Is freedom of speech possible outside of democracy?

Is freedom of speech possible outside of democracy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Sure, under anarcho-primitivism or mutualism

>Anarcho-primitivism
>Mutualism
>Unironically

Yep

Yes. Democracy =/= liberty. Britain wasn't fully democratic until 1918 and it had freedom of speech.

Another example is Hong Kong

freedom of speech isnt possible under democracy

under the mob rule of democracy antifa can kill you for "hate speech"

Should I unironically be hoarding books liable to be banned?

This alt-left stuff gives me the fucking willies.

honestly i'm sometimes amazed that nietzsche isn't banned but i guess they figured most plebs won't get it so what's the point, even after all the marxist bullshit i've read i never got the same feeling i got from nietzsche "woah, how is this legal" marxists say some edgy shit but nietzsche is like nuclear edgy warfare the series

is it possible under a democracy? USA has a long history of banning (or at least working hard to prevent the spreading of) ideas. first it was the conservatives and now its the liberals. both sides of the aisle have blood on their hands.

now that its technologically easy to scrub thought with the internet (see: google) it's only going to get worse, not better.

yes. the time of the benedict option is now. store up as many books as you can for future generations.

the spookiest thing to me was how stormfront got taken down without even a peep, at least when dailystormer got banned it made the news and people cared, but one day stormfront was just gone, and to be honest, stormfront was pretty fucking mild, it was mostly just working class white "deplorables" bitching about how hard it is to find a job and how immigration is annoying, not exactly a genocidal project. their ideology is pretty wack, but i find it very troubling that one day with no debate or any notice whatsoever they were just gone like they never existed, spooky

Is freedom of speech possible inside a democracy?

Yeah make sure to get your copy of Stefan's new book before it's too late.

What exactly is so uniquely dangerous in Nietzsche's ideas specifically, in your view? The state of course has an interest in preventing straight -up nihilism but as I am given to understand, Nietzsche (to a futile end) attempted in vain to wriggle out of nihilism by means of some artful or poetic variants of existentialism. I say this despite having not yet actually read Nietzsche so feel free to disregard this post in that sense.

I would make the vague suggestion that real, deep-set philosophical nihilism is a thing to which most normies are not succeptible [sic] esp since hedonism is so immediately available and since distractions are so plenty. Even in far more miserable circumstances, human will to live persists. We are not uniquely depraved today, to my mind.

Of course it also depends on which country you're in. To our credit, the United States still at least nominally values freedom of speech, though this is also being eroded.

>alt-left

What is that?

No, free speech isn't possible in a democracy. It isn't possible outside of a republic

A complete works of Shakespeare should be top priority. He's already being attacked.

Did you have the communally endorsed freedom to reject the gods in ancient Greece or Rome? To speak against the legitimacy of the assembly/Senate? To actualize an equality under the law that abolished the disenfranchisement of the poor, of women, and of slaves?

If "democracy" has been defined to be a necessary condition, has it also been defined to be a sufficient condition?

>To our credit, the United States still at least nominally values freedom of speech, though this is also being eroded.

Dude, the United States banned Ulysses.

I'm not white and I think trying to use KBG-style silencing tactics on Stormfront was just about the dumbest fucking thing you could ever do. All you are going to do is motivate people toward those ends even further. It's classic Streisand Effect shit.

>KBG

tfw dyslexia

well dailystormer definitely benefited from streisand effect, but stormfront just disappeared one day, who knows what other sites have just disappeared, when marxist or "antifa" sites start to disappear will anyone care? queue the old "first they came for the alt-right but i didn't care..." quote

There are people who are literally opposed to my existence. I still want them to have a voice. It's when people are robbed of a voice that things start to kick up a notch. Everyone needs the means to vent. Even those we disagree with. Or bad shit gets worse. That's what a lot of people don't understand. Especially on the Left.

the thing is i don't think the people taking down alt-right sites are doing it out of concern for minorities or human rights, they're doing it to head off a possible threat to liberal capitalism, all leftists need to watch what's happening to the alt-right because it's just a preview of what will happen to any anti-capitalist movement in the future

i have a problem with the idea that anyone who thinks we should enforce immigration laws is basically a neonazi. excuse me, these are the fucking laws of a democracy, how the fuck is someone wanting our laws to be enforced fascism? this is a real problem, what happens when we decide that it's finally time to tax the fuck out of the one percent and the liberal papers and tech companies decide that taxing wall street and silicon valley is the equivalent of stalinism? it's a bit of problem that if you say "i believe the laws of the united states should be enforced" you are now an alt-right goon subject to harassment and ostracism

>anyone who thinks we should enforce immigration laws

You are disingenuous.

go out in public and tell someone you think illegals should be deported. see what happens.

