You can say whatever you like, unless i don't like it :)

You are the retard who wants to limit speech to subjective definitions of what is "offensive" and "decent". The next thing you know you're in jail for saying something offensive about the great leader.

Fuck you nigger.

>I haven't read Stirner: the post
Stirner didn't believe society shouldn't exist, he claimed the individuals in the society are what make it. Hence his proposition for "Union of Egoists"

> What exactly is the point of free speech if you can place whatever limitations on it you want?

[citation needed]

But, OP, no one is stopping you from expressing yourself in your own space. You are perfectly free to say whatever you want on your own self-hosted website, your own lawn, your own home, to the people in your life. Everyone else of course has the right to tell you to fuck off and enforce you not saying dumb shit around them.
No one is asking to come into your house or your private server and police you.

Everything is subjective. Entire human society is subjective. Everything is subjective except for the sky above us and the earth below us. Your precious notion of free speech is also subjective, it was given to you by someone who had a clear idea what he wanted to achieve with it, and to promote certain standards by it. If necessary, it can be taken away from you.

If you act opposingly or destructive to those standards you must be ready to suffer the consequences.

>he thinks this is any sort of an argument
Fuck off with your post modernist pseudo bullshit intertwined with some retarded conspiracy theory of some higher being that giveths and takeths. You're not impressing anyone, you're not an intellectual, you're a fucking faggot and I cringed just fucking reading that.

The fact that you're angry and have to resort to namecalling shows i'm right.

btw you're probably some shitposting retard who got banned and now is so butthurt he made a thread about it.

The fact you actually believe your own bullshit shows you're retarded. Not even OP, just called you out on your stupidity, you fucking faggot.

You have no arguments, just impotent rage.

There is no use arguing with retards who never accept any fact or statement because "everything is subjective". You're a dumb faggot.

You have no facts though. It's more like
>REEEE WHY WON'T THEY LET ME DO X
Which is comparable to the mindset of an angsty teenager.

And yes. Everything related to human laws, human reasoning and humans at all is subjective. You can throw fits all you want but it won't help you.

Don't be a fucking limp wristed faggot, free speech is literally there because words and insults are just bullshit that literally gives you 0 damage unless you are too emotional to handle a little of heat

ironically if you restrict speech, then insults and words become more influential and everyone gets easily butthurt over anything

Words aren't bullshit. Words are the most powerful human invention. They can influence minds, move people, lead them and control them. What do you think propaganda is? Words.

If you have to resort to insults it means your arguments are really weak. In your free speech you are free to formulate your words and sentences in a more rewarding fashion, that will actually help you strenghten your argument. But you don't do that, you resort to the lowest setting of verbal communication.

>freedom to say what you want should be limited by my opinion of what you say
>I'm smart and this is my argument
You deserve the ghulag

You have a right to so whatever you want. You don't have a right not to suffer the consequence. The only time it should enter illegal territory is when you utter threats or harass someone.

Don't put words in my mouth.

>If you're just an asshole who insults and attacks everyone just because it's "free speech" then you must be prevented from doing so because you're harfmul for the society and for the community.
I couldn't if I wanted to, its filled up with cocks you choke on. Albeit I will admit I am reasonably impressed by your ability to still write out somewhat coherent sentences despite it.

Nice impotent rage. Still no arguments.

intangible damage shouldn't be punished by law

Who exactly defines "decency" and what is "harmful to society?"

Sure there's 'free speech', and it's probably been there since most modern republics' existence. It doesn't mean it may be to your benefit to exercise it anyway and wherever you want to. Court cases have declared free speech null and voild in the workplace. People are physically attacked when they burn flags. Police may arrest you for choosing to exercise your free speech and leave the court to decide whether you were in the right or in the wrong later.
Civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's had rights to free speech but were repressed by both the authorities and the public. Often the authorities wouldn't be able to protect these activists even if they wanted to because they'd probably be overwhelmed by the force of the agitating mob and such circumstances would stir up fights and both sides would have to be physically subdued, but due to the social climate at the time it was often not on the side of the activists. Today the situation has reversed and police and authorities simply aren't willing to exert theirselves in defending a group of people who take deliberate measures to agitate the residents of the communities they choose practice their activism in.
If the activists' discourse are of a racial nature employing the police forces in their defense would then create a situation similar to that of Apartheid era Africa with blacks being made to fight to subdue the citizens of their own ilk. Because the police force relies on the bonds of their fellow colleagues they naturally are wise in choosing not to defend movements which are inflammatory to some of their colleagues existence. They may have felt similarly during Civil Rights Era as well.

