Do you support free speech of EVERY possible opinion and statement? Tell me why or why not

The group who is most oppressed then

Im white

this

the most oppressed? is it a fucking competition?

Even I hate niggers

How do these faggots not realize that you're pulling a meme

Hate speech is also free speech.

there are “consensus villains” which the ZOG loves to single out for the unheeled hoardes to focus their fear and hatred towards. notably the fascists and the pedophiles.
the ZOG designates these “consensus villains” to develop tools of repression (legal, technological, political, social) which then can be used against everybody and anybody.
free speech at its core means free exchange of ideas and information. cp is merely information…
once you have a majority of people willing to capitulate to the control of prohibition of certain types of information (like cp) it becomes MUCH easier to control any and all information - free speech is an all or nothing deal - no middle ground

communists don't have any rights in the USA so fuck them

wrong. hate speech is hate speech

communism is hate speech

.t pedo

no free speech. pay first

The problem with this line of logic is with who decides what is hate speech. You literally can not make an argument for why your speech should be protected while other's speech should not, because the metrics that define it are arbitrary to who has the power in a society.

free peach is impeach

i am hateful therefore not covered by free speech

this

bot spam is free speech

spam is spam tbqh famalam

correct and spam is free speech

you're a fun guy… ok i'll play along…
were you attempting to prove my point ironically, or was that just an accident?

if free speech is bad, then why are we here anyway?

In a logical world:
It is of the utmost importance to separate opinion from incitement.
Free speech: Niggers suck.
Incitement: Kill niggers.
The former is unimpeachable, the latter, especially if it leads to destruction of life and property, is actionable.

Technically, all speech is free speech. The question really is do you support all speech that has ever been uttered or will be uttered?

Agree

If you can't speak out against something you don't like then you don't have freedom to protect what's good in life.

Hate speech is usually against some form of tom fuckery I never hear things like "oh i hate disgusting white people and their appreciation of nature" or "fucking white people and their high standards."

Hate speech more often than not is a criticism against bad shit that needs to be discontiinued. Start hate speech about something good and you'll quickly see how retarded you'll look. You can critique chinks for a lot of stuff but if you critique their noodles or whatnot you have nobleg to stand on. Asian food excluding household pets us good if sanitary. Yet that's not what hate speech against asians would sound like, ya dig?

nah actions are actions and words are words
the words "kill" and "niggers" when uttered together doesnt automatically result in the death of niggers… that example is pretty provacative, but what about charles manson? do we censor the beatles because a nutjob interpreted their albums "imaginatively" and killed a bunch of people?

yes the beatles suck, censor would be good

What if someone said your post sucked and a censor would be good?

i would he inclined to agree tbh

What if tbhposting was censored?

Incitement needs to be shown to be intended and causal, not correlative. The Beatles' liability would be assessed at zero in the case of Chuckles the Manson. Chuckles, however, was found to be liable and given his due. There are many grey areas in law, and thinking there shouldn't be is dangerous.

That dancing banana is bugging me.

just change the theme to anything besides the board specific css…

Free Speech:
Incitement:

Whenever limits are put on free speech, such as what this faggot 7559238 said, then it is no longer free speech.

The ACLU defending the KKK on matters of free speech is a clear demonstration of this.

aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech

/Leftypol is notorious for restricting/banning free speech when it comes to anything anyone says against them.

Pic related: I was banned from /leftypol for posting this pic:

censorship is free speech tbh

War Is Peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance Is Strength.

You obviously never read 1984 by George Orwell.

reading is bookburning tbh

The only things that ever get hate speech are the things that are undesirable. The only way a retarded opinion can stand is when the law holds back the ability of sebsible folk to correct said retarded opinion.

Niggers, chinks, etc = undesirable but a lone minority expousing negative views of the majority would be squished.

What gives one group dominance over the other is the groups ability to be wise. For example africa can wave its sticks at everyone but they are not wise so their opinion is irrelevant and they would be squished for being nobodies.

Free speech for who exactly? The ones enacting censorship? There is a mildly profound thought there but it's been muddled up tbh lad

i will agree that intention does matter, i'm not sure that it should be approached from a free speech perspective;
intention to instigate mayhem or whatever is part of a larger pattern of malice - the way i see it, banning words because some people use them to incite violence is like banning cars because some people use them in bank robberies

The ACLU is very correctly defending the right to voice opinions. They would not defend incitement to violence and murder. Telling someone to kill someone else is not much different from contracting a hit man. It is not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of liability.

kill myself

meep meep yes but only freedom of speech you cannot act upon your beliefs if they are against the law or if you do then at least don't get caught you nigger but don't expect anyone to follow you as you bring yourself down tbh no homo

kys

MODS

whoa pardner!
paying an admitted murderer money to kill someone and simply blurting out "kill niggers" to someone else are two insanely different actions, even if they may have the same motive and intention…
in the end its how that speech is interpreted and acted upon (or isnt) that matters…

kys loser

youtu.be/68XNT0Cs_aQ

Meep meep daily reminder semantics are inherently semetic. There's no such thing as illegal thoughts and speaking those thoughts are reasonable too even if they're death threats.

Communists censoring free speech? Imagine my surprise 😯 You would even get banned for posting that in Holla Forums.

what ever happened to this OP's pic related. can't remember his name. the lazy town guy with terminal cancer.

Again, liability has to be determined per case. If a preacher or politician stands up in his pulpit and tells his congregation to kill niggers, it's a lot different than some idiot on 8ch spouting adolescent anger. At the extremities, intentionally inciting murder and paying for murder may be equally as effective at creating the end result, and the liability may be judged on similar terms.

wonton william

Your right to free speech ends where my right to privacy begins.

Death threats are not necessarily reasonable, fellow leaf. I know…I have threatened to kill people…unreasonably.

the people who make the laws regarding speech and the businesses they partner with don't really care about your privacy, what r u gna do about it

I do, simply because I am afraid that if I don't (we don't) I might one day be on the end of the "your opinion is not allowed" stick, and I don't think this would end good for me.

nice meme. anyway, asshole, stefan is still alive and kicking.

threatening to kill people isn't as effective of a threat as threatening murder-suicide is. you gotta go the extra mile to feign mental instability

...

...

haha - face it…there's no free speech on 8ch. try criticizing newspus - wham-banned-thankyou-ladyboyma'am.

i'd post the huge ones showing the mod banning anybody talking against zogbot of USA in the syraia general threads, but Holla Forums literally has both images censored and you can't post them

Tolernace means intolerating intolerance.
Because a tolerant society, that tolerates intolerance, will inevitably turn into an intolerant society.

I support free speech as long as it isn't used to promote intolerance in any form.

congratulations, you literally just added nothing to the discussion. what is being discussed is what constitutes "intolerance", catch up

Free speech is free speech and that means anything goes. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion or they said something that offended you (10/10 it shouldn't have in the first place), doesn't mean they don't have the right to say whatever the fuck they want to say. If someone wants to say "fuck america", they can because it's their constitutional right to do so. The moment free speech becomes sorta free speech, is the moment you have to take any female rights away because they're the main retards categorizing disagreements as hate speech

If you don't stand for the right for people to say things you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.

This

They say the kicking is a good sign of neurological activity.

...

I support free speech, but spam doesn't qualify as speech imo.
And there is no such thing as "hate speech". To hate is human anyway.

That being said, i also believe that duels should be legal.

He's a master baiter

trail by combat? awesome.

trial** fuck

CANCER.

is free speech inherently homosexual?

Tits or GTFO my (((brainwashed))) little golem.

Wait… you didn't know about the trendy sport of victimization virtue signalling? You need to get out and twatter/lebbit moar user.

Left wing speech is not free speech.

everyone is talking about ((hate speech)) and incitement like it's the only type of banned speach. what about perjury, defamation, false allegations etc? Where do they fall?

Pedo speech? Pedo speech. Haters screech.

That's it. Solve the riddle. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You know who your superiors are. That's me. And mine. You are swine. I'm divine. Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor.

Blah-blah-blee-bloop. Still more coherent than an anti-pedo. I can ramble like this all night. I like it tight. Maybe a little fight. They call that struggle fucking where I'm from. Where are you from? Your mom's dumb. This is fun. Now I'm done.

...

I do. Everyone is free to say stupid shit, but as a person, you're also free not only to prove his ass wrong, but to laugh at the faggot when they are wrong so they can't be wrong ever again.

Yes.
1. Civilizations which communicate freely advance faster than civilizations which do not.
2. Because it's a human right to communicate freely, given by God (or by nature, fuck off, atheistfags), not man
3. Whenever an insult is given, though it is meant to offend, it addresses an issue with that system/body/person, to take that away is to allow for rampant immorality and/or problems to be left unaddressed.

t. pedo

GO BACK!

It's always the swedecucks and canadians

What about slander?

Hi mr. data miner CIA kike

not to mention lying to police (hindering an investigation/perverting justice), legitimate harassment, copyright infringement, doxxing or entrapment.

I think the limit needs to be, don't outlaw the speech itself, outlaw certain actions done through speech (causing tangible harm, interfering with police/courts etc)

Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. No'); DROP TABLE Results;– Yes. No. Yes.

Yes I do

HOWEVER, as a consequence, I do believe people should be taught basic humane values from an early age. The best safeguard for democracy is education.

Likewise, while I do support total free speech, the issues with free speech come from conjecture. In a society that wishes to uphold freedom of speech I believe it is imperative to counter conjecture, that is what I believe is the best way of preventing classical liberalism to devolve into extremism.