Why Freedom of Speech should be a human right - One of the few rights as a human I'm willing to die for

[Osama Bin Laden]

It's a fundamental part of human dignity, allowing people to express their opinions, share ideas, and challenge the status quo. The idea of absolute freedom of speech promotes individual rights, creativity, and democratic participation.

While I can compromise it's not cool to yell FIRE in a movie theater or BOMB in an airport, I think every single person in the world should have a right to freedom of speech no matter how retarded or batshit insane it might be. I think if someone wants to socially accost you for yelling NIGGER in public, cool but I think you shouldn't get arrested for it.

 

[The Backwards Man]

Yes

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

A bit nonsensical, considering "human rights" are one of the biggest sources of anti-human abuse in human history

Your "right to free speech" presupposes your right to your body, specifically your brain, nervous system, and vocal cords
And hands etc. for written communication etc.
Accordingly, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel by defining some distinct "human rights" that are separate from your property rights over your own body
The property rights approach also helps solve conflicts, such as yelling FIRE in a movie theater or posting child porn on KF
You're a guest on someone else's property and, accordingly, it is within their rights to dictate the terms of your stay

I mean, try for yourself to assert some "right to free speech" that is divorced from property rights over bodies
How would you want to resolve conflicts? If your "right to free speech" to post child porn on KF inevitably conflicts with Null or the US government, by what means do you want to determine who is in the right?

 

[Meelo]

A bit nonsensical, considering "human rights" are one of the biggest sources of anti-human abuse in human history

Your "right to free speech" presupposes your right to your body, specifically your brain, nervous system, and vocal cords
And hands etc. for written communication etc.
Accordingly, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel by defining some distinct "human rights" that are separate from your property rights over your own body
The property rights approach also helps solve conflicts, such as yelling FIRE in a movie theater or posting child porn on KF
You're a guest on someone else's property and, accordingly, it is within their rights to dictate the terms of your stay

I mean, try for yourself to assert some "right to free speech" that is divorced from property rights over bodies
How would you want to resolve conflicts? If your "right to free speech" to post child porn on KF inevitably conflicts with Null or the US government, by what means do you want to determine who is in the right?

Interesting that you instantly bring up a worst-case scenario, which is already a crime everywhere in the world (every country that matters at least).
I guess you're right, we need to be more like Europe and lock people up for non-violent political speech just in case it might offend a muslim or a crybaby politician. If anyone disagrees, we can screech "THINK ABOUT DUH CHILLUNS" and silence all opposition.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Interesting that you instantly bring up a worst-case scenario, which is already a crime everywhere in the world (every country that matters at least).
I guess you're right, we need to be more like Europe and lock people up for non-violent political speech just in case it might offend a muslim or a crybaby politician. If anyone disagrees, we can screech "THINK ABOUT DUH CHILLUNS" and silence all opposition.

I think you're mischaracterizing my position
Yelling fire in a theater is a less bad scenario

Or take something harmless, like Andrew saying that Peter is a stinky doo-doo head, and Peter not being happy about that
So there is a case of conflict, at least emotionally
Now apply a theory of "human dignity" and "freedom of speech" that is divorced and separate from property rights over human bodies, land, infrastructure etc.pp.
How do you want to determine who is in the right?
Is Andrew's "right to free speech" overruling Peter from sanctioning Andrew?
Is Peter's "human dignity" overruling Andrew's "right to free speech"?
How do you want to determine who is in the right without property rights?
My point is that "right to free speech", "human rights", and "human dignity" are retarded non-concepts, and it is a complete waste of time and effort to consider them as separate from property rights
And, as a corollary: If free speech is so important to you, the best thing you can do is keep it for yourself and fight for property rights "instead", because that is how you achieve your goal of getting more free speech without risking retarded outcomes and unintentionally jeopardizing your own goals

And at the risk of opening up another can of worms, who are you to say that it is right to criminalize something everywhere in the world?
Imagine if 90% of countries in this world made it a criminal offense to say mean things about the head of state of Turkey
Does that mean it's right? That it's just? That it's justified?
Appealing to popularity or appealing to status quo is what I'm seeing here

 

[Joe Shmoe]

Human rights are retarded. Nobody owes you anything just because you exist.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

absolute freedom of speech promotes individual rights, creativity, and democratic participation.

I can compromise it's not cool to yell FIRE in a movie theater or BOMB in an airport

Well, that didn't take long...

No, freedom of speech is, has always been, and should remain limited. Preaching transgender ideology should land someone in prison, for example.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Human rights are retarded. Nobody owes you anything just because you exist.

Human rights are a social construct. They only exist as long as enough people agree they exist, or the people with guns and bombs can force others to agree they exist. No Lives Matter. Do not die for freezed peach, just exercise it, or not.

Someone get Osama here a green card if he needs to feel the freedom.

