Why do people seem think Freedom of Speech means 'I can say whatever I want to whoever I want with no consequences...

What about refusing to do business? What if I'm an artist and some /pol/tard wants to commission me for the retard meme-poster for his next nazi rally? Am I not allowed to decline my services because I disagree with his ideology?

At what point do you quit the mental gymnastics and simply admit the penalty for wrong think is ultimately always the same no matter what the governing body makes pretend to be?

USSR, USA, DPRK, Israel, anarchist communes innawoods. If you think wrong you will suffer.

Except that's not true. That there can be consequences for the things that you say doesn't mean that all consequences are equivalent.

Well I think there's a qualitative difference between being black bagged by secret police because of something you said, and people refusing to serve you cookies at the local cafe.

The degree to which you suffer is so radically different that it's pretty much a false comparison. Social ostracization =/= gulag.

>Why do people seem think Freedom of Speech means 'I can say whatever I want to whoever I want with no consequences whatsoever'?
Because that's what Freedom of Speech means.

If the /pol/tard wants you to do something that goes against your conscience, you could decline. But it it is something with no relationship to politics, you shouldn't. Notice that I'm speaking about morals, not laws.

Freedom of Speech is not the American 1st Amendment. Americans didn't create freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a philosophical concept.

Freedom of speech means freedom to organize a group of people with the intention of committing violence, and then stating your intention to commit violence. Any opposition to your influence over society and its policies is "the real fascism", especially if its by individuals who are personally threatened by your actions.
Also calling me a racist is censorship and not free speech.

I'm not the one you are quoting.
The degree of suffering being different doesn't mean that an act doesn't go against the spirit of free speech.

Social ostracization still goes against the spirit of freedom of speech.

Educating people is better than silencing them.

Nice strawman, asshat.

The government does have an obligation to protect you from violence should you say something other than fighting words/immediate threats that someone else just wants to hurt you for.

Don't be absurd, you know as well as I do that you're complaining about forms of speech that suppress your speech, but your speech suppresses others as well, it's a double edged sword here and which groups social silencing tactics to go along with, because the mere existence of either group in this argument is going to imply speech against the other.

Wtf censorship you're the real nazi now let me go load my mp40-words.

Freedom of Speech means you can say anything without LEGAL consequences

It means you can say "nigger" and you won't be charged, but of course there can still be other consequences (like a nigger beating you up)

>If the /pol/tard wants you to do something that goes against your conscience, you could decline. But it it is something with no relationship to politics, you shouldn't. Notice that I'm speaking about morals, not laws.

So if I find, say, my little pony porn visually repugnant but morally don't care what some aspie faps to, I have a moral obligation to utilize my craft in order to draw his MLP porn if he offers me money for the service?

Would it change if I ran a business and had 3 artists drawing under my leadership, but considered it bad for my business' reputation if one of those artists was drawing the meme posters that end up on global news? Or if I thought the association with MLP porn wasn't the sort of image I was going for either?

There is genuine complexity in where you draw the line, but in my opinion minimizing any sort of government coercion is ideal (because then you need to start drawing those lines on who can FORCE you to do something), and that includes in who a private business employs. In terms of moral responsibility I still don't believe I should have a moral obligation to accept somebody's money in order to provide a service, I should only have an obligation after I accept the money.

>say nigger and it has a silencing effect on black people around you
>say racist and it has a silencing effect on racists around you
Why is the first one free speech but the second one an attack on free speech?

I'm not suppressing the speech of anyone.

I'm saying that freedom of speech also includes "society will not treat you like trash because you have an unpopular opinion".

People in the USSR were guaranteed many things as long they didn't poke the beehive and went with the program. People in the USA are guaranteed abstract rights but no real protection from having their livelihood protected should they poke the beehive. It's the same thing.

Societies revolve around clearly defined boundaries and going with the program. Always.

Freedom of speech includes speech that suppresses freedom of speech. It's a stupid meme because this fake taking a middle ground shit is impossible, if you dedicate yourself enough to it you're essentially just leaving the argument up to other people.

