Is Free Speech good?

[Liriena]

No, we don't... except maybe for tankies. Not unless your definition of "censorship" is so vague and broad that it includes anything that even indirectly inconveniences anyone who wants their opinion to have a ton of mainstream visibility.

Berkley riots for one thing.

A riot is not "censorship".

My definition most certainly includes mindless chanting in an attempt to shut down conservative speakers who have been invited to colleges.

Then you oppose free speech.

Heckling is free speech my dude.

It most certainly includes Maxine Waters directly calling for people to be harassed in restaurants for the things they believe.

Again, heckling is free speech.

[Liriena]

No, we don't... except maybe for tankies. Not unless your definition of "censorship" is so vague and broad that it includes anything that even indirectly inconveniences anyone who wants their opinion to have a ton of mainstream visibility.

When making every possible effort to prevent people from being seen or heard based on the content of their speech isnt censorship you're just not speaking english.

It's not censorship to infiltrate a far right group and expose its leaders. It's the exact opposite of it, in fact.

Neither is it censorship to heckle a neo-nazi, nor to engage in an act of civil disobedience when a religious fundamentalist tries to organize in the open.

Honestly, guys, it's beginning to feel like it's you lot who're against political freedom, with how you insist on opposing perfectly legitimate forms of political action just because they inconvenience nazis. Very curious, really.

[Necroghastia]

No, we don't... except maybe for tankies. Not unless your definition of "censorship" is so vague and broad that it includes anything that even indirectly inconveniences anyone who wants their opinion to have a ton of mainstream visibility.

Berkley riots for one thing. My definition most certainly includes mindless chanting in an attempt to shut down conservative speakers who have been invited to colleges. It most certainly includes Maxine Waters directly calling for people to be harassed in restaurants for the things they believe.

tfw private vitizens exercising their own free speech in response to an asshole is censorship

[Des-Bal]

It's not censorship to infiltrate a far right group and expose its leaders. It's the exact opposite of it, in fact.

It's not terrorism to wear a silly hat, kkk successfully exonerated. Arguing sure is easy when you just have to talk about things other than the things people have a problem with.

[Liriena]

It's not censorship to infiltrate a far right group and expose its leaders. It's the exact opposite of it, in fact.

It's not terrorism to wear a silly hat, kkk successfully exonerated. Arguing sure is easy when you just have to talk about things other than the things people have a problem with.

Sounds to me like you were arguing against a strawman of my arguments all along, then, because stuff like infiltrating and exposing was precisely what I had in mind when I talked about undermining far right groups.

I guess making assumptions really bites you in the ass sometimes, huh?

[Liriena]

Berkley riots for one thing. My definition most certainly includes mindless chanting in an attempt to shut down conservative speakers who have been invited to colleges. It most certainly includes Maxine Waters directly calling for people to be harassed in restaurants for the things they believe.

tfw private vitizens exercising their own free speech in response to an asshole is censorship

We were the real free speech warriors all along. What a twist!

[Ammostan]

Berkley riots for one thing.

A riot is not "censorship".

My definition most certainly includes mindless chanting in an attempt to shut down conservative speakers who have been invited to colleges.

Then you oppose free speech.

Heckling is free speech my dude.

It most certainly includes Maxine Waters directly calling for people to be harassed in restaurants for the things they believe.

Again, heckling is free speech.

A riot IS censorship when the whole purpose of the riot was to prevent someone from speaking.
Preventing a conversation by shouting out a speaker IS censorship. The speaker was invited, there are Q & A sessions at the end of the speech specifically inviting those who disagree to come to the front of the line so that a conversation can be had. By your logic if I brought in a massive sound system to a pro-whatever leftist idea gathering and blasted noise so that the leftist ideas CANNOT be heard is totally fine? It's the same as a group of people chanting over the guy on stage trying to talk.
Harassment is ILLEGAL. It is NOT heckling, it is NOT free speech.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

There should be some consideration of the responsibility society has when it comes to the rights it is given. Free Speech is no exception. The society has the responsibility of not allowing Free Speech to be used against them in order to subvert either the society and/or the government.