 

[Meelo]

I think you're mischaracterizing my position

"Cannot quote this entire post" thanks null
You brought up child porn out of nowhere to discredit freedom of speech, our 1st Amendment I remind you, when it's a fucking crime to post that shit anywhere because it isn't "speech" in the first place. If you want to hang all of the jewish directors forcing young women into an elevated form of prostitution, I'll pull the lever, but don't try and pull this eurofaggot "Whatabout-whatabout BAD THINGS?" nonsense. The reason why we have freedom of speech? Because retarded ideas are easily dismissed, as long as you don't have the government funding these retarded ideas and threatening imprisonment for criticizing them.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You brought up child porn out of nowhere to discredit freedom of speech

Not quite
From my experience on Kiwi Farms and especially Null, "posting child porn" is the #1 counter argument to "free speech" that I hear
Like, unless I'm misremembering, Null ridicules "free speech" on platforms like the Fediverse with that "child porn" argument

If you don't like extreme or "ad absurdum" arguments, that's fine, I gave you an example of a speech-related conflict that's almost comically harmless
Andrew calls Peter a stinky doo-doo head. Peter is offended by this.

our 1st Amendment I remind you

What makes you think you're talking to a US-American? Is "free speech" or "right to free speech" some sort of trademarked codified thing that does not exist outside of "our 1st Amendment"?
Are we here to discuss the idea, the ideal, the concept of "free speech" or are we here to discuss American constitutional law?

when it's a fucking crime to post that shit anywhere

So what?
You and I live in legal systems that are subject to legislation, i.e. theft-financed sociopaths congregating to literally make up law and get thugs with badges to enforce "what is written in the law book", not some ideal like justice or morals
Where I currently am, it is "a fucking crime to post" something calling into question anything regarding the Holocaust.
Does that somehow make it right or just or justified?
Again, are we here to discuss legal philosophy or are we here to discuss American constitutional law?

don't try and pull this eurofaggot "Whatabout-whatabout BAD THINGS?" nonsense

Again, you are mischaracterizing my position.
I am very much in favor of free speech, but I believe that almost every single free speech advocate or free speech defender has no fucking idea what they're talking about
Which is why specifically mentioned and emphasized property rights as the solution to the problem of "un-free" speech

I shall reiterate again
Without property rights, how do you want to have a standard of who is right and who is wrong in a case of conflict?
If Peter feels offended by Andrew calling him a doo-doo head, and Andrew justifies his "right to free speech", by what standard do you determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong?
Assume we deal not just with feeling offended, but actual consequences. Peter happens to be Andrew's boss and decides to terminate Andrew's employment contract. Or Peter happens to be Andrew's neighbor and punches him in the face.
Who is in the right? Who is in the wrong?
Is Andrew entitled to his god-given right to call Peter a stinky doo-doo head?
If yes, why? If no, why? What non-arbitrary and intersubjectively ascertainable standard is there?

The reason why we have freedom of speech? Because retarded ideas are easily dismissed, as long as you don't have the government funding these retarded ideas and threatening imprisonment for criticizing them.

... you have freedom of speech?
Where?
I mean, you don't need to answer if you don't want to disclose that, but where the hell can I find this free speech safe space?


Again regarding extreme examples
If you aren't willing to stand up for the things you believe in even in extreme cases, how genuine or well-founded even is your belief?
If you told me that my beliefs will lead to situations in which black people have a legitimate risk of being shot in the head in public in broad daylight because someone thought that the negro in question looked threatening, my honest and sincere reply to that would be "Yes."
Meanwhile, your "defense" of free speech entails pointing at some tax-financed sociopaths going "but we decided to make this illegal" to get out of the quandary of whether such material even is "speech" in the first place

 

[PonderosaPete]

You give people rights and the first thing they do is go out and find a way to abuse them. It may not be you, but that's why we can't have nice things.

 

[Grub]

Your "right to free speech" presupposes your right to your body, specifically your brain, nervous system, and vocal cords
And hands etc. for written communication etc.
Accordingly, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel by defining some distinct "human rights" that are separate from your property rights over your own body

Defining your body as property seems weird to me. We don't own our bodies, we are our bodies. Viewing the human body as property opens up the door for slavery. If I can 'own' my own body, someone else can 'own' it too.

 

[GameratePTSD]

50% of people are dumber than you and louder than you. Freedom of speech is a concept invented by white people assuming white people would talk in good faith. We should subjugate those who speak ugly. If you speak in a way that makes our world worse you should be tossed into black sites. Zionists, antifa, centrists should all be sent to El Salvador.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Defining your body as property seems weird to me. We don't own our bodies, we are our bodies. Viewing the human body as property opens up the door for slavery. If I can 'own' my own body, someone else can 'own' it too.

