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

[Iron Jaguar]

I don't believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they like at all times. I also don't believe in democracy as a system of government.

 

[Großmann]

I don't believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they like at all times. I also don't believe in democracy as a system of government.

Well, what do you believe?

 

[Iron Jaguar]

Well, what do you believe?

I believe there are some things some people should not be allowed to say in public e.g. pedotroons should be prohibited from grooming children, on pain of death. Muslims should not be allowed to preach jihad.
Really controversial ideas, I know...

I also believe there are too many people permitted to have a say in our system of government who simply should not be allowed to vote at all. As a particularly egregious example, anyone who has been on welfare for more than five years (accidents and military injuries notwithstanding) has conclusively demonstrated that they are either incapable of or unwilling to look after themselves, therefore they have no right to tell functioning and contributing members of society how to live or how their taxes should be spent.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 is the basis for this concept in Western morality.

 

[Großmann]

I believe there are some things some people should not be allowed to say in public e.g. pedotroons should be prohibited from grooming children, on pain of death. Muslims should not be allowed to preach jihad.
Really controversial ideas, I know...

What’s the guiding principle behind this? Is this coming from a Christian perspective or something else?

I also believe there are too many people permitted to have a say in our system of government who simply should not be allowed to vote at all. As a particularly egregious example, anyone who has been on welfare for more than five years (accidents and military injuries notwithstanding) has conclusively demonstrated that they are either incapable of or unwilling to look after themselves, therefore they have no right to tell functioning and contributing members of society how to live or how their taxes should be spent.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 is the basis for this concept in Western morality.

I agree that people who are essentially wards of the state probably shouldn’t have voting privileges.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Disturbing the peace is too much of a slippery slope.

Obviously not because it already exists and has probably for a long time. Just expand that to include other stuff (basically libtard behaviors) and make it federal law.

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.

Current state of the UK is directly caused by the liberal pathogen. Cleanse that disease and ban it legally.

I agree that people who are essentially wards of the state probably shouldn’t have voting privileges.

I don't. If someone has substantial mental acuity and a functioning moral compass they should be allowed to vote, simple as that. That may naturally have the effect of precluding such people but it shouldn't be the explicit goal.

 

[Divine Power]

Freedom is chaos

 

[plastic Consumer]

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

The point of "human rights" in America is to set boundaries which the government cannot cross based on ethics/morals, social contract and such.

From my experience on Kiwi Farms and especially Null, "posting child porn" is the #1 counter argument to "free speech" that I hear

I don't understand why when people bring up "free speech" they always bring up "but what if someone decides to post child porn or cause people to kill eachother by falsifying danger???" The idea of "free speech" was meant to protect the expression of opinions, ideas, believed facts, etc. The founding fathers never intended for "free speech" to mean "yeah you can print out nude pictures of toddlers and children being sodomized"
You can have "free speech" and place boundaries on it without it no longer being "Free speech". Its a slippery slope fallacy to suggest banning child porn is infringing on free speech. If someone is posting dead children from a bombing then one COULD argue that is within bounds of free speech, if someone is posting abused children to expose someone, that could be free speech sure, it might be difficult to find the reason WHY someone is saying or posting stuff, which we already need to do to determine if there is slander or libel, both which aren't seen as impending on "free speech".
"Free speech" is a concept with many definitions but when its brought up its usually within the confines of American law and the intention of the founding fathers, if you try to argue it in any other way you're being sorta retarded. Its like claiming "freedom of free speech" means "free flow of personal data collected on individuals between corporations and the government". Going off the word of the law is the same shit Jews do when interpreting the Talmud and is contrary to how the founding fathers/American law was meant to be originally.