>neo-nazi domain seized for violating ToS

Literally who cares?

or even better tweet about it with your real name, or post it on your facebook page, see how long your employment lasts.

stormfront is the oldest "white nationalists" site on the internet and has been around since the 90s, suddenly one day someone just noticed they violated the ToS? do you suppose Veeky Forums ever violates any ToS?

Just turn your brain off bro

ok but no crying when some militant vegan anarchist site gets smoked next time

Free speech is a white people value. Other races don't give a shit about it and will overturn it in a heartbeat, as we'll learn if we allow ourselves to become a minority in our countries, or maybe sooner. It has little to with democracy. Altruistic whites have been fooled into thinking everyone is like us or wants to be like us or will magically become us if they step foot on our magic dirt, but that's not true and is something we have to unlearn.

>We should just let megacorporations determine what is and is not "acceptable speech"
>The fact that they have billions of dollars means that they are just moral agents

You will die a Slave, you simpleminded cur.

There are definitely people opposed to his existence. You are ignoring this.

And promptly overturned same because it was never valid to begin with because that is how the whole process of judicial review works. It's almost as if you have never read any of the front matter in any edition of Ulysses and consequently it is almost as if you do not understand what you are talking about or what point it is that you are really trying to make.

America does the right thing - once all other options have been exhausted.

probably the communists in the streets wearing masks assaulting people and destroying private property

Antifa kills people because they subscribe to the ideological concept of "Preemptive Self-defense". Meaning, if they think that your ideas or existence could possibly hurt some theoretical person or persons at any time in the future, they(Antifa) have the right to kill you.

And so you think ending the western liberal tradition of free speech will secure his future safety somehow? good luck with that

its not even possible in totality inside a republic

competing ambitions of different factions always means we'll end up with some centrist gay ass "compromise", which in this context gives us a watered-down version of free speech

You assume "America" is the entity making acceptable "speech" decisions these days and not ultrabourgeois megacorporations

the lamest part about antifa is that they aren't anti-capitalist and so challenge nothing, which is why they are allowed to exist in a way that the alt-right is not

Free Speech is possible under despotism if the Sovereign wills it.

Registrars are allowed to determine what kind of content is and is not acceptable to them. Why is this so shocking to you?

are gay wedding cakes shocking to you?

Agreed. I am economically extremely Left ( >inb4 lol Benisuela, bro ) but I hate the modern neo-liberal pseudo-left.

Suppose some group of Saudi investors made deals to have controlling ownership of major registrars and decide they want the internet to be more islamic? that's cool right

Because you are giving companies with monopolies over communication the right to violate the civil rights of American citizens for the sake of the Free Market.

you're only one internet bubble away from this reality

PSEUD thread

>9972945
Is freedom of speech possible inside of a democracy?

how so?

More deflection masquerading as being-smarter-than one-upsmanship, whoops it's the corporations man, I'm woke you aren't.

Except that that isn't the point in the thread of discussion thus carried thus far, nor does stating a banality score points. I started out by correctly asserting that the American state is at all events comparitively permissive in the sanctified toleration of speech. Some other user made a canard about Ulysses, I promptly shut it down, and then you (perhaps the same above ulysses poster, perhaps not) felt obliged to get outside the substance of the original observations, which were: Nietzsche gets to be published and read in America among other places to one user's happy surprise, and my observation on the local laws, customs and norms about speech.

Unfortunately this is a long detour from my original question.

When will democracy = freedom meme end?

Why are you so hostile? Standoffish over what?

