Freedom of speech. Harmful idea, necessary evil or the core of european civilization?

Freedom of speech. Harmful idea, necessary evil or the core of european civilization?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Haram desu.

There should be freedom of speech, but no guarantee of freedom after speech.

If you think people are so stupid that they literally can't help but side with whoever runs the most ads, why let them vote at all?

damn...
that really cooks my noodles

i support it but it's becoming more and more evident as time goes on that most people don't give a fuck about it as a right in of itself and simply abuse it to further their own ends

See literal fascists hiding behind freedom of speech or hardcore Islamic fundamentalist hiding behind freedom of religion

Freedom To Speak

Civilized, civility, sanity, intelligence, open-mindedness:
- the concept that we should be able to say whatever we want that is neither physical threat nor harm to others and not fear the pretense of someone assaulting us over these words
- to give others the same respect, to not listen or to walk away without recourse

It's not the words because sometimes it's because we didn't say anything, sometimes cause we looked, other times cause we didn't look...sometimes cause we didn't want to watch them exhibit themselves. So disgusting seeing a two-legged animal; and with the freedom to wander about killing us at random. Ho, hum, just another daily shooting and two stabbings in the city. But down from yesterday. Woo, hoo. Things are looking up. Not. Trends show likely futures. We're so scr....

The eternal struggle of a civilization pursuing liberal ideals

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

>"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

>necessary evil or the core of european civilization?
Not evil at all, all it does it stop the government and others from oppressing speech and ideals.
i support it but it's becoming more and more evident as time goes on that most people don't give a fuck about it as a right in of itself
I am seeing more of this, too, which saddens me.
>See literal fascists hiding behind freedom of speech or hardcore Islamic fundamentalist hiding behind freedom of religion
What would be your solution to this?

Without oppression you can only fight by using your own ideas and convincing people the other side is both wrong and ridiculous

So do you advocate oppression then of less desirable groups or do you advocate higher understanding of ideals?

>Europe
>Freedom of speech
I hope you're joking. You cannot claim that you have freedom of speech if offending certain people can land you in prison.

Freedom of speech is good because it only allows cultures, people, and nations to freely form and spread their culture and ideals among themselves without suppression of speech.

I argue the best option is greater understanding. The second best is using suppression. The worst is allowing the "dangerous" ideas to take root especially if they are found on idea st hat can be proven false

I think it's good because muh American values.

I'd say that presumption of innocence is more important, as that is the foundation for freedom of speech.

That's how it is everywhere.

Freedoms should be limited on people who would limit freedom further.
Support sharia law? You no longer get freedom of religion, because your support of sharia law conflicts with other peoples freedom.
Don't like people posting about niggers and want to ban "hatespeech"? Lose your own freedom of speech.
Think blacks shouldn't have the same rights as whites? Hope you enjoy having those exact limited rights.
Against abortion? Well, lose your ability to get an abortion. Not really that much of a loss.
Anti-drug? No drugs for you. Just you, of course.

With this you might say "But then you can't be against anything because you'll lose your own rights!" That's were mob justice comes in, if you piss off enough people then you're doing something wrong anyways.

Please tell me you know how retarded that sounds.

Freedom of speech is critical for all minority groups.

You do realize that this is statement is contradictory and highly dependent on your initial position?

Before you make a statement like this you'd really need to define freedom, else you just end up with some libertarian bullshit. Almost no action does not influence others. For example: do you have the freedom to drive a car? But then you infringe others people freedom to enjoy clean air and a stable climate. Do you have the freedom to use only he/she as pronouns? Then you infringe on transpeoples freedom of oppression etc etc...

not harmful nor evil it is a necessary function of society

XD

This is pretty retarded. A car's pollution is not analogous to being ordered by the state to use certain pronouns.

Whether or not someone is contributing to the destruction of the environment can arguably be said to be the state's business, but ordering people to use certain words is not one of them.

Freedom of speech should have boundaries for influential entities

Not censoring or regulating what politicians/media says constantly or retroactively, but they shouldn't be treated in the same way as a veteran holding a banner

It's only when you petition the government to restrict others freedoms that when your own freedoms become restricted.
>do you have the freedom to drive a car?
Only if you're not against other people being allowed to drive cars for subjective and arbitrary reasons or at the very least don't go to papa government to make driving illegal for certain people.

I think you're missing the fact that "freedom of speech/religion/etc" is freedom from government reprisal, I'm not talking about freedom in an informal sense.

That's what makes my system so great. You want to ban Christianity and actually fund politicians to make this into law, the government is now free to fuck with you because of your religion now.

Freedom of speech literally shouldn't have any boundaries at all in my opinion, except perhaps threatening to kill someone outright.

Nice post user, but I'm not sure what you were going for at the end there.

Good point

Yes, but there's a fine line between free speech and stuff such as slander and threats.

Slander shouldn't be illegal. Your reputation isn't intellectual property.

You should probably note that your system effectively removes the right to petition, as the public will be too afraid of federal reprisal to ever ask for a redress of grievances. It's a pretty important part of the first amendment, goes right along with freedom of assembly.

>Promoting lying
ok

No, I'm not promoting lying, I'm just saying people shouldn't have their door kicked down by cops for lying.

Liberal-capitalism has shown that it can gobble up subversion and criticism against itself, pacify it and even resell it to retards. From a ruler's perspective it's better to have people talk shit and get nowhere rather than beating them into submission as it provides an illusion of freedom, choice and all that crap while the system is still perpetuated.

On the other hand, it might appear like it works this way and that it's harmless, but they might as well be seeds that will blow up in the future.

This election did disprove that.
Hillary spent three times more than Trump did.

What would be more accurate is if it was bulldozing houses of the common people's desires. Then right behind it some pro-corporate mcmansions.

When we speak of 'freedom of speech' we mean: in a discursive event, wherein the speaker engages the hearer, there will be no political violation against the speaker. But is there not an influence between the parties, that is, an influence of the speaker onto the hearer, forcing the hearer into a state wherein his freedom is questioned? When this state comes upon the hearer, he is forced into relation with the discourse to either affirm the speaker's position and synthesize it with his original position, or deny the speaker's position, re-affirming his original position (or affirm a new position, exclusive of both his original position (only in a certain sense), and the speaker's position).

There is also a good argument for freedom of speech as the progenitor of totalitarianism; free speech moves all criticism against certain functions of society into a dialogue wherein it is made submissive. Free speech involves a self-efficate majority, who act as tyrranizers, and who have a large share of the power, resulting in a particular totalitarianism.

Freedom of speech is not meant to protect you against non-government people.

Just because you're free to say something doesn't mean I can't call you a fucking idiot or not listen to you at all.

>Hillary spent three times more than Trump did
Yeah and it was all spent in areas where she was already guaranteed to win. She straight up ignored the mid-west and chose to instead spend that extra money on places like California.

None, its their thoughts and their rights, also hi antifa scum, you are a threat to liberalism.

No one has any right or good reason to restrict free speech ever.
Fuck off authoritarianfags

>spooks
If you to truly be anti-authoritarian, you need to stop putting your faith in ideals. Why do I need a "right" of free speech? I'm just going to say what I want, authority be damned.