nobody owes you anything

I also see this shit brought up a lot, its completely contrary to social contracts, which is the idea/basis which the American government was founded on, its nihilistic to just go "nothing matters, there is no binding laws of God and nature, only manmade laws which can be bypassed" and its the same shit Chinese and Africans think, "if I can get away with something, if nobody is looking or knows, it didn't happen and its fine" and look how their societies are going. EVERYBODY actually owes YOU something, just as YOU owe EVERYBODY something. That is the idea of a social contract, you agree upon what you are owed and what others owe you and it is formed under the threat of violence from all sides. If only one side has the violence then the contract can be easily broken.
The social contract is "these are the rules which has been agreed upon and if these rules are broken then punishment will be incurred or allowed to happen and others will agree to let said punishment happen", the only reason society exists is because of the IDEA of "fairness". Remove the idea of "fairness" and the social contract, and the idea of government falls apart and you live in a shithole like Africa, which we are slowly moving towards.

These concepts don't exist in a vacumn, you have to discuss them within the bounds of the people/country/culture you are applying them or discussing them from. I am going to discuss them within the context of America and White Americans.

I also don't believe in democracy as a system of government

Democracy as an experiment has failed, the Greeks and founding fathers both knew you needed a homogenous society where the people who voted/made decisions were well educated and had a stake in the country itself (only allowing landholders was one way to do this).

 

[Bob Faget]

Just saw some retard use cp as an example of free speech, like hey retard raping kids isnt speech dumbass. But freedom of speech is the only political issue that im truly passionate about. Things like hate speech laws genuinley rub my the wrong way, the government should not be allowed to make laws that ban certain types of speech period. At the end of the day who decides what is considered hate speech? Why is it considered hate speech to say "i hate jeets" but not when you say "i hate crackers". If the government cant define love speech they should be able to define hate speech. At the end of the day "hate speech" is just what goes against the current establishment and is an excuse to censor speech you dont like. Hate speech is free speech. I feel bad for all the people in countries like the U.K. or Germany where you csn get arrested for saying someone looks like a lesbian or playing a fucking rucka rucka ali song.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I don't understand why when people bring up "free speech" they always bring up "but what if someone decides to post child porn or cause people to kill eachother by falsifying danger???"

I understand it as an attempted reductio ad absurdum, but I charitably see it as a challenge. As in, if you are in favor of a thing, you should be able and willing to defend a thing in the most extreme and bad-looking possible case.

The founding fathers never intended for "free speech" to mean

Does it matter?
Once again, are we debating "freedom of speech" as an idea, as a legal concept, or exclusively as it pertains to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

You can have "free speech" and place boundaries on it without it no longer being "Free speech".

Then how?
Perhaps by dismissing the notion of "free speech" altogether and moving to the objective and non-arbitrary realm of property rights like I suggest?
By, say, arguing that there is no such thing as a separate and divorced "right to free speech"?
And that the property right to the venue where you are speaking gives the property owner the freedom to impose or abstain from imposing speech restrictions as they will?
Say, a theater owner admitting entry to the venue under the condition that guests refrain from screaming and shouting and disturbing the peace?
Say, a forum hoster allowing sign-ups under the condition that users refrain from certain kinds of "speech"?
Or a speakeasy or private households allowing for every kind of "speech" under the sun?
My point is that, by completely and utterly getting rid of this framework treating "freedom of speech" as a thing and instead focusing on consistent and principled property rights thinking, you will end up having much more free speech in the first place without shooting yourself in the foot. Or leaving the door open for governments and bad actors to shoot you in the foot.

which we already need to do to determine if there is slander or libel, both which aren't seen as impending on "free speech".

I strongly disagree. If I were to slander somebody, and you were to sanction me for it under the current legal framework in regions which have slander or libel as criminal offenses, then you are essentially using (or threatening to use) force against me, someone who has not used force.
Surely that is aggression, no?

"Free speech" is a concept with many definitions but when its brought up its usually within the confines of American law and the intention of the founding fathers, if you try to argue it in any other way you're being sorta retarded. Its like claiming "freedom of free speech" means "free flow of personal data collected on individuals between corporations and the government". Going off the word of the law is the same shit Jews do when interpreting the Talmud and is contrary to how the founding fathers/American law was meant to be originally.

