How endangered is free speech in the USA?

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

Now that is putting words in my mouth. I said these are the things that they do, so I'm not putting words in their mouth. Not "since they do, I can". When they slur everyone who challenges their views, I don't think what I said is a leap.

"They".

Not sure who you were arguing against in the first place, unless you're claiming Ctoan is a SJW.

He made a point about not sugarcoating stuff, and I responded on a slightly incensed SJW would to reinforce his point.

Unless the overton window shifts (which it might), whoever takes power after the boomers is probably going to destroy America's free speech policies bigtime.

Why do you say so.

[Liriena]

Why are you putting words in their mouth? If that's what you believe, argue it.

It's not putting words in someone's mouth if that's what SJWs and some feminists do. Sort of an established fact, otherwise you can see a host of primary evidence (youtube videos) and secondary evidence (articles) that back up what I'm saying.

Cannot think of a name never mentioned "safe spaces and the ilk" as a danger to free speech, yet you rhetorically asked them:

Wait, so are you saying "safe spaces" and the ilk are endangering free speech? Homophobic fascist!

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

It's not putting words in someone's mouth if that's what SJWs and some feminists do. Sort of an established fact, otherwise you can see a host of primary evidence (youtube videos) and secondary evidence (articles) that back up what I'm saying.

Cannot think of a name never mentioned "safe spaces and the ilk" as a danger to free speech, yet you rhetorically asked them:

Wait, so are you saying "safe spaces" and the ilk are endangering free speech? Homophobic fascist!

Le quote:

Free speech is not nor ever has been a protection from someone telling you that you're an idiot and your ideas are stupid. As a matter of fact the very concept of freedom of speech was never meant to shield ideas from criticism but to protect the right to criticize.

You're right, he never specifically mentioned that. What could he be talking about, then?

Anything else? You can nitpick what I say but it would be nice to hear are differing point.

[SUNTHREIT]

-

[Esternial]

"They".

Not sure who you were arguing against in the first place, unless you're claiming Ctoan is a SJW.

He made a point about not sugarcoating stuff, and I responded on a slightly incensed SJW would to reinforce his point.

So because you think it comes across as SJW-y, you classify someone as a SJW and start on a rant about "all SJWs" without actually knowing the full extent of this person's argumentation?

Seem like a bit of a leap and a generalisation.

Isn't that what SJWs do?

[United Dependencies]

Speech is incredibly free in the USA. It is very difficult for the government to censor people and organizations and it is currently very difficult for the government to restrict what can appear in the press and other media.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

He made a point about not sugarcoating stuff, and I responded on a slightly incensed SJW would to reinforce his point.

So because you think it comes across as SJW-y,

You're confused about something, cause I found that comment anti-SJW. And it's pretty apparent.

you classify someone as a SJW

Who? Cannot think of a name? Please tell me where I did, it was probably a typo.

and start on a rant about "all SJWs" without actually knowing the full extent of this person's argumentation?

No, I didn't have a rant. That implies more than a line or two. Most of what I've been saying is addressing your confusion.

Seem like a bit of a leap and a generalisation.

It kind of looks like you're doing that.

Isn't that what SJWs do?

Looks like we're in agreement.

[Liriena]

Cannot think of a name never mentioned "safe spaces and the ilk" as a danger to free speech, yet you rhetorically asked them:

Wait, so are you saying "safe spaces" and the ilk are endangering free speech? Homophobic fascist!

Le quote:

Free speech is not nor ever has been a protection from someone telling you that you're an idiot and your ideas are stupid. As a matter of fact the very concept of freedom of speech was never meant to shield ideas from criticism but to protect the right to criticize.

You're right, he never specifically mentioned that. What could he be talking about, then?

Who knows? Maybe just overzealous hate speech laws. Maybe stuff like BLM activists shutting Milo Yiannopoulos down. Maybe not safe spaces.

Anything else? You can nitpick what I say but it would be nice to hear are differing point.

Well, I would reiterate what I said immediately after my original response:

Also, if you think "safe spaces" endanger free speech, then I wonder how you feel about Youtube and Facebook's community guidelines, or NationStates' moderators. Same principle applies.

[Esternial]

So because you think it comes across as SJW-y,

You're confused about something, cause I found that comment anti-SJW. And it's pretty apparent.

you classify someone as a SJW

Who? Cannot think of a name? Please tell me where I did, it was probably a typo.

and start on a rant about "all SJWs" without actually knowing the full extent of this person's argumentation?

No, I didn't have a rant. That implies more than a line or two. Most of what I've been saying is addressing your confusion.

Seem like a bit of a leap and a generalisation.

It kind of looks like you're doing that.

Isn't that what SJWs do?

Looks like we're in agreement.

Oh.

Oooh.