The reason we are discussing freedom of speech in this thread is purely because it's under threat from the "ultrabourgeois megacorporations". Nobody would be making this thread if they weren't trying to shift our culture away from freedom to speak and think on our own terms on the internet as we had as little as a decade ago. It wouldn't (and more importantly shouldn't) be debated as an issue in our zeitgeist; the fact it is sets alarm bells ringing that something is going seriously wrong within our society.

The solution is government enforced free speech.

I'm sure the common person had more freedom of speech under the Duchy of Milan than the police state of the Rpeublic of Venice with state inquisitors, spies listining for dissent on every corner, and citizens snitching on eachother by dropping names into a stone lion to then have the person attached to the name disappear. To answer your question, yes

why did the mods delete the other free speech thread?

because fuck trump

Yes
Freedom of speech is possible under any form of government as long as there is a government.
Freedom of speech means the ability to say what you want without the government stopping you from doing so. So by definition, freedom of speech is possible as long as there is a government. Any more of these dumb questions? I'll do the lot.

>Freedom of speech means the ability to say what you want without the government stopping you from doing so.

No, it doesn't. Freedom of speech means you have the freedom to say what you like without consequences.

it does in fact, not. As I said, freedom of speech means that you can state your opinions without the government either stopping you from doing so, or putting punishments on you for do so.
If you go on youtube and your alt-right or left-extremist video gets removed it is not a freedom of speech issue, as youtube is not the government. It is an issue of a service provider deciding that they don't want your shit.
Imagine you're at a dinner party and while everyone is enjoying their meal you start yelling about Yews/Blacks/Nazis/Trumpvoters. Halfway trough your rant the host decides it's too much and kicks you out of his house. Here you were not denied your freedom of speech, as the host is not the government, but rather you pissing of the host who chose to remove You from HIS home. You may say what you want without the government interfering, but that does not mean that any of the rest of the people have to give you a platform to shout your ideologies. Once again, Freedom of speech merely means that the actual government is not allowed to silence or punish you for what you say.

If you say something and are castigated for it, that is censorship and an affront to freedom of speech.

I find it laughable that you are trying to conflate speech on the internet to speech at a private dinner party in real life.

You are pathetic.

What makes your very specific and convenient Lolberg definition of free speech more valid than the other definitions? Especially since in the modern world people have to worry less about having their freedoms taken by governments (thou that still happens) and more about corporations that have monopolies over communication unpersoning them.

Wasn't the stormfront domain and all content SEIZED by registrar? This is very different from telling your client we don't want your business: they permanently destroyed everything

also worth considering is many consider the definition of fascism to be the commingling of state and corporate power, so if the ruling class can sidestep the constitution by letting corporations be their extra-judicial enforcers, isn't this literally fascism?

no now delete this post

This thread is garbage.
The OP asked about free speech yet the discussion is yet another /pol/tards vs marxcucks name calling.
Are you faggots so insecure that the only way you can feel like you're worth something is to bring politics into literally everything?
Unironically follow the advice in pic related.

>Imagine you're at a dinner party
That doesn't apply to the internet. You're using a really misleading analogy for you nefarious chicanery. On the internet, No one is forced to look at what I have to say. We are not in someones dinning room we are in the public commons.

Good. Maybe whites will finally learn.

That is an interesting point.

>in ancient Greece
Yes

you cant use logic, reason or empathy with people who have limited understanding of the 3 because they have not developed that far yet. its fruitless as your argument cannot be processed by them in the way you constructed it. so better you walk away next time, its better for your mental health to not engage in discussion where its childlike as it will only disappoint.

This. I use reddit for mature conversation on topics such as free speech and world politics.

>le ebic insecurity

Point disregarded entirely.

Well if you want an Internet example:
If you go on the 4chins and post about your favourite political subject and end up getting banned: that is just a mod or the admin deciding that they don't want you spouting your shit on their website.
HOWEVER, if you make a website to spout your ideas and the government takes it down because they disagree with it, then we're running into a freedom of speech problem

Because, as far as I know, that is the definition of it. Yes you might argue that certain corporations have become incredibly powerful to a degree that they themselves heavily started influencing the law of man. But still, a service provider (like youtube or Veeky Forums) is not the government. It, at any time might consider cutting you off it's service or reducing your privileges if they feel it necessary. After all just like I said: Yes you may have the right to say what you want, but you don't have the right to say it where you want. Nobody else has to give you a platform. If you want to make your own site to post your opinions you are free to do so.