I see, so you want to debate only US law.
Well then, I can just as well claim that debating US law is nonsensical and a waste of time because it hinges on some disinterested retard judge put in place by literal pedophiles feeling charitable to you.

 

[MadStan]

How about instead of us willing to die for the right of freedom of speech, we make the people trying to take it away die for trying instead?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I understand it as an attempted reductio ad absurdum, but I charitably see it as a challenge. As in, if you are in favor of a thing, you should be able and willing to defend a thing in the most extreme and bad-looking possible case.

Why? We should only want the best, why do mental gymnastics to justify something nobody should want?

How about instead of us willing to die for the right of freedom of speech, we make the people trying to take it away die for trying instead?

I prefer the former, thanks.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Why? We should only want the best, why do mental gymnastics to justify something nobody should want?

It's called intellectual honesty.
If your stance can't survive scrutiny in the worst case scenario, then your position isn't worth much in the best case either. Cherrypicking only ideal circumstances to justify is a stance is how you end up defending arbitrary taste, not genuine principles.
The entire point of "stress-testing" a belief is to ensure it's not just a fairweather opinion dressed up as a moral view

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It's called intellectual honesty.
If your stance can't survive scrutiny in the worst case scenario, then your position isn't worth much in the best case either. Cherrypicking only ideal circumstances to justify is a stance is how you end up defending arbitrary taste, not genuine principles.
The entire point of "stress-testing" a belief is to ensure it's not just a fairweather opinion dressed up as a moral view

I disagree. I believe in common sense and Biblical morality. So, I can use that to identify what the appropriate bounds are for free speech. Absolutism doesn't work in practice; give everyone free speech and then fags use it to spread the gay agenda, for example. Logic, reason, and wisdom trump pointless principles, just do what works and don't do what doesn't.

The whole reason we have rights and laws is to be a functioning society, which we live in to be happier. If we make society dysfunctional by condoning undesirable behaviors in the interest of upholding principles then that is counteractive to our goal. Our forefathers didn't work hard to build us a country upon which to grandstand about how principled we are even to our own detriment, but to pursue happiness.

Maybe you really could make an argument in a vacuum for even the most obscene and damaging speech in the interest of "intellectual honesty", but I don't value that over practicality or morality. It's somewhat similar to communism, supposedly it sounds good on paper but doesn't appear to work in practice.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I believe in common sense and Biblical morality.

Show, don't tell.

The whole reason we have rights and laws is to be a functioning society, which we live in to be happier. If we make society dysfunctional by condoning undesirable behaviors in the interest of upholding principles then that is counteractive to our goal. Our forefathers didn't work hard to build us a country upon which to grandstand about how principled we are even to our own detriment, but to pursue happiness.

That is neither common sense nor Biblical morality, that's arbitrary emotional reactions. Your position boils down to "principles are optional if they get in the way of what I think is good". That's not morality, that's authoritarianism in a dress.

Logic, reason, and wisdom trump pointless principles

Logic and reason ARE principles.
If you throw out principled consistency when it's inconvenient, what you're left with is a rationalization machine that bends the knee to whoever has the loudest feelings or the most popular religion.

Absolutism doesn't work in practice

The notion that speech should be censored when it leads to "undesirable behaviors" is 1:1 the reasoning used by every tyranny in human history. Your subjective preferences about what is a "fag" or "damaging" are not a valid basis to restrict the rights of others.
If you don't believe in objective rights, your only alternative is power games, and there is always someone bigger and nastier waiting to use your "logic" against you.

It's somewhat similar to communism, supposedly it sounds good on paper but doesn't appear to work in practice.

Nonsense. Communism fails because it discards property rights and individual liberty in the name of collective outcomes. That is exactly what you're trying to do.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Show, don't tell.

Law tells, we're taking law.

That is neither common sense nor Biblical morality, that's arbitrary emotional reactions. Your position boils down to "principles are optional if they get in the way of what I think is good". That's not morality, that's authoritarianism in a dress.