The law is not the be all end all of social rules and norms.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?
If drawing MLP porn is against your conscience, you don't need to do it. But if the MLP fanatic is asking you to draw something that doesn't go against your conscience and you are discriminating against him because he is a pervert, it is another different thing.

Only if you believe the 'spirit of free speech' means 'say whatever you want whenever you want no matter how absurd with zero consequence' which is an idiotic view of the spirit of free speech. If that was the 'spirit' of free speech I would have some ethical obligation to continue to be friends with people I hate because, say, they're constantly spouting retarded Veeky Forums memes or something. I must be his friend because otherwise I would be creating suffering by ostracizing him for exercising his right to speech. Am I not allowed to say "user is a fucking idiot who spouts retarded Veeky Forums memes, I don't recommend inviting him to dinner"?

Because niggerness is a state, while racism is a form of speech

I do not believe diversity is relevant for the majority of professions. I have seen no compelling evidence that it makes someone a better accountant, their knowledge and skills abstract and separate from someone's culture and background.

Would you try to get me fired for this? Some would even though I can't force myself to believe something that isn't true.

I realize terms like "diversity", "multiculturalism" and such were promoted in an attempt to fight bigotry, however treating them like sacred cows and falsely accusing anyone who points out their flaws of being a bigot is a form of extremism like bigotry. It is important to have total freedom of speech without consequences so that the most popular and powerful political groups can be criticized, if you have the power to slander someone as racist without evidence and get 100s of people to pressure a business to fire them, this is not an individual personal choice, you are an extremist group abusing its power. This should be a crime.

>The law is not the be all end all of social rules and norms.
Elaborate.

>Freedom of speech includes speech that suppresses freedom of speech

Yes. Freedom of speech includes the speech of fascists. That doesn't mean fascist speech is not morally wrong.
Likewise Freedom of Speech includes Speech that suppress freedom of speech. This kind of speech still goes against the spirit of freedom of speech.

And the big issue here is "who controls what kind of speech is allowed?". The same people that are trigger happy on ending the freedom of speech of fascists also consider Jordan Peterson a fascist. Do we give super SJWs the power to define which speech should not be permitted?

Because most of this site are white male citizens of US.

Why? I reiterated it is not against my conscience, I don't see this guy beating it to MLP porn as 'wrong', but not in my preference, why am I still ethically obligated to accept his commission?

And furthermore, to take it to the next degree, if I own a business and my employees are doing things that ARE against my conscience, is it my right to not employ them anymore? Am I obligated to financially support someone who I believe is highly immoral?

>Only if you believe the 'spirit of free speech' means 'say whatever you want whenever you want no matter how absurd with zero consequence' which is an idiotic view of the spirit of free speech.

Do me a favor and read chapter 3 of "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill. Mill was not an idiot.
You lefties like to call yourselves "liberals" but don't know shit about liberalism.

Most of what keeps either of us from saying incredibly stupid things in public is not the law, it's other people and the social consequences. The law has a minimal effect on our lives I assume, outside of its rare but strong interaction my friends are all running around smoking weed, snorting pills, fucking in public, whatever, what really influences what we do or don't do isn't the law, it's our community.

It also includes the speech calling people out as fascists.
What you fail to understand (on purpose because I spelled it out very clearly) is that fascism, racism, bigotry, suppresses the speech of those groups around them, and calling them out as fascists, racists, and bigots, silences the fascists, racists, and bigots.
Now the alt-right would be very glad to being a racist is free speech but calling people out for it isn't and it's censorship, this is an absurd double standard attempting to abuse the flawed idea of a fully free speech that can protect multiple kinds of speech by creating right wing hugboxes.
Do we give """SJW""" fifteen year old girls on twitter government power? No of course not, but it's in no way censorship for me to not allow actual nazis to group up and take government power, nor to call them out for being what they are, essentially silencing them with my speech.
Silencing them with my "free speech".

Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to be heard. People can tell you to shut up or drown you out. Sure you can appeal to their better angels, but they and you still got the right to do so

>Why? I reiterated it is not against my conscience, I don't see this guy beating it to MLP porn as 'wrong', but not in my preference, why am I still ethically obligated to accept his commission?
Is he asking you to draw something that is not MLP porn?

>And furthermore, to take it to the next degree, if I own a business and my employees are doing things that ARE against my conscience, is it my right to not employ them anymore? Am I obligated to financially support someone who I believe is highly immoral?
If it is an opinion that is not related to business and their capacity of doing work, firing them is against the spirit of freedom of speech.

I think promiscuity is immoral. Firing a woman because she is a slut in a job that is not affected by her personal sexual morals would be wrong. It would only be OK if the job was "teaching children" or other jobs where her lack of sexual morality would influence.

Did you complete reading my post and can you address my statement? I've read On Liberty (though it was years ago so if you want to make a specific point you'll have to be specific) and I understand the premise of the marketplace of ideas, even if it's naive, seeing as shitty irrational but persuasive ideas thrive in the face of reason regularly. In any case, I am not advocating that retard memesters must be silenced by force, I am saying that I should not have a responsibility to indulge them. I'm obligated to associate with people I dislike for their use of speech, and it's my own free speech to suggest to my friends they shouldn't invite him to dinner.

Also I'm not a lefty. A classical liberal should understand that nothing should be fucking forcing me who to associate with because it might hurt someone's feelings.

I'm not obligated*

>It would only be OK if the job was "teaching children" or other jobs where her lack of sexual morality would influence
>You are free to do anything except ...
Then that is not complete free speech.

Also not this poster but please define in a way that's applicable to all societies and all people what sexual morality is?

>It also includes the speech calling people out as fascists.
Which goes against the spirit of freedom of speech, if your purpose is to silence them.

>What you fail to understand (on purpose because I spelled it out very clearly) is that fascism, racism, bigotry, suppresses the speech of those groups around them, and calling them out as fascists, racists, and bigots, silences the fascists, racists, and bigots.
Fascists hardly have the power to silence others. And needless to say, fascists are people who, like their alt-left counterparts on the left are not people who are know historically for supporting the spirit of freedom of speech.

>Now the alt-right would be very glad to being a racist is free speech but calling people out for it isn't and it's censorship, this is an absurd double standard attempting to abuse the flawed idea of a fully free speech that can protect multiple kinds of speech by creating right wing hugboxes.
Defending someone's right to have a freedom of speech doesn't mean you agree with the content of their speech.

>Do we give """SJW""" fifteen year old girls on twitter government power? No of course not, but it's in no way censorship for me to not allow actual nazis to group up and take government power, nor to call them out for being what they are, essentially silencing them with my speech.
>Silencing them with my "free speech".
It is censorship. Literally. They are evil. But you are still censoring them. You are as authoritarian as they are.

Mill argued against the use of social pressure against unpopular speech.

Not that user but so the fuck what? Feel free to use his argument why we cannot (instead of shouldn't) do that

Of course it is. Notice that I didn't mention any kind of speech by the slut, in my example, but rather how her moral failings could affect her job.

Even in an example of speech.

If I have a socialist newspaper, aimed at spreading socialism, I won't hire a libertarian to write about economy, since it goes against the purpose of the paper.
But if I'm a libertarian who has a gastronomy magazine and I refuse to hire socialists, who won't write about politics, but about... the best sauce for steaks... Then, I'm going against the spirit of freedom of speech.

