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

[Großmann]

Based.

Is a pedophile based if he recognizes that lolicon porn is simulated CP and is unapologetic about it? Being consistent isn’t a virtue.

You know when you have freedom of speech when other people get angry at you for no reason for speaking your mind about certain subjects.

I don’t think you are fairly considering what you’re positing here. How are you so sure that the people in your scenario are angry at you for no reason?

Human Rights don't exist.

So place and time, that is what defines your human rights.

I think you need to give your argument some more thought.

 

[Sho'nuff]

I think you need to give your argument some more thought.

Obviously I was using "human rights" facetiously because I said they don't exist.
As I said, any right you have is extended to you. None of them are "human rights".

 

[WelperHelper99]

Is a pedophile based if he recognizes that lolicon porn is simulated CP and is unapologetic about it? Being consistent isn’t a virtue.

That is a crime. Actual speech is not a crime. Your argument is inflammatory and invalid.

 

[The Last Stand]

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.

That's a very good question. What is a"human right" and who gets to determine those rights? That is where it gets messy. Here's 30 human rights that the UN enacted in 1948.

As for "free speech," I've always understood it as "the government cannot/should not punish you for whatever you say or protesting against the state." Nowadays, "the right to free speech" boils down to "I should say whatever/whenever/however I want anywhere I please without ANY consequence." That's why these platform that preach about "free speech" always fail.

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?

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

Thank you for proving my point on how "muh free speech" turned into a meme.

 

[Super Malario]

I don't care if it is recognized as a human right or not, I'm still going to call people nigger

 

[Großmann]

Obviously I was using "human rights" facetiously because I said they don't exist.
As I said, any right you have is extended to you. None of them are "human rights".

I disagree. You can express yourself whether or not society exists, for example.

That is a crime. Actual speech is not a crime. Your argument is inflammatory and invalid.

I used an extreme example to highlight the absurd position that being consistent is in itself commendable.

 

[The Last Stand]

Why should they be allowed to? Give me one good reason.

Well, they have a right to express themselves as they see fit as YOU have a right to express your distaste for them and vice versa. It stops being freedom of speech when laws are violated and disrupting the peace.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That is a crime. Actual speech is not a crime. Your argument is inflammatory and invalid.

No it isn't, or Steam is guilty of a crime for hosting loli hentai games.

Btw, funny how you jumped back into this thread and are willing to argue with others but not me, because I crushed your arguments earlier

Thank you for proving my point on how "muh free speech" turned into a meme.

I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're gonna rate my post autistic then you should be able to prove why what I said was wrong.

Well, they have a right to express themselves as they see fit as YOU have a right to express your distaste for them and vice versa. It stops being freedom of speech when laws are violated and disrupting the peace.

They shouldn't have that right and nobody has made a good argument for why they should.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Freedom of speech is a civil right that should not apply to foreigners and can (and should) be taken from you in situations where it can put others in danger, as during wars.

 

[Sho'nuff]

disagree. You can express yourself whether or not society exists, for example.

That's not a Right though. For something to be labeled as a Right it requires protection, whether that's the community, society, or gov't, it's still being protected. Example being in the UK they think they have free speech, but they don't, their own gov't creates laws to limit their speech rights, those laws are often based on outside communities interpretations, further removing control from many people.

If we lived in an open society, unless the community deemed certain rights as inherent, you wouldn't be protected, and therefore wouldn't have rights. Your rights would only extend as far as you could defend them, so if you were a warlord in the middle of a middle school, you would have all the rights and the kids would only have the rights you deemed for them.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Everyone involved in the freedom of speech argument is a fucking retard.

In a proper society, you can't and shouldn't be able to whatever you want. In private, go nuts.
In the modern world, we allow mongs to spout bullshit in real life which ruins society, then censor what gets said on the internet. It's dumb as fuck.

The easiest way to solve it is this:
In real life - be polite, respectful, positive, decent.
On the internet - call everyone a niggerfaggot.

There, freedom of speech while maintaining polite society.

 

[Großmann]

That's not a Right though. For something to be labeled as a Right it requires protection

As I posted earlier on, I define a right as
“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.” Because rights are something you have regardless of society, you aren’t given them, but society can restrict your ability to exercise them and punish those who unjustly attempt to restrict the exercise of your rights. I think you and I may be saying the same thing, but just a difference of whether the government bestows rights or restricts them.

The easiest way to solve it is this:
In real life - be polite, respectful, positive, decent.
On the internet - call everyone a niggerfaggot.

There, freedom of speech while maintaining polite society.

This doesn’t solve any speech problems. “Reality” and the Internet are not distinct. We can try to obfuscate the link between our online personas and who we are beyond the Internet, but the two are one in the same.

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

Is a pedophile based if he recognizes that lolicon porn is simulated CP and is unapologetic about it? Being consistent isn’t a virtue.

i was waiting for one of you faggots to bring up lolicon.

CSAM isn’t art nor freedom of expression.

 

[Großmann]

i was waiting for one of you faggots to bring up lolicon.

CSAM isn’t art nor freedom of expression.

You’re missing the point of that post.

I used an extreme example to highlight the absurd position that being consistent is in itself commendable.

It’s not about lolicon or CSAM being free expression.

 

[Sho'nuff]

I think you and I may be saying the same thing, but just a difference of whether the government bestows rights or restricts them.

Quite possibly.
I think we agree, but we disagree on the mechanism that society/community/gov't plays.
I will say this though and it goes along with the founding fathers statement you make. The FF did state inalienable, human rights, but it was ultimately the enforcement of those rights, and the protection that a new gov't creation allowed them to flex those rights.
At different points in history religion played a huge role (as it did for the US) in what are considered rights. So while religion wasn't technically an enforcement/protection agency, because everyone within the church morally agreed that certain rights were intact Rights; those rights were effectively protected and policed by the community. But if you were outside of that religion, you were not extended those rights. To the point where religions like Muslims can take nonmuslims life and it not be a violation in the eyes of man or god.

That's ultimately my stance, rights are protected and enforced either by gov't or by community; and by that standard your admission into that nation/society or community ultimately decides what rights you have. If you were born outside of the before mentioned organizations you effectively have no rights, your life, possessions, etc can be taken from you at a drop of a hat and only your own personal agency can stop it, when you are gone no one will come back and try to find who wronged you, because effectively it doesn't matter you had no rights, no one recognizes it.

 

[The Last Stand]

"Free speech" has been turned into the extreme, either to say whatever/whenever you want however you want or having police raid your house for expressing an opinion online. People only like free speech when it's THEIR speech that is "protected" or "allowed."

In a proper society, you can't and shouldn't be able to whatever you want. In private, go nuts.
In the modern world, we allow mongs to spout bullshit in real life which ruins society, then censor what gets said on the internet. It's dumb as fuck.

Most people that post on say social media love to share whatever associated with their actual name. I'm speaking in regards to the US, unless you're posting something illegal, the government not the police cannot (SHOULD NOT) arrest you for whatever you posted. Now, you cannot argue the "free speech" point when you post something that would violate their community guidelines. See Section 230, a regulation that prevents platforms from liability because of somebody's post.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Freedom of speech is a civil right that should not apply to foreigners and can (and should) be taken from you in situations where it can put others in danger, as during wars.

Not only should free speech be taken away where it can put others in danger, but also if it disrupts society, similar to existing "disturbing the peace" ordinances.

i was waiting for one of you faggots to bring up lolicon.

CSAM isn’t art nor freedom of expression.

It is if you're a free speech absolutist as you claimed to be, but there's nothing wrong with restricting obscene abuses of freedom of expression such as loli.

You're contradicting your other posts in this thread. Me, I'm pretty consistent; I like free speech to a point, but it's not absolute, not even close. No, you can't have a gay pride parade; no, you can't produce/distribute/host porn (real or fictional); no, you can't worship Satan.

"Free speech" has been turned into the extreme, either to say whatever/whenever you want however you want or having police raid your house for expressing an opinion online. People only like free speech when it's THEIR speech that is "protected" or "allowed."

This is because we have to basis upon which to hinge our common sense anymore, no guiding moral principles--no God. I cited this quote earlier, but it's worth doing again:

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." - John Adams

Is it morally and religiously sound to abuse free speech by threatening someone, creating porn, or scamming someone? No, it is not, and therefore those types of questions are what should be asked to determine the limits of free speech. If we don't then we can't agree on what free speech means, what its limits are in principle (there are no genuine "free speech absolutists", because it doesn't work).

If we divorce the Constitution from its context then liberals can say they want "hate speech" like "misgendering" banned, and that's just as valid as anything conservatives want restricted. I reject that notion.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Not only should free speech be taken away where it can put others in danger, but also if it disrupts society, similar to existing "disturbing the peace" ordinances.

Disturbing the peace is too much of a slippery slope. The current state of the UK is directly caused from this sort of loophole where the elites will take every criticism against them or their currently favoured caste as "disturbing the peace". At least when the argument is that you put someone in danger, the other side needs to put a direct logical chain of events to justify it.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

Don’t know where to put this. But there is one scenario where I might suppress speech.

If I was an editor for a newspaper, and someone found a dirty secret about Mister Rodgers or someone universally loved? I would probably squash that story. Maybe even destroy the evidence. People don’t need to hear something so discouraging even if it is true.

But that’s a very specific scenario.

 

[Großmann]

Don’t know where to put this. But there is one scenario where I might suppress speech.

If I was an editor for a newspaper, and someone found a dirty secret about Mister Rodgers or someone universally loved? I would probably squash that story. Maybe even destroy the evidence. People don’t need to hear something so discouraging even if it is true.

But that’s a very specific scenario.

The damage done by suppressing that information and it eventually being revealed by another party that, not only does that information exist, but that you suppressed it, would be much graver than simply revealing the truth. Bad news never ages well, even if it potentially destroys something once thought to be good.