[Des-Bal]

Sounds to me like you were arguing against a strawman of my arguments all along, then, because stuff like infiltrating and exposing was precisely what I had in mind when I talked about undermining far right groups.

I guess making assumptions really bites you in the ass sometimes, huh?

Cool. So you hereby
Disavow,
Any argument that the alt-right should be denied the opportunity to present their ideas.
Any suggestion that your prior comment "talk shit, get hit" endorsed violence.

You further assert,
That the left wing does not endorse engage in activities that could be better described as "censorship" "suppression" or "deplatforming" than "exposing" and "infiltrating,
That should the left wing engage in such activities you would stand in opposition of them.

[Des-Bal]

There should be some consideration of the responsibility society has when it comes to the rights it is given. Free Speech is no exception. The society has the responsibility of not allowing Free Speech to be used against them in order to subvert either the society and/or the government.

That is absolute absurdity, what you are describing is the exact anti-thesis of free speech. Speech that seeks to fundamentally change the government or society is the exact kind that's the most important to protect.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Sounds to me like you were arguing against a strawman of my arguments all along, then, because stuff like infiltrating and exposing was precisely what I had in mind when I talked about undermining far right groups.

I guess making assumptions really bites you in the ass sometimes, huh?

Cool. So you hereby
Disavow,
Any argument that the alt-right should be denied the opportunity to present their ideas.
Any suggestion that your prior comment "talk shit, get hit" endorsed violence.

You further assert,
That the left wing does not endorse engage in activities that could be better described as "censorship" "suppression" or "deplatforming" than "exposing" and "infiltrating,
That should the left wing engage in such activities you would stand in opposition of them.

Can we stop referring to these guys as left wing. We are currently in the process of kicking them out.

We want to win elections again.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

There should be some consideration of the responsibility society has when it comes to the rights it is given. Free Speech is no exception. The society has the responsibility of not allowing Free Speech to be used against them in order to subvert either the society and/or the government.

That is absolute absurdity, what you are describing is the exact anti-thesis of free speech. Speech that seeks to fundamentally change the government or society is the exact kind that's the most important to protect.

Even if it's for the worst? After all, there are those who are rather hypocritical for crying that their speech is being suppressed despite the ideology that they follow being pretty against free speech.

[Ammostan]

Cool. So you hereby
Disavow,
Any argument that the alt-right should be denied the opportunity to present their ideas.
Any suggestion that your prior comment "talk shit, get hit" endorsed violence.

You further assert,
That the left wing does not endorse engage in activities that could be better described as "censorship" "suppression" or "deplatforming" than "exposing" and "infiltrating,
That should the left wing engage in such activities you would stand in opposition of them.

Can we stop referring to these guys as left wing. We are currently in the process of kicking them out.

We want to win elections again.

Well, can we please stop using the term alt-right? I mean, I know we don't have a different one for these people at the moment, but can we stop pretending that the implementation of an ethnostate is a conservative idea? We conservatives believe in minimal government, the literal opposite of fascism. Frankly, calling nazis "alt-right" is just an excuse to try and paint all conservatives as racist. White supremacy is not a right wing ideal, no matter how hard anyone wants to believe it. Because the implementation of white supremacy would by definition demand total governmental control, which is something a real conservative would despise.

[Liriena]

A riot is not "censorship".


Then you oppose free speech.

Heckling is free speech my dude.


Again, heckling is free speech.

A riot IS censorship when the whole purpose of the riot was to prevent someone from speaking.

No. It's a riot.

An institution or organization censors. A disorganized phenomenon of political violence does not "censor".

Preventing a conversation by shouting out a speaker IS censorship.

Does that mean that all casual conversations should be strictly held in a turn-based fashion, lest one of the people engaged in conversation commit censorship by interrupting or talking over? Am I being censored when we're having a family dinner and my racist great aunt gets really loud about how much she hates aboriginal people?

