given the current state of things what do you view as free speech?

[Tetragrammaton]

so essentially what i mean is like what is your personal view on free speech both on this website and the internet and world at large? should we all collectively tone it down? why or why not? general stuff like that.

My personal opinion is that free speech requires free thinking you cannot speak freely if you do not think freely. i believe that free speech means you do not let others thoughts,feelings or choice of words effect you and you can instead look past those things to form your own opinion on something. basically its like if 2 normies were to see this website and read the same thread and one of them freaks out because there was a reply that used a slur where as the second person can look past that even if they may not exactly agree with calling someone a slur.

i think this website is one of the last places for true free speech as you can pretty much say whatever and the worst youll get is some people calling you a retard usually. i do believe that the world and internet at large is becoming more and more restricted as time goes on which i find very unfortunate and i believe that the people who are pushing for these restrictions as they currently benefit them will soon be the targets for those same restrictions. its like if one country ruled the entire world there would not just be no more wars and endless peace. wars would just break out between members of the same country for new disagreements. conflict is a necessary part of life and cannot be eliminated. you may be the victim now but in time youll be the enemy and the old enemy will become the new victim.


my autistic rambling aside what is everyone elses opinions on the matter of free speech im just interested especially in this current arc of kiwifarms do you feel like we need to limit free speech in order to survive? or continue to push forward? give me your thoughts opnions theories arguments for or against things whatever you got i wanna know.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Let me sum up free speech with a single word:

Nigger.

Typing this word will get you banned from every major platform. Simply uttering this word will have a mob frothing for your head, unless you bow, scrape, and suck their collective dicks. That is the rule. The only exception to this rule is literal niggers saying it.

If a platform or venue follows that rule, it does not believe in free speech. And when you censor one kind of speech (e.g., racial slurs), it becomes easier to censor other kinds of speech.

 

[Procrastinhater]

You can't compromise with these assholes. They see any form of compromise as weakness, give them one thing and they will just push for more. Cross posting but the point stands here too.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Sometimes you have to take that stand even if you know it's your last.

 

[WE'RE ALL GONNA]

Free speech is becoming less and less prevalent in the public sphere because of its perceived risks to the vulnerable (people who literally shit themselves over "nigger") and impressionable (conspiracy theories, etc.). The risk is so great in fact, corporations bow down to totalitarian notions of civility because people can't be trusted to have or speak "dangerous" thoughts.

Massive platforms that everyday people use such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have no notions of protecting free speech. And this is considered justified, especially by those who don't see value in the transparency of the human condition. To allow the hate and vitriol, to allow the rage of the disquieted, to allow the outcries of disgust.. It's only allowed if you're part of our group.

To express murderous hatred for the police? That's fine.
To express murderous hatred for political corruption and elite pedophilia? NO, YOU'RE CRAZY- STOP DISCUSSING THIS.
To express disgust at white supremacy? That's fine.
To express disgust at pedophilic trannies? NO, YOU'RE CRAZY- STOP DISCUSSING THIS.

 

[SofondaCox]

Anything that isn't an imminent threat of death falls into the category of free speech. Plenty of free speech outrages and disgusts me, even here on occasion.

That's what free speech is for.

 

[Davey Havok]

Niggerfaggot

 

[Fascist Frederick]

I believe that any speech I didn't have to pay for is free speech.

 

[Trapped Under Rice]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

It's a trite sentiment. But freedom to say only popular, unoffensive and culturally acceptable things is no freedom at all. I will defend your right to say "trans women are women", "kill whitey" and "pedophilia is a valid sexual orientation." I don't have to believe you. I can think you're insane. I will keep you away from my children. I will vehemently mock you. But you should have a right to say it. And I have a right to voice my criticism. One cannot expect to maintain this freedom without accepting the fact that it allows people you disagree with to voice their opinions.

post script: "nigger"

 

[The Last Stand]

I would think that you should be able to say what you want to say WITHIN REASON. Chiefly, the ability to have discussion and exchanges of ideas. If something is incorrect, refute it.

That said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

 

[MadDisaster]

I feel pretty comfortable with "free speech" as allowed by US law. There are always grey areas (pornography, for example), but if it's not illegal incitement of violence or deliberate libel, I'm okay with most speech on this site. I mean, I think some of it is offensive, stupid, sometimes deranged, but I'm willing to scroll on by in order to have a place where I can say things that other people might find offensive/stupid/deranged.

This is kind of a tangent, but the current situation of "no one can be offended ever" is something I blame on the online SJWs misunderstanding and taking something out of its useful context. A "safe space" was generally meant for therapeutic purposes, or very specific discussion spaces. The online SJW movement has decided that the entire internet should be a "safe space" where no one needs to be offended, challenged in a meaningful way, or just uncomfortable.

Just enough people have come of age with this mindset that it is destroying online spaces in general. Part of living in a society is being able to deal with other people you don't agree with, maybe not on anything. Online, it really needs to be remembered that you can scroll away from things you don't like. Not every shitty thing requires your attention. It's okay to just ignore shit.

 

[The Last Stand]

I'll say this: debating about "lowering the age for consent" or wanting to fuck/mutilate children IS NOT freedom of speech.

 

[Penis Drager]

False advertisement should be illegal.
Certain forms of intentional public disturbance (such as shutting down a school and wasting police resources by claiming there's a bomb in there) should be dependent on the cost of the disturbance caused.
Defamation should be a civil matter where the courts hash out the egregiousness of the offense (the reach of the platform disseminating these statements, the gravity of the claims being made, the capacity for the individual to defend themselves from the allegation, potential and realized harms caused, etc.).
I'll even cast tentative support for civil laws against "publication of private fact" where where a large publication discloses true information about an individual that the wider public has no business knowing or caring about (someone at CNN is not legally allowed to publish an article about the size of my penis, as a literal nobody, with impunity. Some retards on a forum discussing my own statements regarding my penis should be permissible). The standards should be basically the same as defamation but with a canyon wide gap in terms of arbitrating when the offense in question is actionable.
Credible claims that one is about to commit a crime should not be crimes in and of themselves, but absolutely should be permissible as evidence for conspiracy to commit. This should not extent to encouraging mentally competent individuals to commit a crime. If you can legally consent to sex, you should be declared mentally competent enough to decide whether committing a crime is in your best interest. It should not be illegal to say "you should murder this guy" or "you should bomb that building" unless the person you're talking to is declared legally incompetent by the court.

 

[The Last Stand]

The issue is that people don't know HOW to use their speech responsibly. On the opposite side of the coin, others think that restricting speech would counter foul speech.

If I could lose my job, my reputation, my LIFE because I publicly disagreed with transgenderism, who is really "free?"

 

[José Mourinho]

I'll say this: debating about "lowering the age for consent" or wanting to fuck/mutilate children IS NOT freedom of speech.

I would say it's still under freedom of speech for the debate for "lower age of consent", but be prepared to get huge backlash as consequences for what you said.

 

[The Last Stand]

I would say it's still under freedom of speech for the debate for "lower age of consent", but be prepared to get huge backlash as consequences for what you said.

Libertarians like to fall back under that "free speech" fallacy whenever they get called out for bullshit.

 

[Stabmaster Arson]

Let me sum up free speech with a single word:

Nigger.

Typing this word will get you banned from every major platform. Simply uttering this word will have a mob frothing for your head, unless you bow, scrape, and suck their collective dicks. That is the rule. The only exception to this rule is literal niggers saying it.

If a platform or venue follows that rule, it does not believe in free speech. And when you censor one kind of speech (e.g., racial slurs), it becomes easier to censor other kinds of speech.

Succinct and irrefutable.

 

[Girl Named Sandoz]

I would think that you should be able to say what you want to say WITHIN REASON. Chiefly, the ability to have discussion and exchanges of ideas. If something is incorrect, refute it.

That said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

I'll say this: debating about "lowering the age for consent" or wanting to fuck/mutilate children IS NOT freedom of speech.

pick one

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

Freeze peach is a myth, just like "democracy". Yankies only use to justify their interference. If you think that it was any other way before, you are delusional.

 

[Bored & Confused]

You should never feel constrained when verbally or textually expressing yourself, & you should never be restrained as a result thereof.

 

[DenseDeerFather]

In the context of this site and what the internet once was, I absolutely believe you should be able to say whatever you want. We're not here to cuddle people, we're here to have fun. And being crude is fun.