>Which goes against the spirit of freedom of speech, if your purpose is to silence them.
Fascist speech silences the opponents of fascism.
Racist speech silences minority races.
Homophobic speech silences gays.
Anti-fascist speech silences the fascists.
Why ignore this when it's integral to the point?
Free speech attacks free speech attacks free speech attacks free speech attacks free speech attacks, get it?
It can't be against free speech to call a fascist a fascist. That's fucking insane. Calling things what they are may have a silencing effect but it's still just a basic description, and not doing so allows their speech to silence speech instead of your speech to silence speech. This is how social relations work. This is why the idea of free speech is a meme made only to protect POPULAR speech.
>Fascists hardly have the power to silence others. And needless to say, fascists are people who, like their alt-left counterparts on the left are not people who are know historically for supporting the spirit of freedom of speech.
Fascists have as much power to silence people as the people calling them out as fascists do.
>Defending someone's right to have a freedom of speech doesn't mean you agree with the content of their speech.
Defending them against free speech is. Even if that free speech has a negative social effect on them, because their free speech has a negative social effect on others.
>It is censorship. Literally. They are evil. But you are still censoring them. You are as authoritarian as they are.
See this is the disgusting hypocrisy I can't stand from you types. Being a racist and calling someone a nigger isn't censorship at all, but calling that same man a racist, suddenly that's censorship? Fuck off. Either it's all free speech (which attacks free speech itself) or it's all a meme because free speech is a cannibalistic concept.

He said
>Only if you believe the 'spirit of free speech' means 'say whatever you want whenever you want no matter how absurd with zero consequence' which is an idiotic view of the spirit of free speech.

That is not an uncommon view of freedom of speech. That is the traditional view of freedom of speech.
From the pen of John Stuart Mill himself.

Thinking that the 1st Amendment created freedom of speech is ignorance.

It's idiotic because it's impossible. Speech has an effect on other forms of speech.

Maybe this was lost in translation somewhere, but the freedom of speech concept I know is that people cannot physical silence you or cause harm to you based on your speech. Not whether they have to listen or even hang out with you. Beating you up coz you said something they don't like is one thing, isolating you for it is another.

Of course I agree that we should do those stuff you said, but that is not free speech, more like liberal open mindedness or something

Plus sluts can be good teachers and shit too man.

They can say whatever they can but cannot shove their bullshit to anyone who doesn't want to hear it.

>Fascist speech silences the opponents of fascism.
>etc
>Why ignore this when it's integral to the point?

How do they do that, again?
And really, aren't you arguing that speech that goes against freedom of speech should be allowed?
I never said that fascists are not against freedom of speech.
SJWs are against freedom of speech, just like fascists. But they, like fascists, also should have freedom of speech.

>It can't be against free speech to call a fascist a fascist. That's fucking insane. Calling things what they are may have a silencing effect but it's still just a basic description, and not doing so allows their speech to silence speech instead of your speech to silence speech.

Calling a fascist a fascist is not against free speech. But trying to silence him is. And calling a non-fascist a fascist like they do to Jordan Peterson is.

>This is why the idea of free speech is a meme made only to protect POPULAR speech.

Free speech was meant to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Popular speech doesn't need defending from angry mobs.

>Defending them against free speech is. Even if that free speech has a negative social effect on them, because their free speech has a negative social effect on others.

Arguing that there should be no social pressure on popular opinion (I'm not saying calling a communist a communist) doesn't mean you agree with unpopular opinion. I disagree with MccArthyism and I'm not a communist.

>See this is the disgusting hypocrisy I can't stand from you types. Being a racist and calling someone a nigger isn't censorship at all, but calling that same man a racist, suddenly that's censorship? Fuck off. Either it's all free speech (which attacks free speech itself) or it's all a meme because free speech is a cannibalistic concept.

Calling him racist isn't, but trying to destroy his life is.

They can, they do, they will. You simply have to shove back harder with your opposing speech.

The entirety of the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence is based on the writings of Mill and Locke you moron.

Again, take my example. If there was to be ZERO consequence that would limit my own abilities to choose who I associate with and to make recommendations on dinner guest lists.

Rather than just appealing to "Mill said so" and ignoring my argument, can you say whether that is okay for me to do or not from a perspective of free speech, and if it isn't, why should my free speech be curtailed to protect memester's?