No, it is common sense & Biblical morality. And what I think is good is Biblical morality, so yes, that is what it boils down to. You can call it authoritarianism if you want, but it's the equivalent of calling milquetoast conservatives Nazis for holding very basic, normal truths as self-evident--I'm not saying anything wild here.

Logic and reason ARE principles.
If you throw out principled consistency when it's inconvenient, what you're left with is a rationalization machine that bends the knee to whoever has the loudest feelings or the most popular religion.

Logic and reason are tools, not principles, you use them to gauge things. And I guess we better not let those with the wrong loudest feelings or religion near the levers of power, then.

The notion that speech should be censored when it leads to "undesirable behaviors" is 1:1 the reasoning used by every tyranny in human history.

Is this a denial that humans can behave undesirably? Are you some sort of anarchist or something, an anything goes kinda guy? It's not tyranny to have law and order.

Your subjective preferences about what is a "fag" or "damaging" are not a valid basis to restrict the rights of others.
If you don't believe in objective rights, your only alternative is power games, and there is always someone bigger and nastier waiting to use your "logic" against you.

See, you'd be right if I didn't specify about Biblical morality. So it's not my subjective preferences about anything, it's God's objective will which determines what is a valid basis for those things. Anything else is subjective: without God there are no objective rights, for whence would they be derived? Power indeed.

Nonsense. Communism fails because it discards property rights and individual liberty in the name of collective outcomes. That is exactly what you're trying to do.

Where do you get your rights from and why do you have them?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

No, it is common sense & Biblical morality. And what I think is good is Biblical morality, so yes, that is what it boils down to.

Saying "I believe X because someone said God said so" is subjective unless you can independently demonstrate that your God exists and that His will is knowable and binding. Otherwise, what you're saying is "I like what this book says and will treat it as unquestionable authority", which is dogma.
What happens when someone disagrees with your interpretation of "Biblical morality"? Or uses a different book? Or thinks your version of "order" is just a boot stomping on a human face forever?
You're not defending objective morality or solving the problem of subjectivity, all you've done is pick a team and demand everyone else bow to it.

Logic and reason are tools, not principles

Untrue. Logic is the principle that contradictions cannot exist. You can't both claim objective morality and deny that principles must apply consistently, even in cases you don't like. If you're allowed to silence others for "undesirable behavior", then so are they. Unless your concern isn't actually truth, but rather being the one holding the wip.

Are you some sort of anarchist or something, an anything goes kinda guy? It's not tyranny to have law and order.

Your position boils down to might makes right, with divine branding. Your "order" is nothing but obedience. Your "law" is nothing but servitude and control. Personally I prefer freedom.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Saying "I believe X because someone said God said so" is subjective unless you can independently demonstrate that your God exists and that His will is knowable and binding.

I don't have to demonstrate God exists, I just need to remind you that our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. Maybe if we were talking about a different country, not USA, you'd have a stronger position, but the Founding Fathers already asserted God's existence. We can but accept that or cope and seethe.

Otherwise, what you're saying is "I like what this book says and will treat it as unquestionable authority", which is dogma.

What happens when someone disagrees with your interpretation of "Biblical morality"? Or uses a different book? Or thinks your version of "order" is just a boot stomping on a human face forever?
You're not defending objective morality or solving the problem of subjectivity, all you've done is pick a team and demand everyone else bow to it.

People are free to disagree, that's not a problem, they just wouldn't be able to break the law. They can use another book to wipe their ass here, or take it elsewhere. And they can kiss the boot if they don't want the stomping of faces to continue forever.

See, I don't feel bad about supporting ideas which lead to good outcomes, even if you try these appeals to emotion. "Oh, the poor trannies and Muslims, they don't want to do good things, and they shouldn't be forced to or that's tyranny!"

We see how things work your way, not too great, let me have a crack at it instead.

Untrue. Logic is the principle that contradictions cannot exist. You can't both claim objective morality and deny that principles must apply consistently, even in cases you don't like. If you're allowed to silence others for "undesirable behavior", then so are they. Unless your concern isn't actually truth, but rather being the one holding the wip.

