How much free speech is too much free speech?

Having absolute freedom to speak is a nice concept. Except when it can cause actual harm to someone, is a rallying anthem to get people to do something already illegal or giving off a threat that is can be proven to be credible.

Of course you'll have to prove that in a court.
I shouldn't be arrested for saying some mean words because someone is a pussy.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow and Yotsubaaa
Unless a speech intends to cause immediate and direct physical harm, there should be no restriction to speech whatsoever. So, a soy-faced pussy can't arrest you because you called them fat once on Twitter.
 
Nigga, at least build a proper strawman
"would let pedophiles openly share guides on how to kidnap newborns"
- I want pedophiles to not be afraid to share their innermost desires with the world. Because that would be about 5 minutes before a public hanging.
"and it would allow people to legally yell THERE'S A FIRE in a crowded theater even if there is no fire."
You didn't read about that court case, have you? It's already legal.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre. The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
Click to expand...
And even false speech is free speech. Don't be a bitch.
 
When the pedophiles feel comfortable enough to walk the streets without looking over their shoulder at least twice.

No I do not want to hear overhear at the bar about the high school girl you would "totally smash."
 
I don't think there should be anyone with the office of deciding what speech is acceptable and what isn't. Democracy/majority rules is not acceptable either, as do you really think the majority of the population are principled enough to really decide such an issue? And isn't this oppression by the majority/mob rule?

While I personally may agree with some of the examples shown here, I don't think I am the arbiter of morality and free speech either.

Even if you come up with some extreme example that almost everyone would agree with, the sad thing is that would then set a new precedent which could be used to restrict speech further. Like if instructions on pedophilia is considered threatening enough to be restricted, who is to say controversial speech that may 'incite' or otherwise indirectly lead to a violent riot isn't also too dangerous? See what I'm saying, if anything is on the table then everything suddenly is.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: 888Flux and Kiwi & Cow
The absolute autism of freeze peach debates eventually convinced me that the concept itself is retarded. At the most generous we could say that it is obsolete. It is far more relevant in Current Year + 7 to consider in terms of acceptable speech. The fundamental conflict between right and left is not really over muh freeze peach, because it is impossible to have truly "freeze peach" where lItErAlLy anything goes. The conflict is simply whether right wing speech should be acceptable or not. It is a conflict of standards and where the Overton window should be.

Personally, I go one step further and think left wing speech should be restricted. I don't give a fuck if any leftie gets banned silenced or otherwise censored. Fuck them.
 
  • Agree
  • Dislike
  • Feels
Reactions: Freshly Baked Socks, Kiwi & Cow and SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
SSj_Ness said:
The amount that allows degenerates and unpatriotic regressives to infect others with their mind viruses. God, family, nation.
Click to expand...
(you).png
And who gets to decide that? Me of course. Imagine the world without all those freaking cucks & kikes ruining it with SJW degeneracy -_- VGH.........
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow and SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
💗Freddie Freaker💗 said:
What about people like antivaxxers? They don't think they're hurting others but they really are.
Click to expand...
Shun them. There's no reason why they shouldn't speak their mind on a topic, but you have no incentive to respect their opinions or accept them for who they are.
gang weeder said:
What about me calling for you to be censored or just killed outright?
Click to expand...
Death threats and terrorist threats aren't free speech.
Free speech involves the sharing of ideas, a threat is not an idea. You can say "I hate niggers and fags" or shit-talk the government and the elites because these are ideas and that's free speech, but once it escalates to threats it's no longer a form of expression and thus not free speech.
TL;DR: Don't fedpost, no one likes that.
gang weeder said:
So you consider it fine. Good, because I think people like you should shut the fuck up and have no freeze peach. Cuck.
Click to expand...
Yup, authoritarians like you don't understand a simple concept like freedom or rights, you want everyone to agree with you or they'd be worth censoring, and agreeing with you is not enough, everyone must be "ideal" to you and you hate the "undesirables" and want them gone.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Narutard and Freshly Baked Socks
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back