Free speech and drugs

What do you guys think of free speech? And freedom of the press? Is any of this worth defending? Bear in mind that I'm talking not only of the present state of affairs but also about a socialist future.

And drugs? What should be the drug policy in a socialist society?

Feel free to express your opinions on Charlie Hebdo if you wish.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=E1T4SogZggA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Free speech is good
Freedom of the press is also good
People should be free to voice dissatisfaction, this is beneficial twofold: people can vent and this allows aa platform of discussion as to the state of things and how things can improve. As for drugs: I don't see why not as long as anything that is extremely debilitating is done in a controlled environment to prevent harm to others (example: fred who's tripping on acid shouldn't be let to drive or operate heavy machinery while he's under the influence but wilson who likes to smoke cigars would be fine to do said things unless they're somehow debilitating without us knowing it)
There should be rehabilitation facilities for people who no longer wish to be addicted to drugs as well

youtube.com/watch?v=E1T4SogZggA

good
good

For bourgies too?

...

Bourgies don't exist in socialism

I believe in equitable speech.

The problem with "free" speech is that speech isn't actually free, at least, publication and broadcasting and such aren't free. So you end up with bougie propaganda plastered and broadcasted everywhere, suppressing all other media by drowning it out. You can't print a magazine, buy a billboard, or run an advertisement - yet we call that "free speech".

So, equitable speech. Speech which is made without cost (for a given definition of cost) is free and unrestricted. If you want to stand on a street corner and read from Mein Kampf, fine. Speech which has cost, on the other hand, would be subject to restriction. This means we can censor advertisements, billboards, publications ect as much as we want. So everyone now has the exact same amount of free speech, and any attempt to have more speech than that is strictly regulated.

Free speech is pretty contradictory tbh.

Have you ever considered the fact that not everything your Jewish professor at UC Berkeley is shit shoveling into your tiny mind is true?

I think you should be allowed to say what you please, but if someone wants to foight over it then thats on you and you have to defend yourself

What did he mean by this?

...

Yes, as well as other liberties (political, economical, religious etc), free speech is never totally free.


Is that like most users here think?

Charlie Hebdo a litteral trash, as a frenchman
They are basically our own version of Encyclopedia Dramatica, edgy, annoying and absolutely nothing interesting

It needs to exist because I don't see any reason to censor it, but it's very bad taste and pretty trash

The only interesting contributor - Bernard Marris, economist who had the muh privilege of talking in mainstream radios - died during the attacks.
RIP.

Have you read any edition? I haven't yet but always interested me. What's the general opinion of French lefties about them? The same as yours?

I've read, like everyone else, their edition after the attack in which they were pretty restrained compared to the usual.
Then they started being bad taste and I didn't read them.
Centre-left doesn't read them, idpolsters like Poutou think they are too pr*blematic, and many others don't take them seriously.

They are, first and foremost, anarchists. They don't care about respectability, your feelings, about making progress. They never praise, always criticise. They love triggering people from both left and right, and they couldn't care less what the world think of them. They also frequently take the piss of lifestylists.

If you're a classical anarchist and not an idpolster, they are probably /yourguys/.

that's sounds fun

But it is, it's just not my taste at all.
As I've said, if you don't care about respectability and have a more detached/"nihilist" vision of leftism + you don't care about the feefees of snowflakes, they are your guys 100%.
(they will probably pick on your own ideology/race/gender/etc at one time or another.)

Leftism is derived from the enlightenment.
Free speech is leftist.
Noam Chomsky is a leftist.
George Orwell was a leftist.
Don't let right-wing 'libertarians' claim basic liberties.

Free speech is EXTREMELY important, and any fool who wants to downplay or restrict it deserves what they'll get when the restrictions are used against them. Laws on hate speech and such can quite easily be twisted around to encompass other positions, too. Especially considering corporations have the legal rights of individuals in the USA.

This is where you should have stopped.

Is not a valid concern. A "chilling effect" in no way constitutes a restriction of freedom. A violation of freedom is, by definition, the threat of violence.

"I don't like you" is not going to have a chilling effect on anyone's speech.
"I don't like what you're saying" is not going to have a chilling effect on anyone's speech.

"I am going to kill you and piss on your corpse if you say that" is going to have a chilling effect on speech as long as the threat can be expected to be followed through. But that does not contradict freedom of speech. It's not the speech component of a threat that makes it objectionable.

Free speech is necessary for a free society. We should defend it from anyone that tries to take it. However, this is completely different from having direct organization with an attempt to implement a counterrevolution. If they aspire to violence, then we should be empowered to fight them.

Retarded. You just have to let the two sides say what they want and free speech is resolved

Bump

Free speech is only good good when the government is shit, don't be shit and free speech won't exist.

Charlie hebdo is pretty soft compared to what gave birth to it.

On the subject of drugs, obv no cartels allowed. Unionised drug production for use, want to get high - make your own stuff.

Does paedoflooding count as cyberterrorism?

"Free speech" leads to dilution of genuine information and intelligent discourse. Speech must be controlled in what passes for "quality and mainstream media" so that not only information is actually correct, but arguments are sound. Creationist "teach the controversy" shit, for example, should not pass for a legitimate discourse. The same holds for arguments that amount to "capitalism is directly responsible for anything that was invented since 500 years". Arguments should be legitimately discriminated, and what cannot manage to hold up should not pass for credible media : not referenced, not advertised, not subsidized.
That's in the context of a society in-between now and le epic full commie, of course.

...