>muh counter-narrative
Yeah no, you postmodern cancer.

Could you explain?

You don't have to listen to someone you disagree. But you shouldn't use force to prevent other people of doing so (take a look at Milo at Berkeley for example: activists stopped someone they disagreed with of speaking to people who wanted to hear it).

Isolating someone is against the freedom of speech spirit. That's what certain religious groups do to apostates.

>shouldn't use force to prevent other people of doing so
How?By punching him? Forming a picket line doesn't count btw
Which again is something they should do coz of muh better angels, not something they must do as bounded by the law.

Fascists, racists, sexists, homophones, they censor their oppnents, the blacks, the women, the gays, in the same way that "SJWs" censor fascists. By yelling "hey you fucking TRANNY NIGGER" or yelling "hey you fucking FASCIST RACIST". Why do you only consider one of these to be an attack on free speech? Why is the fascist free and the sjw being a censor? Well neither of them are and both of them are this is just how speech works, this is why free speech doesn't exist.
I'm arguing all speech should be allowed unlike anyone who thinks free speech exists and then spends a thousand hours debating what forms of speech are and are not "free".

Calling a fascist silences him unless you're in a fascist majority area. This is a social effect and you can't deny it, if you say silencing him is always censorship than you're saying calling a fascist a fascist is censorship. You see the problem here with being against silencing speech?

Free speech may have a progressive rhetoric of protecting unpopular speech but you know and I know it's just a meaningless concept for individuals and collectives to abuse to give their own speech a larger or an exclusive platform, look at any "free speech space", there's ideological dominance in these places, not balance, due to the nature of speech and communication.
Trying to destroy someone's life with your speech is still only speech.

Words can act as censors all on their own. Free speech cannibalizes itself by existing.

As far as I know, it is based on more than that. And I don't know how this goes against my point.

You do have the ability of alienating everyone who voted for a candidate you didn't. You have the right to do it.
Alienating someone from others because you disagree politically with that person is going against the spirit of free speech. Unless the problem is not the content of the speech, but that the person will talk non-stop about his political positions to the point of being annoying. But alienating someone who is otherwise completely likable because of a difference in beliefs is another issue.

>homophones,
Pointing this out first. I'm on pills.

>How?By punching him? Forming a picket line doesn't count btw

Uh, I'm arguing you shouldn't stop people who want to hear speech you disagree with of hearing them. Not what is the best tactic of doing so.

If you're physically preventing someone from getting somewhere that is use of force. Particularly given that many places are also concerned over riots which can inform their decision to prohibit something.

I'd also suggest that if you brought a megaphone and screamed over a speaker for the explicit purpose of making him unhearable that's pushing it, but it's a murky area.

ITT: baby's first realization ALL governments and social arrangements are fundamentally fascist.

>Fascists, racists, sexists, homophones, they censor their oppnents, the blacks, the women, the gays, in the same way that "SJWs" censor fascists. Why is the fascist free and the sjw being a censor? Well neither of them are and both of them are this is just how speech works, this is why free speech doesn't exist.
I don't think you understand me. Insulting people can or can not be against freedom of speech depending on the situation and what is your purpose. A Boca Juniors supporter insulting a River Plate supporter is not trying to silence the opposition.

>I'm arguing all speech should be allowed unlike anyone who thinks free speech exists and then spends a thousand hours debating what forms of speech are and are not "free".
All speech should be allowed does not mean all speech is morally correct. Both the fascist and the SJW are morally wrong.

>Calling a fascist silences him unless you're in a fascist majority area. This is a social effect and you can't deny it, if you say silencing him is always censorship than you're saying calling a fascist a fascist is censorship. You see the problem here with being against silencing speech?
Yes, in this example, you are trying to shame someone to silence. That goes against the spirit of free speech. But calling a fascist a fascist in a political debate, without the want to silence him doesn't.

