Freedom of speech is nice and all, but I don't feel free to say what I want with a government that assasinates, issues gag orders in secret courts, tourtures, cause war, degrade our rights, and generally destroying life.
Poll: What is Your Position on Freedom of Speech?
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
This is literally masochism. All of the things you describe would just get worse if we let the most basic human right be constantly trodden upon.
According to the poll, it looks like this may be the case. United States of BDSM and Capitulation.
Since this is a global community, I would hazard a guess at world of BDSM and Capitulation.
... that's a lot of kink.
Given the importance of freedom of speech, what are some ideas you have to help proliferate the acceptance of free speech worldwide? There will always be those who oppose progress, but, more importantly, what can be done to promote it?
Lastly, what does freedom of speech mean to you? I know that might sound like a silly question, but often in such matters one finds that people are on different pages in regards to how they define certain subjects. This seems like a worthwhile subject to discuss. : )
Since this is a global community, I would hazard a guess at world of BDSM and Capitulation.
... that's a lot of kink.
Given the importance of freedom of speech, what are some ideas you have to help proliferate the acceptance of free speech worldwide? There will always be those who oppose progress, but, more importantly, what can be done to promote it?
Lastly, what does freedom of speech mean to you? I know that might sound like a silly question, but often in such matters one finds that people are on different pages in regards to how they define certain subjects. This seems like a worthwhile subject to discuss. : )
Freedom of speech means my life to me. If free expression was no right available to me, I would not be able to pursue the life I wish to. More important than my life, however, is the fundamental and automatically certified progression that free speech provides in ANY society that is deemed compatible with it. It is obvious that most members here don't care all that much about free speech as they have proved in several threads including this one.
Honestly...... If you people spent just one moment to stop floating around in your utopian fantasies and your extensive mid-life crises and nihilism and grounded yourself for just one second, you will see how freedom of speech is CONSTANTLY under threat. It is constantly being attacked by all levels of Western academia; the Cultural Marxists that wish to censor all kinds of vague categories of speech. Some of them even wish to criminalize free-thought (Thought-crime) on a religious level by calling themselves 'Islamic Community Spokesman' or 'Catholic solidarity movement'. These people timidly request that people stop 'offending' religious groups, give them special treatment ABOVE the law (Because 'God' is above everything according to their dogma) and they get applauded for it. And would you like to know who backs these academics? The extremist groups. They are currently providing the violent threats necessary to keep Western media outlets scared to such an extent that they were unwilling to publish the Danish Cartoons in 2005, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in 2015. Even after 12 of their gunmen were shot in their own offices, the media STILL refused to solidify their position with liberalism and show the fucking cartoons. Those people died in vain. Ed Miliband was nearly elected as Prime Minister of my country last year. If elected, he would have outlawed 'Islamophobia'. Do you know how many innocent people would have been arrested and sent to a prison cell just for speaking their mind based on that law alone? Because people all across the continent are being threatened by this word and are proving themselves too afraid to even criticise Islamic and other religious doctrine. If we bar people from doing such a thing (and I don't care how much you sugar-coat it), we will be going back to a time where religion gets the final say and is never criticised. Societies have to improve by criticising other and themselves. Freedom of speech allows progression to happen naturally. The 14 people that voted against free expression should be ashamed of themselves.
This is just one example I can give to illustrate why this fundamental right is so important to me. It gives everyone the right to criticize, condemn, slander, refute. All of the people giving bullshit examples like "What if a man said something awful things to a cop". Just tell me what you really think. There are only two motions to vote on this thread: You are either for 100% free expression, or you are for regulating it. Go and cater to your own self-loathing version of the 1st Amendment, but don't bloody well do it in my name. I'm all for free expression and I won't let some piffle excuse let a bunch of masochistic cultural sadists ruin this right for all of us.
What can be done to promote it? Read all of the things I've just said in this thread. If that doesn't help promote it, then I suggest you watch this video:
[video=youtube;4Z2uzEM0ugY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY[/video]
If that didn't help promote freedom of speech, I honestly think those unsatisfied people should sign off of this thread and go play some ping pong. Or as Hitchens said: "Kiss my ass".
Last edited:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]
Glad to know you openly condone child pornography. That is a form of unprotected speech in America today.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech
Glad to know you openly condone child pornography. That is a form of unprotected speech in America today.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech
This is not speech. These are reprehensible crimes. Why are you trying to suggest I am condoning child pornography? You just quoted the 1st Amendment which is precisely what I am trying to defend.
Nice try, but you really need to do better than that. You're not very good at discussing things like an adult, are you? You're only good at cheap jibes. "Oh look, he supports ALL free speech! I bet he'd love to protect the rights of child pornographers!" Pathetic.
It is classified as a speech act! It is a form of expression. It is a crime BECAUSE we do not allow completely and fully unregulated free speech.
Your original points indicates that you classify child pornography as somebody exercising their right to speak in a public discourse. You've just deliberately took the entire thread out of context just to suggest that I condone awful things.
Did you even watch the video I linked?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?
Read this carefully:
I am not the one who is classifying it as a speech act. It is already classified as a speech act under the law. Pornography is protected speech in America with the notable exception of child pornography. That is a clear limitation that I'm trying to get you to acknowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996
You misunderstand. I did acknowledge everything you said. I think you need to re-read what I posted.