Logic is literally just a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment.

Now, we can squabble over what constitutes "good", not everyone will agree because it's subjective without God. If you say raping and killing a woman behind Arby's is good then who am I to disagree, on what basis? If I don't say "God said not to kill" then at best I can only say "I personally don't like it because of my feelings".

Your position boils down to might makes right, with divine branding. Your "order" is nothing but obedience. Your "law" is nothing but servitude and control. Personally I prefer freedom.

That's what your position boils down to actually, without divine branding. At the very least mine purports to be objective even from your perspective, even if you don't actually believe it. Yours is simply your own feelings and nothing else, not even the illusion of anything greater.

You may prefer freedom, but why should anyone care, religious or not? You'll be at the mercy of the governing powers, whatever they may be, that's your current reality in fact. You never answered if you're an anarchist or not, it seems like you are.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I don't have to demonstrate God exists, I just need to remind you that our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. Maybe if we were talking about a different country, not USA, you'd have a stronger position, but the Founding Fathers already asserted God's existence. We can but accept that or cope and seethe.

That's an appeal to authority wrapped in nostalgia. The Founding Fathers also believed in slavery and bloodletting, you reckon we should blindly carry those over too? Truth isn't decided by committee or inherited through parchment.
At least you're honest about being a blind dogmatist. That means you don't care whether your points are provably true, only that they give you a sense of righteous power. Aka cult behavior.

People are free to disagree, that's not a problem, they just wouldn't be able to break the law. They can use another book to wipe their ass here, or take it elsewhere. And they can kiss the boot if they don't want the stomping of faces to continue forever.

Cool, you're not arguing for a better world, you're fantasizing about punishing dissenters. Dominance and theocratic revenge above moral truth.

Logic is literally just a particular way of thinking

That's very rich coming from you. Didn't you claim to defend objective morality earlier? You can't just go and base your worldview on an objective source and then shrug when I point out your reasoning violates basic logic.

Now, we can squabble over what constitutes "good", not everyone will agree because it's subjective without God. If you say raping and killing a woman behind Arby's is good then who am I to disagree, on what basis? If I don't say "God said not to kill" then at best I can only say "I personally don't like it because of my feelings".

There's objective ethics and objective law. What's required for that is not God, but a non-contradictory standard grounded in reality, in this case it's individual rights. The act of murder violates the rights of the victim. The wrongness isn't defined by divine decree, it's found in the logical contradiction of treating people as simultaneously autonomous and disposable. You can't defend your own life as secret while allowing others' to be trampled.

At the very least [my position] purports to be objective

If your standard of morality is "God said so" and you can't demonstrate that God exists, or agree on what He meant, then all you're doing is picking a tyrant and calling him God.

You may prefer freedom, but why should anyone care, religious or not?

Because the alternative is your boot. Because any worldview that reduces people to pawns for a system is a cult of slavery.

You never answered if you're an anarchist or not, it seems like you are.

I believe it's delusional to claim that states do not commit aggression and I also believe it's impossible to prove that aggression is justified. Since I believe these two things consistently and without exception, yes, that makes me an anarchist.
Arguing that people will always be ruled is not something that refutes or disproves any of these things. Saying that "there will always be murder" is not a valid counter-argument against "murder is wrong" or "we should do something about murder".

 

[Sammich]

I should have free speech, you shouldn't. If i'm in power, you don't get free speech, if i'm not in power I should get free speech to take you out of power. Speech is a weapon, why would you let your enemies have a weapon that can harm you?

 

[McMitch]

I should have free speech, you shouldn't. If i'm in power, you don't get free speech, if i'm not in power I should get free speech to take you out of power. Speech is a weapon, why would you let your enemies have a weapon that can harm you?

If you enshrine mechanisms to disarm your enemies, then when they gain power over you it will be the first thing used against you.

Limiting speech because you think it will provide you permanent advantage over your political opponents is short-sighted to the extent of self-sabotage.