Should authors be allowed to express any opinion whatsoever without censorship?

Why? if the public doesn't will it, the action won't be done. Is it just too shocking?

it's obviously irresponsible to be telling people to commit murder against someone they do not like. if you can't figure that out then you're very sheltered.

Enemies of the people shouldn't have the luxury of free speech.

These. But censorship should be as restricted as possible.

all thoughts come from the world, by exposing yourself to them, you become more worldly

censorship therefore is imprisonment, a lie that such actions are not for others of this world- to it we are imprisoned to the land of the censors, to the lie that the world is not how it truly be.

>Enemies of the people
Meaning what exactly

"All X should be killed" is an opinion.
"Kill all X" is an encitement to commit a crime.

In practice it seems that the statement also has to have some kind of credibility. eg. 'kill the rich' for rhetorical purposes doesn't seem to attract much attention.

FPBP /thread
t. retard

Yes they do.

Let the most ruthless man define it for you.

There are legal precedents for distinguishing between these two acts.

Rousseau never said that

>a stupid person doesn't have the same right of a smart one
In a righteous society, they do.

if 1000 people believe he said it, and 1 person knows that he didn't, does it stand that he said it?

I wonder if those who are """enemies of the state""" just happen to also be everyone you disagree with.

>says stupid stuff

no it doesn't. dumb post.

deep and philosophical.

No. Free Speech Absolutism is an idealist meme.

However I generally am for more free speech protections than we have currently.

The idea of censorship taking place solely as a result of authoritative institutions looking to restrict information is incomplete. Censorship is not only just institutionalised but internalised due to cultural norms, taboos, personal considerations such as social anxiety, et al. I would argue that censorship is ineradicable.

If you cursed on Club Penguin you got banned; this is clearly censorship. But imagine a child cursing in school and getting a time-out. This is censorship, one could say, but easily justifiable. Children are special cases and are not afforded the same legal rights as adults, however, yet the theory of internalised censorship carries through. An adult expressing his opinions in a way deemed unacceptable by these societal internalisations will equally be reprimanded, ignored, silenced -- censored -- without the involvement of any large institutions.

If anybody disagrees with me, please define your terms: censorship, opinion, express

in a sense, the world works its' self out you're saying. i digg it, but I gotta wonder about the limbo between the incomplete starting and the idealized ending- the utopia.

That’s a picture of Fontenelle, you fucking idiot

No you retard it's Emannuel Kant

((()))
((()))

Yes, everyone should say whatever they want at any point, even if it incites violence towards a group. Restricting dialogue between people is wrong because the standard we set can be easily manipulable and they are extremely arbitrary, who and under what principle has the right to ban speech? It also limits the progression of ideas, because when they clash they might reformulate counter-arguments or change in some aspects that are more problematic. But most importantly, you limit the ways in which people can develop, either by accepting the ideas or by rejecting them.

Even if you set a panel of the most important thinkers of this current moment to make the most "enlightened" banning of ideas, there is going to arise some level of bias, even if it's done under "good moral intentions". If you did the same on 50's America you would also get certain level of bias, even if it was the most "enlightened" position. Do it on 1200's Germany and you will also get some "enlightened" bias. Paradigms always shift, so there is no point in setting some standard of banning. Either we accept the bias with all the trouble it has, or we simply don't use it, but we shouldn't mask it under the premise that it's better, more humanitarian or pushes civilization forward.

The other point is that if you ban an idea it doesn't magically disappear, it just stays in stasis unchanged, you need to bring it forward so that people can discuss it extensively and it can clash with it's opposites. Fascism and Nazism being banned has mystified it as the magical solution to Western countries problems by a minority of neo reactionaries, but that could be healthier if we allow it to be a point of discussion. Yes, some ideas promote violence and hate, but we can't simply think of a society that doesn't have violence and hate, there is no erasing it from humanity, we simply have to accept it and give it proper ways to vent.

>what principle has the right to ban speech?
Historical reasons, imbecile.
Good God americans are so fucking stupid.

If your answer isn't just 'yes' you're a bootlicker and barely qualify as a human being

because banning the ideas and not outright discussing them is the solution?
If something is so bad it needs to not be repeated then surely keeping it in obscurity will work, it's not like it mystifies it or makes it part of counter-culture, and it's not like you can burn books when there are computers and the Internet right? Look at how ridiculed China was when they tried to bad all discussing because Xi Jinping can/will be re-elected.

