MUH FREEZE PEACH

youtube.com/watch?v=-Ome2bYbQnw&feature=youtu.be

Where does Holla Forums stand on free speech? Not from the state, but in general, as an idea. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with censoring conservatives or "classical" liberals but, I do think this is a worthwhile discussion. As long as the state isn't pro-censorship, I'm all right with it.

on a philosophical level, it's hard to argue it exists.
On the practical level though, you should say you support it, and bitchslap Randall when he says only the government is able to censor you.

I think it's become a spook, but it's a useful tool for leftist.
I think it would backfire on us if we got rid of it and would legitimize McCarthyism.
Also, if it weren't possible for people to speak freely, I probably never would have learned about Marxism.

...

wew lad

go fuck a Chomsky

Go suck a Dick Dawkins

It is 100% necessary for the progression of ideology and therefore society

The way i see it, any faction trying to bring radical change to society will fiercely advocate free speech when in the opposition, and denounce it once in power.
What does it means for us? The tempation to seize absolute control of discourse will be high, however outright censorship is quite counterproductive in the Internet era (Streisand effect, gubmint is hiding something…). We have a lot to learn from subversion tactics and the Spectacle, and others "soft" narrative manipulation strategies.

On personal level, i use to defend free speech as a holy spook. Now i defend free speech on the basis of reciprocity. People defending mine, i'll defend theirs, people who want to stiffle mine, i'll gag them.

Good, but not an excuse to demonize any action taken against fascists.

go fist a Zizek

Free speech is a concept we must defend, lest we slide of the slippery slope and end up with another Stasi killing off comrades for not toeing the party line.

Explain pls.

I see no good reason to oppose it. It seems to be mostly very thin skinned people who get easily offended that are against freedom of expression.

Reactionaries should not have free speech

Define reactionary.

Fascist don't deserve free speech

But if you hurt a nazi, that's censorship! They should be allowed to say and do whatever they want without consequence or you're not better than them bruce wayne!

Define fascist.

Yes, if you stop a fascist that gives the state justification to do the same to you, so just let everyone walk all over you.

Let's face it, it's anyone the flagfag doesn't like.

Neither do edgy liberals like anfems.

define liberal

It does. If you condone state violence against an opinion you don't like, you leave yourself open to this same shit being used against you.

First the came for the Holla Forumsacks…

nice b8

prove me wrong faggot

By your logic, is Emma Goldman a liberal?

...

Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

Also, your last post is pretty dumb, since no one referenced modernity as such and are just using it to backtrack on your position.

It's not state violence you dumb fucking shit for brains motherfucker, its my own violence.

Absolutely no restrictions should be placed on speech.

Because the state shuts down any attempt by your opposition to get together en masse.

Free speech should be revoked from all straight, white, cis, males.

lol, the only truly revolutionary path to socialism resides here

Except they don't. Leftists do it themselves. I'm not expecting the state to fucking stomp out fascism for me, so your bullshit "oh then they'll turn on you and use the same reasoning to shut you up" doesn't fucking work. Stop trying to protect the nazis.


Revolution is censoring the poor innocent capitalists!

People protesting mass migration are not nazis. Anti-fa are given much more leeway when it comes to marching and counter demonstrations than their opponents.

They are all pretty much nazis to me.

Right, the people protesting mass migration actually give a shit about the "mass" part and wouldn't protest any immigration. And nazis sure as hell wouldn't protest immigration, no sir, no nazi would ever do that.

Censorship is only acceptable against CP (not drawn shit, no victim = no crime) or bestiality porn (spare me the 'woof'/'he consented' argument), or when not applying it would give away the positions or movements of soldiers or sekrit agents or something like that. In all other cases, including those you mention, all that does is make the censored material forbidden and tantalizing, driving a wedge between citizen and state (or user and Twatter or whatever) and if done enough, often enough or severely enough, creating a group of people who have at least some vested interest in seeing their leaders or system of governance replaced with something that interferes less needlessly in their lives. Or who will Exodus to a new Chan or Voat or wherever.

As with other harmless shit, censoring media only serves to push otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminality, and respect for the law tends to go down the shitter when one has to break the law to read a book or play a video game. Also illegal things can't be taxed.

Also, if something is b& for falling into a specific category (pornography, pro-[ideology I dislike], blasphemy, soggy knees, joos, whatever), every part of the system from cranks off their meds to hotpocket-happy mods to pigs to Porky will use it to hotpocket everything they dislike, that makes them look bad, or that hurts their profitz.

The violent media argument's full of shit, if somebody's unbalanced or easily-led enough to take a human life over a song or a book or a film, that person needs psychiatric help and would probably find some other justification for murdering people or otherwise acting like a nut. It was true when Flappers and later Elvis were going to be the moral downfall of our youth because Negro music, it was true when the Manson Family accidentally took the Holla Forums pill instead of acid one day and torturously misinterpreted a Beatles song to mean muh raec war and See Kids That's What Your Free Love and Rock n Roll Lead To Now Go Cut Your Hair And Get a Job, it was true when parents tried to sue Ozzy and Priest over muh subliminal messages because they were so horrible to their kids that their kids offed themselves listening to their music, when NWA was said to be causing and glamourizing gun and gang violence and not just shining a light on a fucked-up ugly reality the artists grew up in, it was true when playing Doom and Quake and listening to Marilyn Manson (and iirc according to TIME, Pokemon) obviously meant that you'd shoot up your school instead of ayy blaze it lmao on 4/20, and it's still true in le current year when wanting a finished game with tits and without DLC and Orwellian DRM means I'm a violent potential rapist 300 lb. permavirgin neckbeard who hates women and has a king's ransom in hotpockets, cheese pizza, bodypillows and pissjugs stashed in his parents' basement.

