Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Alcala-Cordel]

Plenty of countries already criticize anti-government speech. If you can ban anti-LBGT speech, why not also ban anti-government speech to create more 'harmony within society'? A poem that illustrates how society can deteriorate as freedoms are taken away.

First They Came For The Jews
Poem by Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

That doesn't mean they'll ban anti-government speech.

It's also worth noting the slippery slope is a logical fallacy as much as people love to use it. It's a bit tasteless of Freiheit to being up the systematic genocide by the Nazis in such a way.

[Sanghyeok]

That doesn't mean they'll ban anti-government speech.

It's also worth noting the slippery slope is a logical fallacy as much as people love to use it. It's a bit tasteless of Freiheit to being up the systematic genocide by the Nazis in such a way.

If anything, that posts conveniently ignores how the people killing Jews and communists were Nazis- who wouldn't be able to express their hateful views under hate speech laws.

[Freiheit Reich]

That doesn't mean they'll ban anti-government speech.

It's also worth noting the slippery slope is a logical fallacy as much as people love to use it. It's a bit tasteless of Freiheit to being up the systematic genocide by the Nazis in such a way.

Because a clever totalitarian government knows that if you take away all rights at once, you will be met with severe backlash. However, if you gradually take away rights while building up your power, as the Nazis did, you might have success. The key is justifying the taking away of rights to ensure people it is for the greater good. The Nazis were so dangerous because they combined evilness with cleverness. The Patriot Act was a brilliant piece of legislation because the government made themselves look good while reducing civil rights and increasing their powers. Nazi flag bans and hate speech laws are brilliant because they get people used to giving up their rights for the greater good and few will speak out against these bans for fear of being deemed racist or intolerant.

Not all totalitarian governments are as evil as the Nazis. Perhaps you are OK with living in a nation like the PRC or Vietnam or Thailand (yes-the land of smiles is not so nice) which are only slightly evil and restrictive compared to the Nazis. Try openly criticizing the king or government in these countries and see what happens.

[Deus Ignis]

It's also worth noting the slippery slope is a logical fallacy as much as people love to use it. It's a bit tasteless of Freiheit to being up the systematic genocide by the Nazis in such a way.

Because a clever totalitarian government knows that if you take away all rights at once, you will be met with severe backlash. However, if you gradually take away rights while building up your power, as the Nazis did, you might have success. The key is justifying the taking away of rights to ensure people it is for the greater good. The Nazis were so dangerous because they combined evilness with cleverness. The Patriot Act was a brilliant piece of legislation because the government made themselves look good while reducing civil rights and increasing their powers. Nazi flag bans and hate speech laws are brilliant because they get people used to giving up their rights for the greater good and few will speak out against these bans for fear of being deemed racist or intolerant.

Not all totalitarian governments are as evil as the Nazis. Perhaps you are OK with living in a nation like the PRC or Vietnam or Thailand (yes-the land of smiles is not so nice) which are only slightly evil and restrictive compared to the Nazis. Try openly criticizing the king or government in these countries and see what happens.

Plus the most terrifying thing was that the Nazis were normal people (also the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could be a Nazis as well as a different experiment that I forgot)

[West Leas Oros 2]

Because a clever totalitarian government knows that if you take away all rights at once, you will be met with severe backlash. However, if you gradually take away rights while building up your power, as the Nazis did, you might have success. The key is justifying the taking away of rights to ensure people it is for the greater good. The Nazis were so dangerous because they combined evilness with cleverness. The Patriot Act was a brilliant piece of legislation because the government made themselves look good while reducing civil rights and increasing their powers. Nazi flag bans and hate speech laws are brilliant because they get people used to giving up their rights for the greater good and few will speak out against these bans for fear of being deemed racist or intolerant.

Not all totalitarian governments are as evil as the Nazis. Perhaps you are OK with living in a nation like the PRC or Vietnam or Thailand (yes-the land of smiles is not so nice) which are only slightly evil and restrictive compared to the Nazis. Try openly criticizing the king or government in these countries and see what happens.

Plus the most terrifying thing was that the Nazis were normal people (also the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could be a Nazis as well as a different experiment that I forgot)

Milgrim’s obedience to authority experiment?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Free speech should be allowed with minimal, and I mean TINY, restrictions. Ideas of any kind should be allowed to circulate, whether they are good or not, as that is the right of any human being to have those opinions. Hopefully, if it's a bad or stupid idea, most people will be able to figure it out. It is not up to the government or any group of people to restrict the flow of information or ideas, that is how you lead to a totalitarian state and oligarchy.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Free speech should be allowed with minimal, and I mean TINY, restrictions. Ideas of any kind should be allowed to circulate, whether they are good or not, as that is the right of any human being to have those opinions. Hopefully, if it's a bad or stupid idea, most people will be able to figure it out. It is not up to the government or any group of people to restrict the flow of information or ideas, that is how you lead to a totalitarian state and oligarchy.

On the other hand, if we allow any idea to go unchallenged, you end up with angry mobs and chaotic pogroms every other Tuesday. A mob can be just as tyrannical as the state. Total speech with no consequence is just asking to have angry mobs everywhere.

[Elwher]

Free speech should be allowed with minimal, and I mean TINY, restrictions. Ideas of any kind should be allowed to circulate, whether they are good or not, as that is the right of any human being to have those opinions. Hopefully, if it's a bad or stupid idea, most people will be able to figure it out. It is not up to the government or any group of people to restrict the flow of information or ideas, that is how you lead to a totalitarian state and oligarchy.

On the other hand, if we allow any idea to go unchallenged, you end up with angry mobs and chaotic pogroms every other Tuesday. A mob can be just as tyrannical as the state. Total speech with no consequence is just asking to have angry mobs everywhere.

Allowing an idea to be expressed is in no way equal to allowing it to go unchallenged. Allowing any ideas to be expressed also allows the expression of the opposite idea, leaving it up to the individual citizens to make up their own minds about which is better. There is a vast difference between "speech with no consequence" and speech with no government-imposed consequence.

[Witiland]

I was actually arguing with somebody about this topic, I feel that websites should be allowed to censor and not allow certain content, as i believe some things should not be said...

[Elwher]

First, I have no anti-LGBTQ bias, so this is in defense of free speech and not an attack on that community. If, however, I were to say that people should not be permitted to change genders or engage in same-sex relationships (which, to reiterate, I do not believe) how is that making the community unsafe? My words might be offensive or stupid, but they are not harmful in and of themselves. An insult is like a cocktail, it only affects you if you accept it.

It can affect other people, who then go on to do things that affect you. If I host a meeting and tell all my friends to egg John’s house because “John is a smelly neanderthal”, and they go out and do that, my insult affected John whether he accepts it or not. For a more general answer, if insults only affect you if you accept it, then why do we care about slander and libel?

Your insult did not affect John, other people's reaction to your insult did. They should be punished for their actions, you, unless you were part of the egg-throwing mob, did not directly harm him and are deserving of social disapprobation but not legal punishment.

[Sanghyeok]

I was actually arguing with somebody about this topic, I feel that websites should be allowed to censor and not allow certain content, as i believe some things should not be said...

And what do you think about government intervention?

[Witiland]

I was actually arguing with somebody about this topic, I feel that websites should be allowed to censor and not allow certain content, as i believe some things should not be said...

And what do you think about government intervention?

Fine in some cases although wrong in others, like for example government invention if you believe in Nazism and say something violent or racist as being a nazi since it has a history of being violent, but if its something like "oh I like so and so" then no...

[Sanghyeok]

And what do you think about government intervention?

Fine in some cases although wrong in others, like for example government invention if you believe in Nazism and say something violent or racist as being a nazi since it has a history of being violent, but if its something like "oh I like so and so" then no...

Fair, I think we agree there.

[Deus Ignis]

Plus the most terrifying thing was that the Nazis were normal people (also the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could be a Nazis as well as a different experiment that I forgot)

Milgrim’s obedience to authority experiment?

That's the one

[Elwher]

And what do you think about government intervention?

Fine in some cases although wrong in others, like for example government invention if you believe in Nazism and say something violent or racist as being a nazi since it has a history of being violent, but if its something like "oh I like so and so" then no...

Is advocating anti-Nazi violence also deserving of government intervention?

[Witiland]

Fine in some cases although wrong in others, like for example government invention if you believe in Nazism and say something violent or racist as being a nazi since it has a history of being violent, but if its something like "oh I like so and so" then no...

Is advocating anti-Nazi violence also deserving of government intervention?

yes i believe ... no double standard...

[Sanghyeok]

https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/ ... de-problem

Another reason why free speech that is unlimited can be dangerous.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Yes. Freedom from consequence? No.

[Freiheit Reich]

Free speech should be allowed with minimal, and I mean TINY, restrictions. Ideas of any kind should be allowed to circulate, whether they are good or not, as that is the right of any human being to have those opinions. Hopefully, if it's a bad or stupid idea, most people will be able to figure it out. It is not up to the government or any group of people to restrict the flow of information or ideas, that is how you lead to a totalitarian state and oligarchy.

On the other hand, if we allow any idea to go unchallenged, you end up with angry mobs and chaotic pogroms every other Tuesday. A mob can be just as tyrannical as the state. Total speech with no consequence is just asking to have angry mobs everywhere.

This can be controlled even if people constantly use hate speech. Just have strict rules against looting, disturbing the peace (mobs should be prohibited from shouting in residential neighborhoods during quiet hours just as loud music is not allowed during certain hours), and blocking traffic. Bring back caning to ensure that people are afraid to break these rules. Also, require community service as a punishment for disturbing the peace. Right now, angry mobs are not being punished in the USA and that is why they are popping up everywhere. Allow police more freedom to use rubber bullets and tear gas and water cannons and batons if the mob refuses to obey.

I believe in free speech so long as it doesn't reduce the freedom of other people to conduct their business.

[Omnum]

Paradox of Tolerance.

A society tolerant of freedom must be intolerant of those who seek to end the ability to even express such tolerance in the first place. Thus, there is no such thing as a truly tolerant society. A free society cannot be "free" in the vein that laissez-faire types would have it, because it inevitably falls to dictatorial authoritarianism.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Paradox of Tolerance.

A society tolerant of freedom must be intolerant of those who seek to end the ability to even express such tolerance in the first place. Thus, there is no such thing as a truly tolerant society. A free society cannot be "free" in the vein that laissez-faire types would have it, because it inevitably falls to dictatorial authoritarianism.

You can prevent intolerant speech from manifesting into intolerant action without the total prohibition of intolerant speech.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yes. Freedom from consequence? No.

What kind of consequences are you referring to?

[New Fiji]

One of our most important rights shouldn't be sacrificed for not hurting anyone's feelings

[Kexholm Karelia]

One of our most important rights shouldn't be sacrificed for not hurting anyone's feelings

Yeah exactly lol

[Picairn]

One of our most important rights shouldn't be sacrificed for not hurting anyone's feelings

And does your stance also apply to private individuals and companies?