Surely hiding fascism/nazism/racism has worked wonders when places like /pol/ have gained more traction over the years and right wing is rising on Europe.
You gotta be fucking stupid to think that societies learn by banning certain ideas, specially when hundred of years have passed and the notions of the mistakes made have long been forgotten.

Tell me one good example of banning (ideas) actually working

Human rights are made up

Yes and if you support any restrictions on speech you're subhuman garbage

Yes. If I wish to use the term 'nigger dyke' in one of my novels, then I believe I should absolutely be allowed to do so. Indeed, I already have.

>because banning the ideas and not outright discussing them is the solution?
Yes. Liberalism needs to distinguish between enemies and friends. If a society is funded on some principles and on historical events, those principles ought to be respected and those historical reasons ought to be understood.
>If something is so bad it needs to not be repeated then surely keeping it in obscurity will work, it's not like it mystifies it or makes it part of counter-culture, and it's not like you can burn books when there are computers and the Internet right?
No one cares about /pol/, you're giving too much importance to literal memes.
>Surely hiding fascism/nazism/racism has worked wonders when places like /pol/ have gained more traction over the years and right wing is rising on Europe.
It has, actually. Look at post ww2 Italy or every other western society. Look at America and the red scare. The right wing that is rising in Europe has, in the vast majority of cases, very little to do with actual fascism and is born as a reaction to precise socioeconomic events, not because of muh mystical nature of the counter culture. /pol/'s importance is basically non-existent and a good majority of /pol/ is not even fascist, they're redditors from the_donald.
>You gotta be fucking stupid to think that societies learn by banning certain ideas, specially when hundred of years have passed and the notions of the mistakes made have long been forgotten.
Society learns with history. You commit the classical American mistake of thinking that ideas exist in a vacuum and this flawed premise spoils your perspective.

That’s a picture of Kant you idiot

t. Robespierre

t. Stalin

>I am a free speech ABSOLUTIST !!!!111!
>oh but incitement to violence is not cool
>oh but libel laws are necessary
These people drive me up a fucking wall

Conservatives are retarded. It should be only authors who have proven themselves in some way, like having a PhD. Of course that means the measure by which people receive or don't receive PhD's must be improved as well, but you get my point I think. I do agree that you should have some merit of worth or achievement backing you and I do think the Greeks had it right by using a democratic voting system, but only a small group of people had the right to vote.

this, everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and shouldn't be allowed to speak freely

I think it generally should be allowed, so long as we make an effort to shut down wrong opinions

How do you determine the identity of the speaking subject?

>daddy gubmint tells me what to say :)
Eurextrachromosomes

>Look at America and the red scare
Why not at the leftist hysteria that was occurring at the same time? Oh, wait you didn't hear about that, because your whole world "view" is ungrounded and originates with bourgeois platitudes.
von Hoffman, one of the McCarthy's principal critics: "He was more right than his enemies."

opinions are like different animals
there's a certain kind of self-flattery involved in appreciating every animal for their unique beauty even if they're fucking worthless (pandas) but I see nothing immoral in trying to keep as many alive as possible.

obviously you have to start killing if one them is wrecking the whole ecosystem

Free speech destroys the immune system of the society that allows it which creates room for subversive elements that are enemies of that society to freely undermine it.

youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

Stay woke.

My worldview is the same as the PCI and the people who made the Italian constitution.
>bourgeois platitudes.
American Marxists should be gulaged. You're embarrassing for the entirety of the left worldwide.

>American Marxists should be gulaged
The word actually has a history that predates marxism. But an illiterate wouldn't know that, of course.

nah

Fucking fascist. Not in the SJW "I overuse the word facist" sense. I mean actual fucking fascist. You are beneath contempt.

>have democracy with free speech
>society becomes the playground of sophists and vice merchants who run it into the ground
>the people despair, look for an alternative to this 'free' pigsty
>embrace a strong leader who delivers order and safety at the cost of said freedom

Every time. If you dislike fascism you shouldn't be in favour of democracy because it is its natural successor.

There's literally no reason why not. The lowest of expressions is the freest of expressions.

>There's literally no reason why not.
except for your country being outcompeted by more orderly and productive countries who don't waste their time talking about trans rights and fags and black lives

>Liberalism needs to distinguish between enemies and friends. If a society is funded on some principles and on historical events, those principles ought to be respected and those historical reasons ought to be understood.
Very good, user.

of course
>the chinese are my friends
>look i'm no baizuo please let me miscegenate with your women
>i'm one of you look ping chow hsiu shee bing tang
>i love china
>love the CCP
kys

I don't think the other poster thinks the Chinese are his friends at all. Why are you so angry?

