Free vs Hate Speech

That's still not free speech. Go up to a black man and say nigger and see what happens.

I never understood this quote. Does Marcuse explain WHY we should be intolerant of the Right?

America has pretty much the worst level of censorship in the western world

This is the correct answer.

/thread

You look like a retard?

You get murdered?

You can't be prosecuted for saying nigger.

Free speech is absolute.
Censorship is a violation of free speech, and thus, free speech no longer exists

You probably could actually

There are conservative germans in prison right now who would beg to differ

No you couldn't. Take off the tinfoil hat /pol/.

No, you literally can't.

>muh /pol/
I fucking hate this board, you literally cant have a conservative view without being called a nazi. Its worse than reddit

Actually both conservatives and liberals want different types of censorship.

Conservatives want censorship regarding religion/family values/etc.

Liberals want censorship regarding minorities/anti-liberal views/etc.

Sticks and stones bitch

no it was more "you cannot be prosecuted for expressing ideas that are antithetical to the current government's opinion"

Thats because your viewpoint is most of the basis in mass suffering in the world. I hope one day you will be hated by society instead of women, gays and people of colour.

you literally can't

fucking cringe

you have to be 18 to post here kid

Conservatives are pro censorship for constructive reasons, Liberals are pro censorship for destructive reasons.

To say all censorship is bad is to leave yourself open to subversion.

I don't know whats incorrect about this statement. We live in an extremely conservative world where a sexist and a racist just got nominated for president with everyone forgetting that the lgbt+ community underwent a huge hate crime in Orlando.

There are more levels of free speech than the legal level. That's what I am getting at.

And I am sure if you went up the Obama and called him a mouth breathing monkey fucking pourch monkey you would get some form of reprecaussion.

>1.00$ has been deposited into your Clinton Foundation account

>sexist and a racist
Trump is neither of these things
>orlando
Funny how you forget whos responsible

When someone says "free speech" they are referring to the fact that federal government (and the states by incorporation doctrine) are Constitutionally barred from prosecuting citizens for verbal and written expressions of ideas.

>It's OK when we do it.

all censorship is bad

if an idea is being censored, that probably means its a good idea

Not in the U.S. Yell nigger and then kill him and you'll get extra time in prison though

What if someone came in and spammed gore throughout the rest of this thread. Would it be bad to censor then?

No.

Free speech in America has always meant that the government can't infringe on your speech. That is it.

Private institutions, however, can infringe all they like, as it is your choice to interact with them.

This is why i don't understand the meltdown over free speech on campuses. Yes, free discourse is important for any instution of higher learning, but a university such as Harvard can still churn out tomorrow's world leaders regardless of whether or not it introduces a thousand pronouns or inserts trigger warning.

>all censorship is bad
All of it? Even if its private individuals who are doing it? Who are you to say so?

Implied to mean "all censorship (by the State) is bad"

fucking proles...

Yes and even that doesn't exist as outlined in my first post.

What I was saying is it doesn't exist, on a legal or social level. It's a farce.
>say what you want so long as you don't offend me

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States

Private company =/= federal government

if you want to widen free speech's definition that much we won't truly have full free speech unless everyone is in a cage unable to harm eachother and everyone is fluent in every language to ever exist

Yep, it's okay because the enforcement of our censorship is honest (brute force) and censors that which seeks to promote dysgenic behavior. Masculine

The enforcement of the lefts censorship is indirect and subtle (shaming and loss of resources) and censors that which seeks to promote eugenic behavior. feminine.

>Free speech in America has always meant that the government can't infringe on your speech.

no it isn't, that is called the first amendment. The concept of free speech informs the basis of the first amendment but is a separate concept altogether.

Free speech is a prerequisite for free thought. While the first amendment may not offer protections against censorship in private institutions, it is still despicable to think that universities are seriously thinking about making some facts off limits.

Most US Universities are public facilities owned by the state. There are few legal issues with private universities doing this.

>it is still despicable to think that universities are seriously thinking about making some facts off limits.
Yeah, I pine for the days when protesting students were just shot instead of allowing them to speak. Free speech was so much better before the ess-jay-doubleus invaded academia.

>one event

Obscenity laws have become much laxer

I generally regard free speech as the ability to say what you want when you want without fear of any repercussions.