By your logic if I brought in a massive sound system to a pro-whatever leftist idea gathering and blasted noise so that the leftist ideas CANNOT be heard is totally fine?

YES

FUCKING YES

Harassment is ILLEGAL. It is NOT heckling, it is NOT free speech.

What do you think harassment is, exactly?

Coming up to my congressman when he's in public and calling him a shithead is not "harassment", dude. Is it inconvenient for him? Does it make it hard for him to ignore my grievances? Hopefully, yes. That should be the point of every form of political activism. If your political activism doesn't bother powerful people in the least, what good is it?

[Des-Bal]

It's not censorship to infiltrate a far right group and expose its leaders. It's the exact opposite of it, in fact.

Neither is it censorship to heckle a neo-nazi, nor to engage in an act of civil disobedience when a religious fundamentalist tries to organize in the open.

Honestly, guys, it's beginning to feel like it's you lot who're against political freedom, with how you insist on opposing perfectly legitimate forms of political action just because they inconvenience nazis. Very curious, really.

So if an activist went to speak about the unconscionable abuse of transgender rights activists in Poland and a crowd formed to shout "FUCKING TRANNY-LOVER!" over and over until nobody could hear them you as an equitable person who is not a transparent tribalist idealogue would be there giving a thumbs up saying "good for thee, good for me?"

Please note also that there's a pretty big gulf between saying "this is a dick move" and "do everything in your power to stop these people." You're creating a comparison where noe exists.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

Well, can we please stop using the term alt-right? I mean, I know we don't have a different one for these people at the moment, but can we stop pretending that the implementation of an ethnostate is a conservative idea? We conservatives believe in minimal government, the literal opposite of fascism. Frankly, calling nazis "alt-right" is just an excuse to try and paint all conservatives as racist. White supremacy is not a right wing ideal, no matter how hard anyone wants to believe it. Because the implementation of white supremacy would by definition demand total governmental control, which is something a real conservative would despise.

You seem to have a limited view of what conservatism is. Conservatism is most basically described as those who wish to maintain or revert to a previous status quo. They may be for change, but usually in a gradual fashion. Hence, conservatism is very different depending on the country you're in. In which case, you seem to only be familiar with American Conservatism.

[Des-Bal]

Even if it's for the worst? After all, there are those who are rather hypocritical for crying that their speech is being suppressed despite the ideology that they follow being pretty against free speech.

Yes. Be pleased with their speech for it lays their hypocrisy bare.

[Cordel One]

Cool. So you hereby
Disavow,
Any argument that the alt-right should be denied the opportunity to present their ideas.
Any suggestion that your prior comment "talk shit, get hit" endorsed violence.

You further assert,
That the left wing does not endorse engage in activities that could be better described as "censorship" "suppression" or "deplatforming" than "exposing" and "infiltrating,
That should the left wing engage in such activities you would stand in opposition of them.

Can we stop referring to these guys as left wing. We are currently in the process of kicking them out.

We want to win elections again.

Imagine being a center-right American loberal and trying to kick the left out of the left. The left has never won US elections, we're always getting killed.

[Ammostan]

A riot IS censorship when the whole purpose of the riot was to prevent someone from speaking.

No. It's a riot.

An institution or organization censors. A disorganized phenomenon of political violence does not "censor".

Preventing a conversation by shouting out a speaker IS censorship.

Does that mean that all casual conversations should be strictly held in a turn-based fashion, lest one of the people engaged in conversation commit censorship by interrupting or talking over? Am I being censored when we're having a family dinner and my racist great aunt gets really loud about how much she hates aboriginal people?

By your logic if I brought in a massive sound system to a pro-whatever leftist idea gathering and blasted noise so that the leftist ideas CANNOT be heard is totally fine?

YES

FUCKING YES

Harassment is ILLEGAL. It is NOT heckling, it is NOT free speech.

What do you think harassment is, exactly?