I hate people who suck off authority just because they're too cowardly to face it as an enemy

you guys suck off authority too though, you just pretend you don't by larping as revolutionaries. It's irritating and childish

yes
also define "author" and define "express"

YES, even violent opinions.

Free speech only works via a certain level of cultural homogeneity. An easy way to prove this is the
>dude you can't yell fire in a theater
meme. The culture largely agrees on this, thus it is a reasonable restriction of speech. Now, with Brazilified countries like the US, you have 1) a bunch of people who do not share each others' beliefs or identities and 2) the internet creating media bubbles that further breaks homogeneity/"radicalizes" people against each other.

Stormtards would say this is why ethnostates are needed. But since that's not realistic, basically there's no fucking solution and everything is doomed to bourgeois rule and a mockery of egalitarianism forever lol. So you can either not care or be

Yes
Even if it's shit, because ones man's trash is another man's treasure

if so, a rather generous one at that. Kant wasn't nearly that handsome. I'd still suck his wee wee though

no one should, but restrictions should be very limited.

The original 56% man

>It should be legal, but nobody should do it
K-Y-S my nigga

Should people be allowed to post misappropriated quotes on the internet without being shot at?

I'm saying no one should get absolute speech, but the limitations of speech should be minimal: only in very particular instances. what's the problem with that?

whiter than you muhammad

Free speech is an American meme used as code word for "speech that doesn't challenge the current state of affairs".
No one gives a shit about Nazis and Commies in the streets today because they're just larpers, but you'd hardly see anyone talking about muh free speech at the times of the red scares and when Nazis were a thing back in WW2.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
Once political turmoil is down in favor of the status quo these extreme laws finally get repealed as if nothing happened, and we go around praising the charade of free speech again.

>exalting whiteness like it's something to be proud of

>Free speech is an American meme used as code word for "speech that doesn't challenge the current state of affairs".
I think that's kind of disingenuous. there are plenty of free speech advocates who see nothing inherently wrong with speech that challenges the current state of affairs. but in situations like what John Stuart Mills had mentioned, directly inciting violence and similar things of that nature, is where the line gets drawn.

>Laws against the overthrowing the government are anti-speech laws
You can say whatever you want, just not anything that incites political violence
Overthrowing the government is a violent act that only people who cannot get their point across using speech will resort to

>doesn't understand a blatant meme
go back, now

>le you need to go back face

thank you

>tumblr gifs

yep

This is fun m8

The entire world is against the right, open your eyes. The system is using far leftists LARPing as revolutionaries to destabilize democracies,

agreed

>Overthrowing the government is a violent act that only people who cannot get their point across using speech will resort to
Political disagreements aren't a product of misunderstandings, they are a struggle to control the material conditions of existence.
If you actually believe that political positions live and die by the amount of factual support they stand on and can be brought down once the "incorrect" side has been educated, you're too deep into the liberalism koolaid.

>training for the impending revolution

you're not gonna win by hitting dicks... you gotta start sucking 'em

>Political disagreements are a struggle to control the material conditions of existence
you sound like a another Marxist trying to justify violence because muh material conditions

>You can say whatever you want
>just not anything that incites political violence
??
So you can't really say whatever you want?

All human language is made up too.

So we shoukd stop writing, talking, thinking in words?

That argument doesnt work past step two.

Ask you a direct qn user: are you against human rights or your responsibility in serving those rights?

Be honest.

what they just said is the basis for class warfare, and the fascists agree with this sentiment, the liberals agreed with it in the 18th century and 19th as well. you’re just a child of political serenity, you don’t know anything epistemological fracturing like with loyalists and patriots or unionists and confederates so this is all news to you. Studying history will alleviate you of your illusions about power and respect for the regime

>your average dick sucking revolutionaries

yep

To OP

I think censorship should be communal instead of dictated topdown.

Because censorship is a defensive weapon against enemies of the State, even if the enemies are telling the truth.

But we still need censorship because it is a barrier against anti-social speech which destabalizes society. It is almost always easier to write fuckpoopslol than another Animal Farm; letting anarchic speech happen is allowing shitposting IRL.

So, social censorship: flag the shitposter until he reaches a threshold. Then drag him outside the city and stone him.

>the revolutionary resistance
I think we're in good hands user