is limited freedom of speech.
You can get out there and protest unfair labor laws, you can start an I dislike this celebrity blog, you can openly complain about politics---and that, yes, needs to be preserved and protected because the alternative is an overreaching government, dictatorship, or aristocracy, censoring everything and everyone to protect itself and it's ideas rather than its people. However, what does not need protecting is allowing someone in our line of defense to go online and release our secret defense strategies because oh 'freedom of speech,' or a student to openly threaten the lives of his classmates, because we've got that freedom of speech, or a group to terrorize and harass someone because of their race, religion, etc. You actually do not want to find out what would happen if there were zero limits on freedom of speech. You may think that's a perfect scenario, but it's really not especially should you become the target of someone and their "freedom of speech."
Rather than ban what some may consider hate speech like they do in countries in Europe or Canada I say allow it completely. I don't want those with racist views, nazis, kkk etc to keep their opinions to themselves, I want to know who they are.
Yep, people can say whatever the fuck they want. I don't have an obligation to listen to them though. If it's on a forum/social media and you act as a platform, then you as a mod/admin should stay the hell out of other people's business. All you have to do is give people the ability to block people they don't want to listen to. That in effect is a way of ending a conversation. If you think you're a publisher on a forum/social media and you let the world post, sure you can censor everyone like the socialist on this site do, but everyone in the world can sue the shit out of you as well. I mean, all they have to do is post on one account about themselves, document that it exists on your site, say they lost a couple customers over it. and then sue you and take your house. It's smarter to not censor people and just stay out of it.
I mean, you can say whatever you want but don’t expect people to not get mad. Because, even if it’s freedom of speech, doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences later. I think it’s better to be kind to each other. But, our world is too fucked up for that where no one wants to be nice.
Alright. You’re a disappointment to your parents. You have nothing to show for your worth. I don’t know why you exist since you are useless to society. Now, what do you have to say to that?
Absolutely. I believe in the importance of freedom of speech. It's a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas without fear of censorship or punishment. It promotes open dialogue, diverse perspectives, and the exchange of knowledge. It's essential for a healthy and democratic society. What are your thoughts on freedom of speech? 🗣️🌍
Everything you've said I agree with 100%. And I can't stand the progressive movement that tries to cancel everything people say nowadays. I can't even make a comment on Instagram without it being removed and the comments are rarely even offensive or insulting.
I totally understand your frustration! It can be really annoying when comments get taken down, even if they're not offensive. Sometimes it feels like there's a lot of sensitivity around expressing opinions.
Some whiny snowflake is going to be "offended" by literally anything you could ever say. Where would we draw the line? Also, your emotional fragility isn't my problem and certainly not something I should have to take into account every time before I speak.
I believe in free speech, but of course not ABSOLUTE free speech. You shouldn't be free to incite a panic or dox someone for example. You shouldn't be free to share someone else's medical information unnecessarily. You shouldn't be free to commit stochastic terrorism, impersonate an officer, or verbally harrass or abuse people (especially kids). Etc.
But in general yes you should be able to say whatever you want even if it's offensive or bad, so long as you're in public or a private space that allows it. If someone's in my house and says some out of pocket shit I will make them leave, but they can stand on the street outside and say it all they like. That's their right.
First thing is first, even with the freedom to legally run your mouth there is consequences to what you say. People don’t really have to put up with you or like you….. amongst other things that you may not like.
To a certain extent yes, as far as offensive goes people need thicker skin. Even hate speech by itself should be legal. Further than that it gets complicated.
-Hate speech in conjunction with an action no good
-Releasing classified information is a security risk
-Threatening physical harm, especially credible is a no go
However, more often than not it is only the loudest most ignorant simple minded least educated people who are heard. And these ignoramuses believe that they are entitled to their freedom of speech but refuse to give others the privilege - either belittling, harassing, screaming, threatening, etc. others as a means of refuking that right.
The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect the right to say offensive things. There is no need to protect speech that doesn’t create controversy.
Every great change in society came from offending somebody at some point.
As long as it doesn't incite violence, which is an admittedly ambiguous standard while it is happening (but ceases to be ambiguous when the violence occurs), sure. However, I do think theft is a form of violence and so scam artists should also be silenced.
I feel people should think before they speak. I can't control what others say but i can choose to not associate myself with disrespectful people who excuse themselves as “honest” and “blunt”
I think there should be consequences for speech and no requirement for private organisations to amplify your views. I'm also supportive of German laws about denying the Holocaust and glorifying Nazis, something that practically affects almost nobody.
If nobody is allowed to glorify the nazi's how do you keep track on those movements? For all you know you have a strong underground nazi movement that doesn't openly voice their opinions. If they had free speech you'd know and have an oppertunity to deradicalize.
I always find it very odd when I would not be allowes to have an opinion. Not only do I find that facistic in nature it makes me question why I am not allowed to have that opinion. Like what if it actually didn't happen? Why is that so important that we don't find that out? Its much less suspicious if I were allowed to have the opinion that the holocaust didn't happen because then there is no reason to doubt thst it did.
@PetLover24 Ah, sorry, I meant the ban affects almost nobody, because everybody knows the facts and history.
When I said earlier that right wing parties are OK, the AfD might have stepped over the line by having a high level meeting to discuss throwing people out of the country even if they have German citizenship.
Your question and your notes don’t align. However, if you are not enjoying what someone has said, then the rule is to say nothing back and leave it be. Someone shouldn’t be excluded because someone doesn’t have boundaries. That’s middle eastern culture way of thinking and colonizers
Yes but it seems such speech needs to occur within a context of truth, values, responsibility, purpose. Some bounds... this may not be all of the bounds.
Its not a matter of "allowed". We are free to act within out Amendment One rights. But there may be unpredictable consequences like getting punched in a bar.
the issue is "protected" speech. we couldn't criticize king, if we did got punish, so had "free" but not protected. so we need protected speech for any opinion except false accusation slander, that websites do not censor despite u. s. law. another danger is inciting violence, promote murder or physical violence or revenge needs censor so people won't read.
@strateguy632 I agree, but even then, word choice is a means to express beliefs without going too far. I have said here that I believe Civil War is coming but do not advocate it. Or rounding up and departing criminal aliens but not liquidating them.
Everyone has freedom of speech. Anyone, anywhere, can say whatever they want to at any time, but that does not mean you have freedom from consequences of that speech. I'm not certain that any and all speech should be consequence free.
but that is not protected speech that was just as bad as any tyrrany that punished people for criticism king! must be protected. no consequence for speech.
I invite anyone besides my family to shut me up. Only lung cancer has a chance now, which I'd get one of those kool throat microphones to still people to go fuck themselves!
You can tell offensive jokes, but the site's entitled to delete it. Hell, they even deleted a video question of mine because it was supposedly advertising (I'm still not sure what for).
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 
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions