- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
So, let's see. On one side, we've got all of the political, legal, and business bodies in the existence of man - oh, and religious ones, too.
On the other side, we've got some narcissistic NEETs that all-too-often draw income purely from SSI/SSD equivalents.
Real motley crew, those free speech absolutists. Invaluable to any truly enlightened, euphoric discourse.
I'm sure you'll get there one day, arguing there should be no recourse for sending a bomb threat to a hospital. There wasn't a bomb, officers, so you got PRANKED.
Oh, wait, advocating and trying to change the world is dumb so that's not the plan, so you're... talking to fill up some bytes? You would be a much less depressing person if you were a poe.
Some countries have speech codes which would get in the way of you saying niggerfaggot by getting the popo on your ass.
But even those countries which have had the most robust and the most pliant free speech provisions, like the US, have never once allowed you to make genuine or seemingly genuine terroristic or violent threats without rebuke.
The limits of free speech, to any body that matters and to any person that matters, have never stretched into allowing overt threats and calls to violence.
If someone banning you from twitter for saying niggerfaggot makes you think "we should be allowed to threaten to shoot up schools," you are retarded, should get a job, and should probably move out of the basement.
I'm not saying that banning certain words gives you free reign to make threats that could be seen as "violent threats", but I think that the real fear is that is that there is a "slippery slope" in banning words that will eventually turn into a more "sanitized" KF. (And if you're one of those retards who will just parrot "muh slippery slope is a fallacy", most of the fears that conservatives had a decade ago when this far-left lunacy began to gain traction about 10-15 years ago are now very real).