>I don't understand what an analogy is
We take the point we're trying to make and put it in a simpler context. Just because the one I used was free of technology doesn't mean a reasonably intelligent wouldn't understand how to apply the concept to modern websites. You accuse me of misleading yet you are the one purposefully missing the point.

Again for your understanding: Someone else might censor you, but as long as it is not the government, it is not a freedom of speech issue. As website owners have the right to decide what they want and don't want on their website.
If the government imprisons you or otherwise punishes you for saying something, THEN it is a freedom of speech issue. this. is. not. hard.

We're running into a freedom of speech problem when speech is curtailed. Any speech on any topic; if it's stopped that is censorship, a violation of free speech if you will.

I don't think it is desu.

Are you that "true patriot" guy from the League of Legends thread on /v/ yesterday?

Understand that this issue is the hill you die on.

>Again for your understanding: Someone else might censor you, but as long as it is not the government, it is not a freedom of speech issue

>"Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyran--society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it--its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism." - "On Liberty" - John Stuart Mill

TL;DR: It's not that simple.

you're so dense
let's suppose you live in an radicalized islamic country. you own a newspaper or blog and want to post pro-sunni content. if some radical shia faction threatens your life for doing so, this is already a freedom of speech issue even though it's not the government curtailing your freedom
with that said, it's the responsibility of the sovereign state to make sure your freedom of speech isn't being suppressed and to provide you with enough safety to espouse your views

>/pol/tards vs marxcucks
It is not that in any way.
The biggest argument is over whether or not Private companies have the right to violate the civil rights of their clientele. /pol/tards and /leftypol/yps are both against this.

It is more like /pol/tards, /leftypol/yps, & various other Stateists vs Neo-Libs, Lolbergs, & Pedophiles(AnCaps)

leftypol is mostly for corporate censorship

You have never been on /leftypol/

no but i went there to bully them a few times and got banned every time

so I assume they're fine with banning le ebil trump nazis

Out of all political systems, democracy is the one least conducive to freedom of speech.

>>I don't understand what an analogy is
The person you responded to very clearly said that you were using a misleading analogy, obviously he does understand what an analogy is.
You can't simply say "x would be like y" and expect the analogy to be valid, it has to follow similar conditions as the original statement.
Reading what you said your analogy isn't valid, since the reason you would get kicked out of that dinner party would be for ruining the social event. On the internet unless the site you're using has rules against what your video represents, it shouldn't in theory be allowed to remove it. In practice this is different.

While I admit that BO is massive tranny shithead and there is a major problem with some of the mods getting ban happy, I guarantee you that you were banned for shitting up the calendar with a poorly made bait thread. If you had argued in good faith with the correct flag you probably would not have been banned.
>le ebil trump nazis
Very few people on /leftypol/ believe in objective evil and no one on there unironically thinks Trump is a Nazi.

No we are not. When speech is curtailed we're running into a CENSORING problem. Someone might be censoring you for any heaps of reasons. BUT as long as the place where you tried to express your speech was HIS then it was HIS right to deny you to speak at HIS place, (Be it an actual place or a website). Imagine someone shitting up YOUR website with any sort of spam. Would you call deleting it an active fight against that persons freedom of speech? Or would you call it, keeping your website free of shitty spam?
Freedom of speech applies to the GOVERNMENT, everything else is at worst censorship and at best just curating your own website. As long as the Government doesn't tell you what you can and can't say, it's not a freedom of speech issue.

Nah, I'm a DotA fag and not even 'Murrican.

If it's a non-governmental faction it is just a hate group trying to censor me with violence. They WISH to be the government, and if they were it WOULD be a freedom of speech problem. Yes they want me to lose my freedom of speech, yet their threats and acts of terrorism are just that: Threats and acts of terrorism. They're trying to suppress me with the methods they have available, but I still HAVE freedom of speech, as the government gives me the right to say what I want in my Paper. The governments ability to protect me from those who want me to lose that right is something else entirely.
Now If I had that Paper and the country got somehow token over by the extremist group who now has the actual governmental power to "legally" sentence me for what I'm saying, THEN I'm infringed in my freedom of speech.