That said, unless/until those reactions are violent or otherwise infringe on the speaker's rights, people saying unpopular or controversial things shouldn't be insulated from the consequences of their actions (being ignored, insulted, shouted down or kicked off of others' private/personal property, etc.). As for whether they should be fired for it, I think that should only be a possibility either if the person expressing the unpopular opinion is a spokesperson for a group that doesn't agree with what the person said, like from an official company Twatter account or sperging out at customers while still on the clock.

thumbnail looks like a toilet full of diarrhea

Once you successfully use force to eliminate the undesirables, you are the state. And then eventually your "comrades" will turn on you because you're not ideologically pure enough, which makes you a nazi.

We've been through this hundreds of times throughout human history. You'd think people would finally learn.

Then what alternative is there, huh? Peaceful reform? That doesn't work. That works way less than violence.

Who gets to decide who is a facist/reactionary you morons?

Our current bourgeois overlords?

Give me a fucking break.

If we don't have free speech for people we don't like we don't have it at all.

Free speech is necessary for the empirically based, materialist analysis which will lead humanity to liberation. All ideas must be explored and refuted or continued. This process must be constant.

You stunt free expression you stunt evolution.

Your feels don't get to decide what is said and what is not said

somebody not talking shit. Sweet

no anfem is this case is your regular pretend leftist who really just wants to protect their own interest

like clockwork

Free speech = free market

There's so much willful ignorance as to what is meant by free.

Pedantism. "Free will doesn't exist blabla"

I am okay with this.jpg

KILL ALL NIGGERS

Sperging is the price you have to pay for uninterrupted discourse. You just have to deal with sperging interrupting your discourse and stop being a bitch who can't deal with the real world, I'll take sperging interrupting the discourse over the state interrupting the discourse along some arbitrary agenda lines

You're talking to beta numales and women, their feeling decide everything they do.

Freedom of expression as an ideal requires the separation of saying things and doing them.

Speech itself as a tool, and we need to be able to discuss anything to understand it, because if we don't, we only judge ideas by whether they are censored; American neo-Nazis hold unobstructed public rallies all the time but are extremely unpopular while the European far right is growing in places where they are technically criminals. All it does is give idiots a way to make themselves out as martyrs.

And this, is what's wrong.
First, noone is allowed to DO whatever.
Second, speech =/= action.

Speech can lead to the creation of emotion, and that is why there are limits, AKA you cannot have armed guards behind you and start giving speeches on "Kill all Jooz!" and so on. But you can say it on your own or on FB, and everyone is also free to tell you to fuck off.

Also, if you stop others from having their opinions heard, like, for example, derailing a thread and making it about anfem idiocy again, isn't free speech.

free speech is fine. but basement nazi manchildren use it as a front to dissolve themselves from any consequences for what they say. the reason they make fun of liberal echo chambers is because they aren't conservative echo chambers

Free Speech is basically a meme under Capitalism right? If you have capitalist hierarchies controlling corporations, then it's not really a political issue, if Twitter was ran by a bunch of Trump-fags, you can bet your ass they wouldn't tolerate feminists or blm fags for a second. So isn't free speech another plus for socialists? If we have workers controlling corporations, then the communities will have a say in what gets censored or not.

The very point of "freedom of speech" is freedom from consequences, fuckwit.

Or are you one of those idiots that thinks "freedom of speech" just meant that the government can't persecute you for speech, but hey private entities should be able to blacklist anyone they want for their speech

Well, the saging yesterday was nice.

What a faggot!

..that's what it stipulates, at least in the constitutional sense
sounds like free market capitalism to me

yep

nigga is this opposite day? Or are you just Holla Forums?

i think the state sholdn't be involve in it and shouldn't be able to prosecute people for if.

however, i do believe that civilians have the right to sue if they can prove that what someone said is harmful (bullying) or could lead to physical altercation (incitement to violence or hatred)

thats an interesting philosophy

hey! You facist

probably one of those enlightened Holla Forumstard who believe that free speech is grate, but want to ban islam and feminist

Full_retard.jpg

you really showed me there

Wow you're a retard.

The point is obviously that state support is obviously required to enforce any suit. If people want to win damages for "harmful" speech then the state has to set up the laws in a manner that recognises "harmful" speech as being liable for monetary penalties. You can't have your laissez-faire cake and eat it too.

way to go on completely missing the point. faggot.

>'Free' Speech
It should be outlawed and i should be banned and come back with constant flow of proxy's.

I DISAGREE


Steel-melting Dubya dubs of truth. Shitposting is the price of freedom. Considering all the people who've died trying to get things as free as they are, I'd say shitposting is a pretty damn low price for us to pay.


Not too bad, obvious polyp robot, how's it hangin with you?


WITH ZOOS YOU LOSE