>Free speech may have a progressive rhetoric of protecting unpopular speech but you know and I know it's just a meaningless concept for individuals and collectives to abuse to give their own speech a larger or an exclusive platform, look at any "free speech space", there's ideological dominance in these places, not balance, due to the nature of speech and communication.

No, free speech was created to protect unpopular speech. And aren't you the one wanting to abuse power to stop others?

>Trying to destroy someone's life with your speech is still only speech.
It is also against the spirit of free speech.

Whether or not it is best tatic idgaf. I disagree with you in that this doesn't hamper Milo's free speech

Forming a picket line is exercising your freedom of assembly

>I'd also suggest that if you brought a megaphone and screamed over a speaker for the explicit purpose of making him unhearable that's pushing it, but it's a murky area.
That's totally against free speech. You are not debating someone, you are stopping someone else of speaking.

And what happens when they try to walk through them? A friendly shove?

>Whether or not it is best tatic idgaf. I disagree with you in that this doesn't hamper Milo's free speech

I said you should not prevent people of hearing speech you dislike. They were trying to do exactly this.

Walking through them without their consent is violating their freedom of assembly. Trying to cross a picket line like that is violence senpai.

I agree but they are free to do anyway

>Walking through them without their consent is violating their freedom of assembly. Trying to cross a picket line like that is violence senpai.

I'm not American.
If you lefties continue to be this cynical about freedom of speech, the righties will also start to play the same game. This won't end well for both of the sides.

>Insulting people can or can not be against freedom of speech depending on the situation and what is your purpose.
I understand that you think this I just don't agree with it. Determining what is and is not free speech what is and is not a form of censorship is going to be influenced by whoever has the dominant ideology. This is why hate speech laws even exist.
>All speech should be allowed does not mean all speech is morally correct. Both the fascist and the SJW are morally wrong.
As an sjw cuck myself I don't find anything I've ever said to be morally wrong. I consistently advocate freedom and individualism, also morals don't real.
>Yes, in this example, you are trying to shame someone to silence. That goes against the spirit of free speech. But calling a fascist a fascist in a political debate, without the want to silence him doesn't.
Political debate essentially doesn't exist. Is a sponsored biased tv "debate" a debate? Is an argument a debate? Is this? Is a rally? Are only academics allowed to say "racist" or "nigger" because let me tell you, saying it in pretty much any situation silences people. The fascists language is as much a constant censor as my language is, in our daily lives. I've seen both ways how casual language can have a silencing effect on people, unintentionally, it's just the nature of having an opinion about other people.
So when a nazi yells "hey you fucking tranny you're a man fucking freak degenerate pervert" is that an attempt to silence someone in his own mind, or is he merely calling out "the freak" in his own mind?
And when I say "hey you slur tossing salad tossing racist idiot" is that intentional silencing or is it calling a spade a spade? Get my point here, the line between silencing and disagreeing is so blurred it may as well not exist. The line between censoring and making a joke is blurred, I've had nazis feels legitimately threatened by me making jokes before.
(1/2)

So if someone blocks the way to your platform YOU are committing violence trying to get to your platform? And they are somehow not using force by literally putting their physical bodies between you and your destination and telling you you can't go there?

Because it does mean that. If people don't like what you have to say then they'll let you know

>No, free speech was created to protect unpopular speech. And aren't you the one wanting to abuse power to stop others?
No, I find this hypocrisy disgusting still. Me calling out racists is "abusing power" to stop them, but them calling out minority races is just free speech? This is an absurd double standard built from obvious bias. Their speech is okay and mine is not, sure thing.
>It is also against the spirit of free speech.
Free speech is a cannibalistic concept. As speech can act as a censor very very easily, and even now you're demonstrating how it's cannibalistic, showing bias for one type of speech as "free speech" and then turning around and calling my speech "abuse".

>be this cynical about freedom of speech
Not an argument senpai. Forming a picket line has been a very old tactic, so if they wanted to copy it, they would have already done so. Tthe Right has far more effective tactics to get what they want desu

Same.