I get it.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The irony is that both the false left and the far-right are poised to fuck the rest of us over. If people like Trump get their way in regards to suing any critic, SJWs will jump right on that and the whole thing comes crashing down.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

Le quote:



You're right, he never specifically mentioned that. What could he be talking about, then?

Who knows? Maybe just overzealous hate speech laws. Maybe stuff like BLM activists shutting Milo Yiannopoulos down. Maybe not safe spaces.

That's why I said "the ilk" to refer to "overzealous hate speech laws", BLM, and some feminists.

Anything else? You can nitpick what I say but it would be nice to hear are differing point.

Well, I would reiterate what I said immediately after my original response:

Also, if you think "safe spaces" endanger free speech, then I wonder how you feel about Youtube and Facebook's community guidelines, or NationStates' moderators. Same principle applies.

Ah didn't see that. And no, the same principle doesn't exactly apply. The examples you described use those to discourage flaming and trolling, which happen much more frequently when you have anonymity and a platform.

But let's say it does. Safe spaces are overzealous in my opinion, and on occasion YouTube's policies, but much of this is a matter of semantics and hard to decide when something just over the line is overzealous or not.

[Eternal Summeria]

Safe spaces are needed as long as most spaces are still normal spaces.

[The TransPecos]

I think we have all heard the arguments from many different quarters that free speech is in danger in American society. Certain groups are being prevented from getting their message out by biased institutions that use coercive force against anyone they disagree with. In theory everyone has a right to their own opinion but the reality is that measures ranging from social pressure with damage to career and reputation to naked brute force will be used against anyone who does not toe the line that our self appointed betters have drawn for us. Many believe that it has gotten so bad that if the First Ammendment is not already outright farce, it is in grave danger. Media, government, academia, and other biased institutions work to squash ideas just because they don't agree.

People who are casualties of this include Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, pro-trans-rights activists, Native-American activists, feminists, the NAACP, and people who dare protest Donald Trump. Try any kind of activism and the media will demonise you and then ignore you and thegovernment will often use force to violate your rights while they defend the KKK. While everyone was busy talking about Charlie Hedbo, white supremacists burned down a NAACP office, and nobody was allowed to talk about that.

And of course Trump is a huge threat to free speech, encouraging violence against people because of the views they express.

Do you agree? Or are you fine with the status quo of American "free speech"?

It appears even on biased sites that the violence at Trump rallies performed, not by his supporters, but by those trying to shut him up? Has the op got the cart before the horse?

[Yorkers]

When near-monopoly platforms like YouTube have the power to suppress people because they express views that "aren't acceptable because it's 2016", there is a worrying threat to the freedom of speech, especially when some liberals actually made demands for hate speech laws to be codified in the United States.


Also, SJWs, wouldn't large media corporations denying platform to those they disagree with and actively trying to suppress those people amount to the "institutionalized oppression" you all like to harp on about? Hmm??

So... you are arguing for complete and utter anomie? No institution, private or public, can have and enforce community guidelines? Anyone, anywhere, anywhen, should be allowed to say anything, anything at all, no matter how abusive, on any platform whatsoever, without any repercussions?

There is an active difference between like-minded communities enforcing guidelines, and monolithic media institutions actively suppressing viewpoints they don't like.

This is the institutional oppression the left like the whine about. They just don't notice it because they perpetuate it.

[Great Nilfgaard]

On college campus I'd say very.

Elsewhere not really. Personal experience has shown me that without the backing of their ideologue professors and diversity committees SJWs lack the same bite in the real world as they do in academia.

I work in an office where the daily discourse would make a regressive's head explode.

[Mugrul]

Not at all.

A few lefty colleges getting media coverage for doing things people don't like is irrelevant.

[Europe and Oceania]

Not at all.

A few lefty colleges getting media coverage for doing things people don't like is irrelevant.

Yes, the righties are always so paranoid.

[Drown]

Not as endangered as people make it out to be.

[Jolet]

Le quote:



You're right, he never specifically mentioned that. What could he be talking about, then?

Who knows? Maybe just overzealous hate speech laws. Maybe stuff like BLM activists shutting Milo Yiannopoulos down. Maybe not safe spaces.

Anything else? You can nitpick what I say but it would be nice to hear are differing point.

Well, I would reiterate what I said immediately after my original response:

Also, if you think "safe spaces" endanger free speech, then I wonder how you feel about Youtube and Facebook's community guidelines, or NationStates' moderators. Same principle applies.

To address your point regarding Youtube and Facebook:

Both of those sites are private forums that require people who operate on them to agree to give up certain aspects of their freedom of speech. It's not the same thing at all, if I'm understanding your point correctly- we are discussing the right to free speech, which is the protection for people to say what they want and express their own opinion. That, rather distastefully, includes hate speech, and as much as we dislike it unless college students are willfully signing away that right when they sign on the dotted line to enter college, the point does not stand.

[Noraika]

Not at all. [/thread]