Do we belive in free speech? And if not why?

"Free speech" is a spook

That's not how that works. I think free speech is a good idea because if you impose boundaries on speech you eventually run into problems bigger than you are trying to solve.

thanks comrade

How come?

So you are for free speech right?

What part of "I think it's a good idea" isn't clear?

I believe in free speech, but most of this board are nonleftists from reddit and Holla Forums so they hate free speech.

This. Oftentimes banning reactionary speech just emboldens them and solidifies their victim complex.

"Free speech" isn't real, there is no such thing as "Free speech" only the ideology you place on it and morality you apply to it. "Free speech" is a ghost, saying you believe in "Free speech" is like saying you believe in "God", "People", "Mothman" etc.

It wasnt 100% clear so i was asking

But i thought Holla Forums are hardcore bleeding heart patriots so they support constitution without any questions. I belive they support free speech.

But doesn't America has Freedom of speech law which must be applied to every govermental entity? Of course there are words which you cant say like im going to end your life little shit which is clear threat.

I like free speech.

The notion of "free speech," while idealistically a positive force, is a farce when proclaimed to be implemented in an actual society. Nowhere on Earth (at least in meaningful arenas and while not hidden behind true anonymity) is an individual actually able to say as the please without facing consequence. There is always some facet of the political, economic, or social sphere that will punish you for saying the "wrong" thing.

States, no matter how much they claim to protect free speech, ultimately do regulate and punish speech in the defense of established power. This may take the form of direct punishment like prison, blacklisting from government positions or employment, putting offending individuals under surveillance, harassment; the list goes on. Through these, people's rights and livelihoods are stripped from them.

Businesses/corporations, existing largely in the same power structure as modern governments today, have little qualms about firing/blacklisting people who speak against their interests or ideal image. Through this, people are stripped of their livelihoods (the working class under capitalism have to work for someone to survive).

Social circles/relationships have self-imposed expectations for conduct and speech. If those expectations are not met, this may lead to an eventual refusal of cooperation with individuals who consistently deviate and, by extension, disrupt normal social proceedings. Through this, people are isolated and perhaps stripped of their livelihoods.

"Free speech" at that point simply becomes in part a tagline of appeasement espoused by the ruling class to veil their exploitation in the guise of freedom, at least under the current system of economics and government. It's meaningless in practice.

"free speach" to Holla Forums is just the ability to be an extremely obnoxious patriot or religiontard without getting in trouble, but whenever some group they dont agree with speaks their mind they are eager to call the pigs

"Free Speech" is the new religion of atheism

can you give me tl;dr of this i dont understand it very well.

Can you give me examples where did this happen?

All extremes are bad be it left or right

No speech is free because there are always consequences to said speech. The source of those consequences is ultimately irrelevant so long as there are material consequences involved, be they from governments, financial institutions, or the community itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Free speech is fine, hate speech is a problem.

I still dont get it. So no speech is free speech becasue you are saying nothing?

So what do you suggest? If there is no compromise then left and right should clash?

But i thought free speech is saying anything you want as long as you dont threat others? What is your definition of hate speech?

If you're happy with the status quo, stick with compromise. if you're not then of course there has to be clashing. My point was really just that you can't judge an idea by whether it's 'moderate' or 'extreme'. The Overton window is constantly moving.

Let me guess, your on the milo freeze peach train.

This seems like a bad thread from the start.

what is a threat? is it what is legally defined as a threat? is it my own definition of a threat? therefore, anything i want because it is my own? an advertiser might disagree with a lawmaker might disagree with you might disagree with God. What is free speech then?

Interesting you are right

I dont know what are you talking about

Threat is when you threat someone. "I will cut you throat" "I will end you swiftly lil shit" etc etc. This is threat. What is your defenition of hate speech?

Ignore the liberal who thinks [major issue] is confined to [current event].

Eliminating the expression of certain tasteless ideals does not touch upon the material conditions that created them.

Limiting speech is the most liberal thing there is - if I can't hear it, it doesn't exist. In my gated community of only approved things to say by my HOA I don't have to believe in the poverty and horror that exists not far from my door.

Why is OP an illiterate liberal posting ugly weeb shit in every post? And more importanly, why are you fucks responding? OP, read a book.

Nice try Holla Forums

mods please remove my post

If someone is not calling for violence, there is no reason to shut them down.
If you hear people chanting "Death to Jews!" you might want to shut them down.

Thanks for Galko-chan pic user

I think it's something that is better in theory than in practice.
In reality a whistleblower gets locked up while one can advocate for genocide and hide behind muh free speech.

That's not how hate speech works. You can wind people up and plant the seeds in people's heads know full well that violence will eventually follow, without ever directly saying anything advocating violence.

Free'd speech > free speech

communism hate freespeech
seek knowledge at: wykop.pl

No. No speech can ever be free because you exist in society. If you talk shit about a government and threathen their power, you will be silenced somehow, even if they advocate "free speech", they do this by labeling you a terrorist or something similar. If you talk shit about a corporation they will blacklist you and you cant work there anymore. If you talk shit about people you know locally they will not cooperate with you anymore and exclude you from social gatherings. All this is done to get you to conform to a certain agenda, and it exists everywhere. Free speech only exists as an idea and does not exist in real life, just like a free market does not exist in real life either.

I'm for free speech not as an end but as a mean.
I can defend the freedom of speech of people defending mine. I won't lift a finger for the ones calling to censorship of my opinions.
Neither will i try to actively censor them because:
1 it is counterproductve in our era in a periode of defiance against visible powers (they wouldn't censor it if it wasn't the truth!)
2 Subversion is better.

It's only about you not being prosecuted with by government, or anyone else for that matter.
If you want to hate your uncle because you found out he's a nazi (which was made possible due to free speech) that's completely fine.

generally for it. the idea that letting fascist ideas spread is what causes fascism is a bit childish, though at least in the development from capitalism to communism, I can see why some censorship or no-platforming could be useful

So telling that guy's boss he's a Nazi and making him fired by fear of bad rep is fine as long as he's not sued for being a Nazi then?

If you're fired without evidence that's an societal issue on its own.
Otherwise it is, completely. If you don't feel like having nazis around as an employer it would require government force to keep you from acting your own will.

Until we are in power.

Pretty shitty opinion

This.
Revolutionary hegemony needs to be protected.

What if righties (like in 1933) do it, would you say it's alright just because they got into power first?

Then its wrong, since our side is the objectively only one determined by revolutionary spi… I mean historic forces of dialectics.

Pretty stupid view tbqh.

Personally i love free speech, but people should accept the consequences of it more. Like if some skinhead goes full 1488 speech around a bunch of lefties, and can't defend himself, it's his own fault that he gets stabbed or whatever. Silencing people is for pussies