Not him, but society does.

What happens if society goes in a bad direction? It's happened enough times throughout history that this can't be dismissed with a single "well it just won't." Freedom of speech is meant to make sure unpopular ideas aren't quashed. These include both bad (racist sentiments) and good (gays are not automatically horrid degenerates). Remember that, on that note, homosexuality wasn't terribly praised and that plenty of folk wanted to eliminate any pro-gay speech as disruptive to society because it challenged wholesome family values. That was SOCIETY speaking. Think about that.

free speech =/= unlimited speech

You have the right to spout bullshit, you'll never have to worry about a cop arresting you for something you said.

I, on the other hand, have the right to shun you for it. If I'm a business owner, I'm not allowed to discriminate against things which people don't have any control over, but you do have control over your words, and if you should "fire" in my movie theater I'm throwing you out.

I don't deny that freedom of speech can be taken away, my point is why pretend to have it when you don't?
Places like Sweden claim to have freedom of speech, but then do shit like this
thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech
I like to remind you that words are just words and can't physically hurt you, words are only offensive or hurtful if you let them be offensive or hurtful. A person should have every right to express their honest opinion on public property, the only things you could possibly defend censoring are lies or things that have no purpose other then being disruptive (ei someone literally just screeming at you). If someone says something "hateful", then argue with them, show other people how stupid they are, if you can't do that, why the fuck should I believe that YOU are right?

Free speech never applied in the workplace retard, it's private property.

It's very simple.

Either we have free speech, or we don't.

...

There is a difference between limiting free speech and having consequences for what you say. I don't think a black person should be arrested or fined for saying "I think all honkeys should die", but if the people who they work for don't want to hire that person because it creates a negative association for their company, that's their perogative.

There is no point.

Consider this:
>Use free speech to tell people/X about how bad X is.
>X gets murdered/genocided/suicide as a result.

Free speech gives us the ability to manifest death and destruction without ever laying a hand on a gun or a nuke.

You can argue all you want, but statistics will always argue that words are more destructive then guns ever could be. They are the single most destructive force on Earth.

The libertarians want every right... Except, conveniently, the right to aggress. Non-aggression is the golden rule of most rights movements.

I mean, if we allowed Freedom of speech, we ought to allow the right to aggression.
What is the point of a state if we have the right to do everything?
The state merely exists as a compromise between different groups of people; that's all politics is.

The less politically confined we are by civilization, the more moral we would become.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussions, you can say whatever shit you like and if another private citizen decides that makes you ineligible for employment then tough shit

So you believe that magic is actually a thing?

Free speech is for faggots. I wish Trump would round up the leftists and put them in camps for their treason. I hate "muh constitution" crowd that gets triggered about their "rights".

>consequences
slippery slope mate

the country is the constitution and vice versa.
What's the point of playing any sort of game if you can make up the rules as you go?
Chess would be meaningless if the rules were "living and breathing documents".

We live in a very different world than we did at the time of our founding. The world for the most start stayed the same from our nation's founding until WW1, but WW1 killed the old world and forced a far more cynical, far less idealistic world onto us.

Either way, it's a catch-22 for a lot of constitutionalists. They don't want government interference, but what other than the state is going to prevent a tyranny of the majority as Jefferson feared? If the will of the people is for 51% to repress the rights of the 49%, then really what is the solution without creating an apartheid state or civil war?

What an absolutely moronic argument. "DURR dere is no objectif troof therefore literally anything is justified", what a great basis for a society that is, you fucking dope. It makes me physically angry that you exist, my only satisfaction is knowing you will die alone.

>constitutionalists
>believers in direct democracy

Bruh

People who argue against saying what is offensive are objectively wrong is the point.
Free speech includes hate speech.
The only restrictions of free speech are outright threatening someone while showing intent at the same time.