Coming up to my congressman when he's in public and calling him a shithead is not "harassment", dude. Is it inconvenient for him? Does it make it hard for him to ignore my grievances? Hopefully, yes. That should be the point of every form of political activism. If your political activism doesn't bother powerful people in the least, what good is it?

Dude, you are in denial. What you are calling for the PREVENTION of speech, not free speech. Coming up to a person wearing a MAGA hat minding his own business at the dinner table and spewing vitriol at him is harassment, not heckling.

[Liriena]

Sounds to me like you were arguing against a strawman of my arguments all along, then, because stuff like infiltrating and exposing was precisely what I had in mind when I talked about undermining far right groups.

I guess making assumptions really bites you in the ass sometimes, huh?

Cool. So you hereby
Disavow,

Someone's being pretentious.

Any argument that the alt-right should be denied the opportunity to present their ideas.

A public forum is a public forum. They have a right to use it. Others have a right not to accept their invitation to come and hear them or to interact with them. Others have the right to criticize them, to assert that their ideas do not deserved be discussed on their own terms, and to argue against them through a different framework. Others have the right to say "thanks for your shit opinion, now pack up your things and leave my business".

Any suggestion that your prior comment "talk shit, get hit" endorsed violence.

In principle, yes.

You further assert,
That the left wing does not

Unlike you, I'm not so arrogant that I feel comfortable talking about what "the left wing", as a whole, does or does not do.

endorse engage in activities that could be better described as "censorship" "suppression" or "deplatforming"

One of these is not like the others...

Deplatforming? That definitely happens and I'm not wholly opposed to it. Deplatforming is downright necessary when it's the product of organic collective action to protect the community which uses that platform from bad faith actors whose activity causes demonstrable, tangible harm to others. For example, I think Shane Dawson should be deplatformed from Youtube for using it to groom children. I also think Andy Ngo should be deplatformed for actively collaborating with violent far right organizations in the targeting of their victims and covering up their crimes.

That should the left wing engage in such activities you would stand in opposition of them.

Sure.

[Necroghastia]

No. It's a riot.

An institution or organization censors. A disorganized phenomenon of political violence does not "censor".


Does that mean that all casual conversations should be strictly held in a turn-based fashion, lest one of the people engaged in conversation commit censorship by interrupting or talking over? Am I being censored when we're having a family dinner and my racist great aunt gets really loud about how much she hates aboriginal people?


YES

FUCKING YES


What do you think harassment is, exactly?

Coming up to my congressman when he's in public and calling him a shithead is not "harassment", dude. Is it inconvenient for him? Does it make it hard for him to ignore my grievances? Hopefully, yes. That should be the point of every form of political activism. If your political activism doesn't bother powerful people in the least, what good is it?

Dude, you are in denial. What you are calling for the PREVENTION of speech, not free speech. Coming up to a person wearing a MAGA hat minding his own business at the dinner table and spewing vitriol at him is harassment, not heckling.

I think that goalpost move just set a new land speed record.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

Even if it's for the worst? After all, there are those who are rather hypocritical for crying that their speech is being suppressed despite the ideology that they follow being pretty against free speech.

Yes. Be pleased with their speech for it lays their hypocrisy bare.

All that I am saying is that there is responsibility for having the rights you have. And a society (especially a democratic one which is more vulnerable) has to use the power that it has to defend itself from subversion to a worse-off ideology. It's why we tolerate social media moderating its content. It's why counter protests are a thing. It's why, even though highly controversial (for fair reasons), cancel culture and shouting down people are a thing. They are ways that a society defends itself. Because if the society falls to a different ideology, the government will too.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Can we stop referring to these guys as left wing. We are currently in the process of kicking them out.

We want to win elections again.

Imagine being a center-right American loberal and trying to kick the left out of the left. The left has never won US elections, we're always getting killed.

What part of Australia is in America

[Cordel One]

ITT: People not understanding free speech doesn't (and shouldn't) protect you from backlash by individuals

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

ITT: People not understanding free speech doesn't (and shouldn't) protect you from backlash by individuals

Thats actually what its there for.