>I understand that you think this I just don't agree with it. Determining what is and is not free speech what is and is not a form of censorship is going to be influenced by whoever has the dominant ideology. This is why hate speech laws even exist.
Free speech is a term with its definition. It is not affected by dominant ideology. Hate speech laws do not exist in all countries.

>As an sjw cuck myself I don't find anything I've ever said to be morally wrong. I consistently advocate freedom and individualism, also morals don't real.
I don't know what you defended your whole life or not, but SJWs do usually try to silence others that disagree with them. Which goes against the freedom of speech.

>Political debate essentially doesn't exist.
This is "how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real" tier.

>Is a sponsored biased tv "debate" a debate? Is an argument a debate? Is this? Is a rally? Are only academics allowed to say "racist" or "nigger" because let me tell you, saying it in pretty much any situation silences people. The fascists language is as much a constant censor as my language is, in our daily lives. I've seen both ways how casual language can have a silencing effect on people, unintentionally, it's just the nature of having an opinion about other people.

I disagree

>So when a nazi yells "hey you fucking tranny you're a man fucking freak degenerate pervert" is that an attempt to silence someone in his own mind, or is he merely calling out "the freak" in his own mind?
>And when I say "hey you slur tossing salad tossing racist idiot" is that intentional silencing or is it calling a spade a spade? Get my point here, the line between silencing and disagreeing is so blurred it may as well not exist. The line between censoring and making a joke is blurred, I've had nazis feels legitimately threatened by me making jokes before.

It is not blurred. Insulting someone in a fight and silencing someone you disagree with politically are different.

Yes. I am surprised that you find this concept surprising

being this retarded in 2017

>No, I find this hypocrisy disgusting still. Me calling out racists is "abusing power" to stop them, but them calling out minority races is just free speech? This is an absurd double standard built from obvious bias. Their speech is okay and mine is not, sure thing.
>Free speech is a cannibalistic concept. As speech can act as a censor very very easily, and even now you're demonstrating how it's cannibalistic, showing bias for one type of speech as "free speech" and then turning around and calling my speech "abuse".

You do have the free speech to do this. Doesn't mean your speech (or the speech of the fascists, when they can be termed abuse) is in accordance with the spirit of free speech.

That's some retarded double think that you can get a mob together and physically prevent someone from doing something they're legally allowed to do, but if the person tries to go through your mob to speak THEY are violating YOUR rights and using force on YOU. Actually think about that for a second.

>Current year meme

Is modernity censoring others?

>Free speech is a term with its definition. It is not affected by dominant ideology. Hate speech laws do not exist in all countries.
Free speech is two words. These two words can mean whatever the dominant ideology wants, this is shown easily by your own statement "Hate speech laws do not exist in all countries." Exactly, because whatever "free speech" is, is decided by the dominant ideological power.
>I don't know what you defended your whole life or not, but SJWs do usually try to silence others that disagree with them. Which goes against the freedom of speech.
Disagreeing with you, and calling you out, and arguing with you, may have a silencing effect, but does when you do it as well, this is a fucking double standard.

>I disagree
You can TRY to disagree with the obvious fact that casual language acts as a natural censor but then go hang out in a social circle where you're part of a despised minority group. If you're jewish go hang out with nazis, if you're a nazi go hang out with commies, either way you'll end up silenced by their day to day language. If not because you have normal human conditioning at least because of the sheer amount of speech they have versus you.
>It is not blurred. Insulting someone in a fight and silencing someone you disagree with politically are different.
They may be "politically different" (lmao) but they're not effectively different or different in reality. This is why you don't find many gay black jew commies on /pol/, and why you don't find many /pol/acks in my house, it's delusional insanity to deny basic human social relations.

>You do have the free speech to do this. Doesn't mean your speech (or the speech of the fascists, when they can be termed abuse) is in accordance with the spirit of free speech.
Because free speech is a self-destructive, cannibalistic concept, like I've been saying.

Welcome to freedom of assembly. Just as how your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, your right to go wherever you wants end where my body begins

Freedom of assembly is peaceful, if you're using your right to assemble in order to forcibly prevent another person from using his right to speak you're abusing it and violating someone else's rights. And yes, saying "if you cross this line in the sand I'll be forced to defend myself!" Is threatening violence.

>Free speech is two words. These two words can mean whatever the dominant ideology wants, this is shown easily by your own statement "Hate speech laws do not exist in all countries." Exactly, because whatever "free speech" is, is decided by the dominant ideological power.^

It is not. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Hate speech laws go against the spirit of free speech. Even proponents of those laws agree with this.

>Disagreeing with you, and calling you out, and arguing with you, may have a silencing effect, but does when you do it as well, this is a fucking double standard.

This makes no sense.

>You can TRY to disagree with the obvious fact that casual language acts as a natural censor but then go hang out in a social circle where you're part of a despised minority group. If you're jewish go hang out with nazis, if you're a nazi go hang out with commies, either way you'll end up silenced by their day to day language. If not because you have normal human conditioning at least because of the sheer amount of speech they have versus you.

If they don't try to hurt you or punish you in any way (unlikely in the case of nazis), your speech is not suppressed. Once in my life I was a libertarian surrounded by commies. And I was not suppressed. They disagreed with my political positions, but they didn't try to silence me.

>They may be "politically different" (lmao) but they're not effectively different or different in reality. This is why you don't find many gay black jew commies on /pol/, and why you don't find many /pol/acks in my house, it's delusional insanity to deny basic human social relations.

There is a lefty-pol.

Saying you intend to enact [x] policy that would harm another person is also a threat. Let's take the immigration "debate" for example. To say you wish to use your influence to close the borders to people fleeing war, that is a threat towards the people fleeing war. "If you cross this line in the sand I'll be forced to defend myself!" even though you're running from death.

>forcibly prevent another person from using his right to speak you're abusing it and violating someone else's rights
>if you cross this line in the sand I'll be forced to defend myself!
No senpai, I am peacefully using my freedom of assembly to assemble in between you and your destination. I am not threatening violence to you, only preventing you passage with my body. If you try to pass me I will just hold firm. Forcing me aside? Now that is violence.

Can you be more dishonest?

Unless we're treating rights as a citizen as universal that is irrelevant.

Thats kind of disgusting but ok.

Not an argument senpai

You're technically correct in terms of legal liability but morally repugnant for abusing a right to peaceful assembly to fuck with other people's rights. Sort of like those westboro fuckwits who picket funerals so they can sue.

I'm not making an argument, I'm calling you dishonest. Which you are.

>It is not. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Hate speech laws go against the spirit of free speech. Even proponents of those laws agree with this.
This is fucking Veeky Forums and you're acting like the current western modern liberal society is the only one. It's not even the only one currently.
I've heard "hate speech is not free speech" many many many times by the way.
>This makes no sense.
Yes it does.
You say I abuse my power to censor people just because I'm talking, but when they do it, it's fine? That is a double standard you hypocritical cunt.
>If they don't try to hurt you or punish you in any way (unlikely in the case of nazis), your speech is not suppressed.
Absolutely demonstrably false. Just click on /pol/ and tell me how many opposing viewpoints you see at perfect balance in harmony in this perfect free speech paradise. Go on, click there and tell me. The answer is like, a couple, and they all tend to follow similar trends. This is because other opinions are shut down, silenced, without harm or punishment at all.
>And I was not suppressed. They disagreed with my political positions, but they didn't try to silence me.
You're refusing to look at the real effects of people's actions and only focusing on their INTENTIONS and this is wrong and won't get you anywhere. I already explained this. You may not have noticed but I'm sure you acted slightly differently around other libertarians than you did around commies.
>There is a lefty-pol.
Where nazis leave because they feel censored by getting shitposted at. Where the anarchists all left because they were getting shitposted at. For greener pastures where they're not being shut out.