Retards like are utter brainlets and don't understand how anything works.

kill yourself you fucking waste of life, I can't believe you are this fucking retarded

If your speech causes harm then you can be sued for that, but if your speech merely persuades someone else to do something retarded, you should be given a fucking prize for helping thin the herd.

I never said that it was, I'm talking about when the government gets involved.

You should kill yourself my man

Threats should be legal, they're pretty incriminating if something happens to the person you threaten but threats between private citizens are their own concern as far as I care. It gets trickier when the threat leads to financial loss, as when someone phones in a bomb threat to keep a restaurant closed for the day, but it should be enough for this to be dealt with thru litigation rather than a criminal trial.

A lot of constitutionalists like I said don't want the government interfering in things. Again, if the state doesn't prevent that scenario, who will without war?

Goes to show were all you non-American alt-rightists truly stand.

Constitutionalists are not anarchists, they WANT there to be a state, they just want it to restrict itself to its Constitutional mandate.

I mean, my point still stands. Deflecting responsibility because you feel threatened because whenever someone brings up white dudes you automatically assume it's about you. It's not about you, Brett. get over yourself.

Your entire point hinged on tyranny of the majority being a thing despite the fact that most constitutionalists believe in the democratic-republic system in which representatives are elected by the people, not some retarded Brexit referendum shit. If anything, it's anti-constitutionalists who want to do away with stuff like the electoral college and other so-called anachronisms.

Different guy here. Your point sounded pretty weirdly targeted, man. If you'd said "uppity black folk" instead, you'd have been called a /pol/tard and been similarly dismissed out of hand.

I don't give a fuck about your dumb "rights" and your faggot (((freedumbs))). What freedoms are you cucks complaining about? Freedom to be a faggot, freedom to be slut, freedom to be a failed liberal activist. Freedom to be a pedophile?

Free speech is one of those ideals that was made to be a check against our base nature, to fight the fact that in reality we are still mentally primitive apes that want to stamp out anything we view as a threat to us.

This is pretty much the truth.

Not that subhuman degenerate but none of those things should be illegal. Why should your freedoms be enshrined but not his? If an action / behavior causes no harm, it should be legal.

It's the opposite, it's a check against our culture (specifically our laws) that is designed to ensure we retain the natural right to speak freely that our pre-civilized ancestors enjoyed.

You have a better view of our species that I do.

Because my "freedoms" is being loyal to the state, loyal to your country and love your President because libtards have a history of hating all things authority. And I don't give a fuck if they aren't "hurting" anyone. Its degenerate behavior that needs to be banned. I don't mean ban gay rights, I'm mean banning being a general faggot. If you complain about our country, you're a faggot. That's all you are.

Culture is inevitably shaped by human nature. We're all dumbass prideful sinners and that manifests both in the private and public sectors.

Natural rights are simply those rights we enjoyed in our "state of nature".

A lot of bitter /pol/acks in this thread thinking calling people niggers and cucks is akin to free speech.

>free speech for everyone!
>but not for them!

You alt-right pissbabbies really are as bad as the Sjews. How about this: If you're not hurting anyone, do what you like.

Whatever libtard. I hope the President and the Army rounds up you fags and puts you to work doing something useful for once in your life.

ITT: wahh wahh im white and can't hurl verbal abuse at minorities and get supported by society like in the 50s anymore wahh

Free speech has to do with government restrictions. There's nothing stopping private individuals and organizations from refusing you goods, services, or employment.

Obviously, human cultures reflect human natures. You can look at our close primate cousins and see many of the same cultural traits you find among humans, then look at a more distant relative like a lion and see a culture that is quite alien, and as the saying goes, "if the cows had gods, their gods would be cows".

I'm not an American so that seems unlikely. You seem very angry, you should go fuck a trap or something. Don't forget to beat her up for being a fag afterwards.

I remember reading about J. S. Mill's way of differentiating 'free speech' and 'hate speech.' with the concept of 'the harm principle'. It's in this article (which is worth a read if you're interested in free speech anyway): plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

The article explains it this way:
"[Mill] suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve the poor if such a view is expressed in print. It is not acceptable to make such statements to an angry mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the corn dealer."

It's an interesting way of starting to look at where is reasonable to put limitations, if a society is to put any limitations, on free speech.

The same article covers other areas that people have argued for limitations to be placed, as well as outlining the reasons that free speech is good and/or necessary.

Hope this helps.

Well enjoy getting raped by Pisslam in Europe libcuck. I hope when Europeans grow some balls they'll declare martial law and round up you faggot degenerates for cucking for Islam.
America is being protected against Islam while you cucks bend over for it. Hahahaha loser.

>Posting a reasonable response in a /pol/bait thread.

I am a Muslim and pray daily for when Europe sees the light and reverts, so thanks for the good wishes, friend. I likewise hope your Mommy-Sister gets treated for her diabetic ass-tumors soon, and that your cousin can get out of jail in time for his son's court appearance, good luck American friend!

>milquetoast white dudes being held accountable for what they do with their right to free speech
The freedom of speech is not a freedom from judgement, saying you'd be in favour of legalization of beastiality is going to sever links between you and others.

>I like to remind you that words are just words and can't physically hurt you, words are only offensive or hurtful if you let them be offensive or hurtful.
Multiple people have killed themselves over words, and when you're in a situation where you're mobbed (where the vast majority of hate speech on the internet happens) you can't individually deal with each jackass.

B-but maybe if we push for discourse and learning in our almost-not-/pol/ safe space then maybe when they stumble on over here they'll at least be a bit more fun to talk to.

Maybe.

How is being fired for your political beliefs not a soft suppression of those beliefs? the only time when doing something like that is justified is when that person brings their politics into their job.
The entire idea behind doxxing someone or getting them fired is to make them too afraid to speak, to me that is morally wrong.

this is not a /pol/ thread.

Free speech is a farce and has never really existed.

As long as some information is considered private, or some phrases dangerous (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to cause a panicked stampede) then there will never be true speech. Merely highly unregulated speech.

Incitement of violence and hysteria are real things. There is no speech policy which will satisfy everyone.

>your words control the actions of other people
No.
>you can't ignore loud dumb people on the internet with incredible ease
Also no.

>Words can kill
>If you kill yourself

If you kill yourself you really have nobody to blame but yourself. This argument that if you kill yourself because I say you suck, therefore I should not be allowed to say you suck because it caused you to kill yourself is nonsense. People are not retarded children who need the state to nanny them, they must be accountable for their own actions, and must be able to be criticized.

It's part if free speech. The nigger or cuck in question is allowed to punch you in the face afterwards and the rest is allowed to not befriend the racist weirdo but authorities must stay apart from this. You don't need to be a /pol/ack to get this. Punishing people for bad speech is literally pre-school teacher tier.

Criticism and "go fucking yourself" are different things.

Go into a crowd at an American football game and shout "Allah Hu'Akkbar" and tell me, if you survive, whether or not you still think words cannot control the actions of others.

>The nigger or cuck in question is allowed to punch you
They actually aren't. Physical assault isn't legal because feelings were hurt.

The only thing I read is "I don't like free speech but that's untrendy".

No it's not.

Criticism has no requirement to be intelligent or elegant. If people think you are a piece of shit who should jump off a bridge maybe they have a point, and if they don't you should be adult enough to ignore them or likewise tell them to fuck off.

>baiting and mind control are basically the same thing
No.

Rule of law is a lie. Just like freedom of speech. You can do whatever you can get away with.

Grab 'em by the pussy.

All stimuli demand response. Just because the response is unpredictable doesn't mean it wasn't brought into being by the stimulus. There are things you objectively wouldn't have done had someone not spoken. Sometimes your response was so quick as to have no other choice.

The only thing I read is "I like free speech because it's trendy".

There will be no testimonies if the people believed that the guy deserved the punch. If people doesn't believe he deserved it maybe it's you who deserved the insult.

Except I never mentioned I liked or wanted free speech, retard.

If this is true and your point was we should restrict free speech because it -might- set someone off (and remember, according to this latest post, you can't predict this shit), then the solution is just to sit on our asses and do nothing. Or preemptively kill ourselves so as to produce less potentially harmful stimuli.