Ownership is defined as the (exclusive) right to control a thing
And although there is still a serious debate on what rights even are, I'm sure we can agree that having a right, at the bare minimum, means that you can legitimately use force to stop others from interfering with you doing what you have the right to
As in, if you have a property right to your own body, it means that it is legitimate for you to use force to defend your body from invasion ("self-defense")

Why would you not define your own body as property?
In the context of property being the right to control a thing.
Your body is scarce, you can't Ctrl+C Ctrl+V it, you can't be in multiple places simultaneously. Your body is scarce and that means there can be conflicts over the use of your body. Your property right to your own body means that you are in the right, as the owner, in cases of conflict regarding your body that are initiated by others. Like when someone tries to rob you and you attack them, you are in the right in this case of conflict as the one with property rights over your body.

 

[Chieftain Coke Peanut]

A lot of retarded people out there who probably don't need free speech, but there's also a lot of non retarded people out there who very much benefit from it. I feel bad for all the non retards out in Europe who can't call out retarded things like unchecked immigration and transgender ideology without being told they did a fascism and have to go to prison for a few months for a tweet. Overall net positive I would say.

 

[Meelo]

Not quite

Maybe it's your posts being so long IDK
I know you're a euro, that's why I wonder where you're getting at with this, null had to block an entire fucking country because of their insane obsession with censorship. The only reason this place even exists is because so many people have tried to take it down, for a multitude of bullshit reasons, and through sheer force of will has stayed up solely to fuck with said faggots that wanted it gone. If things don't change significantly I don't see why the rest of the continent wouldn't follow suit in the next few years. All for some false sense of security
"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have nor do they deserve either" - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Normal people don't care about things like free speech or human rights except for themselves, you should try acting normal OP

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I know you're a euro, that's why I wonder where you're getting at with this

Need to reiterate again
Free speech good
But "fighting for free speech" bad if you do it wrong
Most people who fight for free speech do it wrong
Their solutions will involve alienating people, seeming weird, or flat-out resulting in them fucking themselves over in unforeseen ways
If you like free speech, fight for it correctly
The correct way to fight for free speech is to recognize "right to free speech" as a complete non-concept in the face of "right to private property"
Every single speech-related conflict can be solved exclusively in terms of property rights
The same way nobody speaks of a "right to drink Pepsi" because the right to your own body and right to have ownership in external things come with things such as money ownership, trade, supermarkets, Pepsi bottles, etc., so there is no need to go out on the street and protest for some "right to drink Pepsi"
If you go out there and fight for your right to your own body (against crime and slavery) and your right to ownership in external things (against taxes and regulations), then the right to drink Pepsi will be a complete and total non-issue
And "right to free speech" is exactly the same way

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have nor do they deserve either" - Benjamin Franklin

Absolutely correct
However, "freedom" is by itself too nebulous of a word
For many people, "freedom" means smoking weed and getting welfare
For me, "freedom" means taking responsibility over your life and respecting the rights of others
Then you get into quandaries such as "positive freedom" and "negative freedom", with communists fighting for "positive freedoms" like the right to be at home and get fed without having to do any work, and using the government to restrict your "negative freedoms" like the right to keep the money that you earn, for the sake of financing the "positive freedoms" of those fucking commie leeches

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

No, freedom of speech is, has always been, and should remain limited. Preaching transgender ideology should land someone in prison, for example.

If a faggot wants to talk about how much of a faggot they are, they should be allowed too as much as I'm allowed to call someone a faggot.

Human rights are retarded. Nobody owes you anything just because you exist.

The government owes me money because they stole it from me (in the form of taxes)

Normal people don't care about things like free speech or human rights except for themselves, you should try acting normal OP

dude we're on the kiwifarms where we talk about furry tranny pedophiles that have an autistic obsession with sonic. you think this is normal?

A lot of retarded people out there who probably don't need free speech, but there's also a lot of non retarded people out there who very much benefit from it. I feel bad for all the non retards out in Europe who can't call out retarded things like unchecked immigration and transgender ideology without being told they did a fascism and have to go to prison for a few months for a tweet. Overall net positive I would say.

everyone should have it, retarded or not

 

[Großmann]

The discussion here needs to start with rights. What is a human right? How do you get that right? Can it be restricted or taken away?

My thoughts:

• What is a human right? A human right is an ability we are born with (the US founders used the term “God-given”) that enables us to live and self-determine without inhibiting someone else’s ability to do the same.
• How do you get rights? As I mentioned previously, you are born with them (God-given). The state cannot give you something you already have.
• Can rights be restricted or taken away? Yes. When we form societies, we mutually agree to restrictions on some rights according to the greater needs of a society. Societies also design punishments involving removing one’s ability to exercise their rights by force due to crimes one may be found guilty of committing — again, for the greater needs of the society.

The friction with rights versus society is where things get interesting (such as the first example earlier of shouting “FIRE!” in a crowd). There are times where the unrestricted exercise of rights can cause problems for the harmony and order of a society, which is why I think it’s unrealistic to hold the Libertarian idea that “as long as it doesn’t [directly] affect me, it should be legal.” Every person in a society has an effect on those around them, even the reclusive NEET that shitposts on sites like Kiwi Farms. That NEET’s online actions are subtly influencing the wider society he lives in, whether he knows it or not.