This is still besides the point when Legal Free-Speech doesn't exist, even in America. WikiLeaks, for example is being censored and blocked endlessly by companies and the US govt. WikiLeaks outlines things going on inside western govts which shouldn't, and they are attempting to censor that.

With that in mind, how does free speech exist, on a legal level?
>inb4 state secrets
Not everything outlined in the WikiLeaks are imperative to national security.

>I'm a fucking faggot and don't enjoy having my feelings hurt, so I want the state to protect them as it protects my property and person, because I can't make good arguments or because I am such a flawed person that I can't go out in public without being reminded of the obvious flaws that I refuse to do anything about

Hurtful words should not be curtailed, but I think free speech should be limited when it actively endorses (illegal) action against a certain group (or individual).

Saying you hate niggers is one thing. Hateful, sure, but that's just your opinion. Declaring to an angry crowd that niggers should be lynched is another entirely. You're endorsing an action that could get somebody killed.

It's still a tricky line to draw - people can be inspired to act on all sorts of statements even if the speaker didn't mean for them to.

Natural/Inherent Rights are really just basic assumptions that people are allowed to do within an ideal non-violent cooperative society. Basically if you observed two neighbors living together functionally, what you will see each is allowed to do freely without the other one needing or feeling compelled to stop them from would be natural rights and property rights.

Property rights its essentially once it is agreed upon what is who's property, then they can do what they please on and with their property as long as it does not interfere or damage others or their property.

With natural rights, that extends to things like the freedom of speech, freedom of self defense and freedom of association. All of these can be exercised without directly interfering with the rights of others to exercise those some freedoms. This are things, observed, are what people have been able to freely do, and retain a non violent relationship between each other, functionally. Only when people stopped liking these things and use the law to mess with this equilibrium did everything get fucked up.

So no, OP, its only the people have changed, and for the worse.

>Not everything outlined in the WikiLeaks are imperative to national security.
No, but so is a large portion of the things that are lightly classified. That's just the way it works.

Thank you for correcting my record™. I am now a shill4hill™

And?
>it's okay to do sketchy things your citizens wouldn't agree with so long as you don't tell them
See how I am saying free-speech doesn't exist? They are literally trying to prosecute Julian for exercising some form of free-speech.

Yes he stole the information and "illegally" released it. But a lot of the going on's that were covered up needed to be known about by the population.

It's simply evidence that free-speech is a farce of the first world.

Free speech is a patriarchal and imperialist concept imposed by 20th Century white supremacist rape culture.

If nobody can be punished for revealing state secrets (technically treason) then what would be the point of having state secrets?

Thats because women don't have the mental capacity to choose freedom over security.

>Conservatives are pro censorship for constructive reasons, Liberals are pro censorship for destructive reasons.
>literally proclaiming we can do no wrong and they can do no right

That's one way of putting it. Or,

Conservatives want censorship of sex and questioning authority.

Liberals want censorship of hatred and divisiveness.

Not a fan of either, tbqh.

If the consequences of the 'hate speech' in this picture are taken as the definition of 'hate speech' then does that not mean my own speech is regulated by however another person is affected by it? Shouldn't a strong country advocate making their people strong, at the very least to not become so "torn" at mere words? What would bring someone to the absurd conclusion that if someone speaks and another is affected poorly by the speech, then the former is to blame for the latter's lack of restraint in their emotions w/r/t others' speech?

>Shouldn't a strong country advocate making their people strong, at the very least to not become so "torn" at mere words?

Probably. But what country has done that, ever?

>t.White male

...

t.White male

>then what would be the point of having state secrets?
I literally do not know. If you have a coherent population and a secure internet you don't need state secrets.

>If nobody can be punished for revealing state secrets (technically treason)
As said many fucking times over, a lot of the information detailed inside WikiLeaks are not state secrets, so going by your logic. It's okay for a nation to do what ever they wat, record it, but store it with information that will never be released or known by the general populace, what if the going ons clashed at such a high degree with the population that they would be voted out had the popluation known, is it okay to hide your going ons now?

If the people have no say in policy and don't care what their government does, it doesn't matter, desu. This is the problem with democracy. If the only people who care are involved in the decision-making process, or willingly submit to indoctrination in the military to fight the state's wars, there's no problem: the average idiot would have access to information, but not feel inclined to act on it.

...

how can you type that

>European education

Fuck off.

Both marcuse and /pol/tards that believe in some uni conspiracy are equally retarded.

>>>Reddit

Back to your containment board, faggot.

...

>Why is hate speech inherently bad?
Because it's just a step. You'll see the next thing criticizing people by the contents of their character is hate speech, or by their actions. That means if criminalized, it wouldn't be legal to criticize politics, then beliefs, then thoughts.
Hate speech is absolutely perpendicular to free speech.

Marcuse was kind of an orthodox Marxist Leninist, just dressed up in Adorno-style critical theory. It's not surprising that he would hold this view; communists wanted anti communist speech and views purged because it harmed the communist society, so intolerant speech harms a tolerant society. Easy way to say that speech is free by twisting it around to say that some speech restricts liberty.

You are literally implying it should be illegal to actively endorse the overthrow of the government

What, treason? It is.

yeah you could. it could be considered fighting words. you dumb nigger.

What country do you live in?

>huuuuur imagine ur hated by muh society like poor blacks n gays

We're not hated, so what, we're supposed to suck them ?

Fuck them.

No, it couldn't. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial slurs aren't fighting words.

Fighting words doctrine is basically dead. The last case upholding an ordinance based on fighting words was Chaplinsky, from the 1940s, a time when it was more acceptable to attack people in retaliation for saying something provocative. A more recent case from the 90s said that totally prohibiting cross burning (and swastikas, etc) violated the first amendment, because while it could be construed as fighting words, banning a specific type of fighting words is illegal for failing to be content neutral.

>Conservative censorship prevents degeneracy.

>Liberal censorship promotes degeneracy.

Seems reasonable to me.

Free speech is not the same thing as being allowed to say whatever you want without consequence.
Call a black dude a nigger and the consequences will probably be a punch or two, maybe even legal action. Your free to say it but not free of the consequences.

In the case of things like hate speech I think you can show your racist opinions without using words that will get you into legal trouble no need to be all unsophisticated.
You have the right to express your racist opinions however using hate speech to insult and spread fear is not ok in the same way bullying is not allowed in school.

I find this stuff fascinating yet I also find Marcuse unreadable. Do you have any reading suggestions?

Not in the US, but in Europe you easily could.

>Free speech is not the same thing as being allowed to say whatever you want without consequence.

Actually yes it is, free speech is the ability to say whatever you want without being legally penalized for it.

The thing is, there are always limitations on it and people who pretend otherwise are lying. Leaking government's top secret material or inciting panic are things that have always been illegal. However, certain political groups now feel like expanding the boundaries of this illegal speech to "hate speech" and "mean words" and other nonsense, which is effectively a form of censorship.

>hate speech is not Free Speech

Good, so leftards will never call me a "dirty racist-fascist".

Let me remind you that civil and criminal cases are two different things

You aren't breaking any law by calling a black man a nigger, none whatsoever. At least not in the US.

Have you read One-Dimensional Man? It's probably Marcuse's best known book, and is probably the most accessible one he wrote, although it's still fairly dense. Most of it criticizes capitalism, but he also critiques communist countries for being overly bureaucratic. I was probably wrong to say he's an orthodox Marxist, as he doesn't believe in a vanguard party in the traditional sense, but he does believe a certain cadre of intellectuals, oppressed minorities and dissatisfied youth should forcefully overthrow society.

If you're talking critical theory/Frankfurt School more generally, there's good book on Adorno by Frederic Jameson, titled Late Marxism; it presents Adorno's ideas all in one book, and in a style that is considerably less opaque than Adorno's.

Not in the US; the government can't make any law that restricts speech, whether that is a criminal statute or a civil one that creates a private cause of action between two private parties.

Feminist groups in the 80s tried this with anti-pornography ordinances, styling it as a civil rights violation so that individual women could sue for being harmed by porn. The statutes failed easily at every court hearing a case brought under them.

/thread

I'll look up Late Marxism, thank you.

>Except conservatives are still more pro-censorship than liberals
Not really, especially not in Europe.

>Except conservatives are still more pro-censorship than liberals
Not really, especially not in Europe. Also conservative and liberal aren't the opposites you fucking burger