I understand English perfectly well.
What exactly should I re-read? It seems you do not even have a valid definition for what constitutes speech, a speech act, or expression.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's a good place to start. I do not class child porn as speech due to its relationship with paedophilia; one of the worst crimes imaginable. I classify freedom of speech as the right for anyone to stand in a public sphere and express themselves (via SPEECH, speaking with their voice or letters on a forum like this) freely without any law prohibiting them from saying particular things. They can condone whatever they wish, as long as they do not overly threaten a person with violence. Violent threat is not speech, it is a violation of free speech itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
You haven't even thought about any of the implications about the things you've said before, have you? What about mediums such as paintings, drawings, music, film, television, the internet, etc.? Speech is not simply verbal. If you're trying to limit it in such a way, you have to redefine and reassess a massive amount of legal precedent. Not to mention that you are simply redefining speech to fit your argument and reclassifying 'unprotected speech' as 'non-speech' without addressing how that distinction or standard will be measured or assessed by a court of law.
This is pure naiveté.
I am naive because I didn't mention other mediums? Well alrighty then...
My argument was already valid. If you missed it, I also mentioned text and forum-related speech, which does include the mediums you discussed. I accepted the distinction that child pornography was given, and I disagree with it. That doesn't make me naive. I disagree with some UK laws on 'hate speech' too. Again, doesn't make me naive. It simply means I subscribe to a slightly alternative set of values which encompasses the 1st Amendment as well as the points I raised in previous posts on this thread. I personally think all of the mediums you discussed should not be regulated unless copyright infringements are made, which is a completely different ballgame to free speech. You appear to want to make out that the law is complicated and therefore regulation is almost inevitable. Well, considering you think I am too naive to discuss such a topic, why don't you just agree to disagree with me and end this façade? As it appears that you will literally go on and on in an endless circle until the thread becomes almost dead to the tumble-weed. I've said all I needed to say on free expression. I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary to sit my argument. My argument is as clear as spring water.
I am naive because I didn't mention other mediums? Well play me the world's smallest violin, I'm certainly not inclined to indulge in your semantics.
My argument was already valid. If you missed it, I also mentioned text and forum-related speech, which does include the mediums you discussed. I accepted the distinction that child pornography was given, and I disagree with it. That doesn't make me naive. I disagree with some UK laws on 'hate speech' too. Again, doesn't make me naive. It simply means I subscribe to a slightly alternative set of values which encompasses the 1st Amendment as well as the points I raised in previous posts on this thread. I personally think all of the mediums you discussed should not be regulated unless copyright infringements are made, which is a completely different ballgame to free speech. You appear to want to make out that the law is complicated and therefore regulation is almost inevitable. Well, considering you think I am too naive to discuss such a topic, why don't you just agree to disagree with me and end this façade? As it appears that you will literally go on and on in an endless circle until the thread becomes almost dead to the tumble-weed. I've said all I needed to say on free expression. I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary to sit my argument. My argument is as clear as spring water. Whereas I am unsure of what your argument is.
So, it's my fault you're making a semantic argument?
Apparently, you're still okay with the distribution of child pornography after the fact. I guess you have all sorts of semantic distinctions we're all not fully aware of despite reprimanding the forum for not following them?
I wasn't proposing an argument. I have, so far, only commented on your argument.
You are discussing freedom of speech in terms of established laws/rights and deducing its scope and limitations from those laws. A deontological approach to the subject is certainly legitimate, but ultimately becomes a legal discussion. [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] seems to me, to be discussing the subject of freedom of speech inductively, that is in terms of actual speech and the various restrictions imposed upon it. When is speech not speech? When you're dealing with complex prescriptive legal documents.
There are obviously huge grey areas when it comes to defining what freedom of speech actually encompasses and it certainly has evolved over time. I agree more with definitions that originated during the Enlightenment, where the purpose of free speech is not self-expression in itself, but a right created by the people to ensure that governing bodies are representative of the people being governed. You cannot have a true republic or a democracy without the right to dissent. Freedom of speech is a right to ensure that we have government that works for people of the natural world and is based on reason and not one based on revealed religion and superstitions. The use of reason exposed the frauds that claimed that their God ordained them to rule their subjects.
It was only during the Romantic era, which rejected Enlightenment values, where self expression took precedence over Reason. This eventually developed into the post modernist contamination of freedom of speech, where it is somehow someone's right to enjoy child pornography under the banner of "self-expression". Such a view should be openly condemned and not protected by the People. While it is true that there is a minority of human beings that are hardwired to be attracted to minors, there is no reason to conclude that it is a legitimate form of self-expression(which is a subcategory of free speech) that needs protection under the law. It is the children that need protection from these predators and not the predators from the government.
It was only during the Romantic era, which rejected Enlightenment values, where self expression took precedence over Reason. This eventually developed into the post modernist contamination of freedom of speech, where it is somehow someone's right to enjoy child pornography under the banner of "self-expression". Such a view should be openly condemned and not protected by the People. While it is true that there is a minority of human beings that are hardwired to be attracted to minors, there is no reason to conclude that it is a legitimate form of self-expression(which is a subcategory of free speech) that needs protection under the law. It is the children that need protection from these predators and not the predators from the government.