>Would you call deleting it an active fight against that persons freedom of speech?

You worded it poorly, but yes, that is a violation of free speech.

Remember: ANY speech that is shut down or otherwise punished by any other means constitutes a violation of somebody's free speech.

>blaming the victim

typical bolshy nigger

*Catalog not Calendar.
Fuck I'm tired.

Censorship is a freedom of speech problem
The definition of freedom of speech goes beyond the government. You're making up this out of thin air

I still think it is an understandable analogy and the poster I referenced was himself intentionally mislead in saying "But what you said isn't internet and this is Internet!!11!1!"
Your point however is somewhat more valid and I could see myself agreeing in that I could have let out the dinner party aspect and just said "someones house", the social situation is irrelevant as the point is: "If the owner of the place you are in doesn't like it, he has the right to remove you from it as it is his place. This is not an infringement of your freedom of speech but his right to choose who he wants and wants not in his house"
As for what the rules say and what websites do that is an entirely different batch of BS. Believe me I disagree with a lot of these deletions, (twitter is specially terrible here) but these would be, like I said at worst be censorship. BUT you are not disallowed to say these things, you are just disallowed to say these things on THEIR platform. as long as you can make your own site, (or post on someone elses) without the GOVERNMENT taking it down, you do have, in fact, freedom of speech. As long as the government doesn't stop you from making your own blog or version of twitter or other opinion sharing site, you are fine.

No it does not and that is just silly. That would mean that whenever you tell somebody: "shut up I don't care" in the UK you would be in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1998.
That means your spam-filter is down right criminal.
To say that everybody needs to be allowed to say whatever he wants wherever he wants is downright silly. It would mean that any form of moderation is a freedom of speech issue and it is just not. Here is how it is:
You DO have the undeniable right to hold any opinion whatsoever. be it a really nice one or the most horrible thing you can think of, without fear of punishment from the government.
You do NOT have the right to make other people listen to you, or to even let you speak on their platform (E.g. Youtube, twitter) or to make them respect your opinion as valid.
You DO have the right to make your own platform for your opinions, and when THOSE get taken down, then we're running into a Freedom of Speech issue.

No, censorship is a censorship problem. If a TV station wants swear free programming so they can advertise shit to kids and christian parents, that's their prerogative. They may choose to censor something to fit with their ideas of their channel. That is not freedom of speech, that is their right as the channel owner. "This is my channel so I choose what we send"
NOW, if the government comes in, and does censoring because they don't like certain messages they are saying: "This is your channel but you are not allowed to send this" that act of censorship is a freedom of speech violation.
This is super simple stuff guys, but I'm going to bed now.

What a fucking retard, posting all this shit when you can't understand that the freedom of speech and its concept exists outside of the law and is a cultural phenomenon that is currently a target for erosion by megacorps.

You're probably one of their shills, I see you posting on multiple boards defending them with "le private company can censor xD racist" every fucking time

The point of not being able to say anything you want on private platforms is valid

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they clearly stated it in their rules that radical opinions aren't tolerated, unfortunately they never say this so the deletions are unfair.
Similar thing with privacy, how facebook datamines without informing its users, which is why I avoid using sites like these other than to talk with friends.

Although I still disagree with your definition of freedom of speech, because what antifa is doing is clearly a danger to freedom of speech and they are not related to the government at all

The nice tolerant "liberals" who want to ban everything that conflicts with their gay little ideology.

The center left is starting to turn on the alt-left. They will devour themselves and the right will remain in power. You're good for now, user.

The question should be: is freedom of speech desirable? As long as I'm granted the free, unrestricted right to exit X country the moment I decide, then who cares.

>unrestricted right to exit X country the moment I decide
That is never going to happen. Ever. In the history of the Human race.

IMO actual democracy is impossible. After all, SOMEONE has to decide WHAT gets voted on, and how to carry it out. It's not like in a democracy people always vote on what to vote on (and so on....). Someone of a higher rank/status is going to be making decision's about the communities priorities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy