On the issue of Free Speech

mimoza3

mimoza3

New member
Jan 30, 2011
762
3
0
Home
The past couple of days have seen some threads and posts here that made me think, and only after reading this forum founder answer to one post did it really sink in, and I realized that some people here have a very limited understanding of the basic right of freedom of speech.

When you limit the freedom of speech or ask that someones views be censored because they do not align with yours you are contributing to the destruction of your own right to speak your mind, and even more importantly to hear other opinions.

What do you fear? are your own ideas and principles so weak that any other opposing idea could destroy them that you should bad the mere idea of it? Can you not stand to read a couple of lines from someone who truly believes that god created white men superior to all others? or that one (or actually all) religions are the charter to any mass killing and human injustice?

Be as offended as you like, skip posts you fear might introduce new ideas, but do not try and limit my opportunity of learning a new idea. You need a supervising adult to censor what you read? better stop reading altogether, you're not adult enough to face the world.

The way that Dresden (a fellow member) has become a punching bag for anyone who wants to enhance their pretension of looking like a liberal is annoying enough, it has become the habit of liberals (often calling themselves "democrats" - oh the irony) to try and limit anyone who says things that they do not like hearing, well fuck them. Even if I strongly disagree with anyone here I still applaud the honesty of anyone speaking his mind - especially when under personal attacks (even though some are funny, and are done in humor).

The fact that you can speak your mind freely in the STS section, and that there is open discussion about almost anything is of great credit to this forum, its founders and its moderators.
 


dyXqql.jpg
 
Freedom of Speech is not about saying whatever, anywhere to whoever, however.

More importantly Freedom of Speech as the "celebrated" doctrine of the United States has several limitations which are almost always ignored or conveniently left out of the discussion.

All societies have things you do or do not do. Things that are accepted or not accepted.

Bigotry, fascism, racism, propaganda, half-truths, lies, instigating controversy and riling the public in general from almost every widely accepted perspective have no place in what is considered an "enlightened society" or one that claims or asserts itself to be "intellectual" or "superior" to others.

For people to somehow attempt couch these behaviors under the banner of Freedom of Speech displays either ignorance of the Freedom of Speech doctrine in historical context and practice or complete disregard of it, with purpose solely to abuse it. However, this is so because audiences in general are ignorant of it, fearful, apathetic and opposition unless carefully constructed gets presented with threads like this.

Dissent, debate, rhetoric and other forms of communication are "healthy" parts of society. However, in what is considered, once again an "enlightened" and "intellectual" society there are limits and when those limits are pressed against, people are censored.

Communication is powerful and words invoke people to action, when those actions can potentially cause harm, the "Freedom of Speech" reaches it's apex, because it does not surpass the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If any persons "happiness" requires death, harm or detriment to another (in the general population), they are mentally impaired and do not understand life, liberty or happiness.

Edit: They may indeed "understand" it for themselves but they do not want another party to receive or have it. Which is why they engage in such behavior.
 
Free speech ends where the property owner's permission ends.

You get to say whatever I allow you to say in my home. If you say, "I'm gonna rape your woman and slit your kids' throats," I will show you the door and tell you to never return.*

The roles are - and should be - reversed if I am in your home. This touches upon the reasons private property ensures peace.



* I may respond in a similar manner if you say "Michael Bay is a good director."
 
JakeStratham said:
Free speech ends where the property owner's permission ends.

You get to say whatever I allow you to say in my home. If you say, "I'm gonna rape your woman and slit your kids' throats," I will show you the door and tell you to never return.*

The roles are - and should be - reversed if I am in your home. This touches upon the reasons private property ensures peace.



* I may respond in a similar manner if you say "Michael Bay is a good director."
Click to expand...

Do you believe that there should be legal, non-violent methods to stopping, say, a neighbor from blasting loud music on his property 24/7? You seem very anti-state (and therefore anti police I assume), so what would be your solution?
 
I definitely agree with OP. But let me play devil's advocate here for one second... If free speech is directly contributing to the spread of hatred and condemnation of religion which only heightens tensions and hostility against one another in an already war-ridden world, should we still allow the ignorant to speak their mind ruin things for the rest of society who remains tolerant?

Again, I'm agreeing with you here, but I'm just curious as to what people feel about this side of things because I wonder myself... at what point, if any, does peaceful relations and prevention of mass war overcome the right to free speech on certain subjects?

*I should note, that I am agnostic, so i'm pretty unbiased regarding the religious side of things.
 
mimoza3 said:
The past couple of days have seen some threads and posts here that made me think, and only after reading this forum founder answer to one post did it really sink in, and I realized that some people here have a very limited understanding of the basic right of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a right to free speech.

mimoza3 said:
The fact that you can speak your mind freely in the STS section, and that there is open discussion about almost anything is of great credit to this forum, its founders and its moderators.
Click to expand...
This is true. It has nothing to do with rights though. You don't have any rights.
 
guerilla said:
What is "legal"?


How do you stop someone non-violently?
Click to expand...

7mg9.png


What is "what"?

Following your example, I'd guess sarcastic comments on the internet would be a good way of stopping people doing things you don't like.

Looking forward to Jake's response.
 
clyde said:
You're really good at getting people interested in what you have to say without actually saying it.
Click to expand...
Last night, I had a two hour call with someone from Wickedfire who likes to think for himself. It was awesome.

I loathe people who won't do the thinking, or even make an attempt. So yeah, I put a twist on it.

You made an honest attempt, so you get a decent response.

clyde said:
You're talking about this though right: American Myths
Click to expand...
Not really. What I am saying is that very few people know anything about words, or law or ideas and yet they freely express themselves using the same regardless.

I asked Matt what legal meant, and he fed me a bullshit definition. Either he doesn't know, or he doesn't care, but in either case, he shouldn't be using that word then.

What does "legal" mean? What is it, practically? What are the facts behind whether or not something is "legal"?

This is what I am getting at.

As far as free speech, it's nonsense. Just like most rights. I challenge anyone here to tell me what a "right" is.

The person who controls property, controls how much speech is created relative to that property. It's not about rights, its about the whim of the property owner.

WF has liberal language and subject policies because Jon wants it to be so. The minute he changes his mind, everyone will comply or GTFO.

With regards to government, you have no rights. Most US district attorneys and judges do not believe people have "rights". Rights are a term that people believe in that they probably cannot define, and if they could define it, they wouldn't believe in them.

Who here got a driver's license and DIDN'T read their state motor vehicle act or legislation? How do you know you needed one? Under what circumstances?

And so on and so forth and bla blabla.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WildGunner
guerilla said:
Last night, I had a two hour call with someone from Wickedfire who likes to think for himself. It was awesome.

I loathe people who won't do the thinking, or even make an attempt. So yeah, I put a twist on it.

You made an honest attempt, so you get a decent response.


Not really. What I am saying is that very few people know anything about words, or law or ideas and yet they freely express themselves using the same regardless.

I asked Matt what legal meant, and he fed me a bullshit definition. Either he doesn't know, or he doesn't care, but in either case, he shouldn't be using that word then.

What does "legal" mean? What is it, practically? What are the facts behind whether or not something is "legal"?

This is what I am getting at.

As far as free speech, it's nonsense. Just like most rights. I challenge anyone here to tell me what a "right" is.

The person who controls property, controls how much speech is created relative to that property. It's not about rights, its about the whim of the property owner.

WF has liberal language and subject policies because Jon wants it to be so. The minute he changes his mind, everyone will comply or GTFO.

With regards to government, you have no rights. Most US district attorneys and judges do not believe people have "rights". Rights are a term that people believe in that they probably cannot define, and if they could define it, they wouldn't believe in them.

Who here got a driver's license and DIDN'T read their state motor vehicle act or legislation? How do you know you needed one? Under what circumstances?

And so on and so forth and bla blabla.
Click to expand...

dude your like a woman when it comes to relationships. . . you over complicate the fuck out shit for what reason? what is chair? what is lamp? If we do not have rights then why do we have a bill of rights? what the fuck are you talking about? I would define rights for you but then you would pick a word within the definition and say what does that mean and so forth. . . shut the fuck up Aristotle
 
  • Like
Reactions: Russ86
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom