Free Speech: Let's do this properly

To focus on the free speech aspect of this problem, let's take an example that isn't particularly contentious, and doesn't have extraneous outside factors. 'Should I be allowed to say that the sun goes around the Earth?' I find myself thinking that while I believe people should be allowed the freedom to express a factually incorrect belief such as the one in this example, allowing such freedom comes with the negative consequence of facilitating the spread of misinformation, which I'm very opposed to.

Anyone else want to have an opinion on this apparent paradox? Is my premise incorrect? Does one of these considerations outweigh the other? I honestly don't know which side to advocate here; I'm basically for freedom of speech but against its consequences and not sure what to do about it.
see, here's the thing. i don't like the idea that unilaterally people can be denied a platform. i definitely think the best way to drown out stupid speech is to let people talk about it and eventually they will be proven wrong. i think other people's opinions are worth listening to. but...
The problem with the 'market place of ideas' is that it is vulnerable to the spread of delusional-characteristic false beliefs. This is because in a capitalist society individuals' behaviors are best explained according to their need to acquire capital. Milo Yiannapoulos uses tactics that are very profitable for him because of all the controversy generating attention. This includes what beliefs they are hold/available for them to hold and they pass much of their way of thinking, often, onto the next generation. They actually pass on literally thousands of false beliefs, but almost of none of them do any harm. Except some, such as white supremacy, chauvinism, and fear of difference, are especially toxic because they are so profitable. Systems predicated on these beliefs are actually the main sources of profit historically, aside from animal domestication and the destruction of the ecology of the earth.

So what happens when the idea needed to save society from collapsing isn't profitable? Hint: this is the reality we are facing if you believe in climate change.
So a major point of tension is between the 'marketplace of ideas' leaving all speech to be filtered and sorted on its merits by a democratic society, versus the reality that this freedom allows some false ideas to be introduced into the marketplace, many of which are dangerous and yet will sell because they are appealing.

Some thoughts on this tension:

1. I don't think most free-speech advocates would argue for no restrictions on speech whatsoever - attacking free speech absolutism is something of a straw man. To run with the 'marketplace' analogy, even free markets in capitalist societies are subject to consumer protection laws. You can't lie about a product you're selling, and if you are discovered doing so, you'll be punished and taken off the market. I think free-speech advocates would agree that imminent and demonstrable harm - and harm not in the form of mere offence but in the form of violence or incitement to it - is an instant disqualification from free speech protection. But would it disqualify anti-vaxxers or seven-day creationists? Probably not the former - because any potential harm is easy to remedy with clear presentation and ready availability of more accurate facts - and surely not the latter - because I think the causal and tangible harm in that scenario is shaky at best.

2. Respectfully, I think the problem with Myzozoa's resolution of this tension is that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Surely there are several way-stations along the way to protecting against dangerous ideas in the marketplace before we need to resort to banning the expression of those ideas altogether? The role of free media in assisting the marketplace to identify the dangerous ideas has been mentioned above and is absolutely essential.
I think the #lastnightinsweden incident was a great example of this. This week Trump all but said that there was a terrorist attack in Sweden the previous night. If all I had done was listen to his address, I could believe that. It was said by the POTUS, after all, someone whom you could reasonably trust to have good information on that kind of thing. But because I am an active participant in democracy - no great feat, no genius involved - I also accessed some good journalism from our national public news website, which succinctly stepped through the statements from Swedish officials that made it clear that Trump was wrong. It was a matter of minutes. Because I have access to good journalism (and in this instance my government was good enough to fund it), no harm was done. If anything I am better informed on the terrorist threat levels in Sweden than I was before Trump opened his mouth. Again I didn't do anything noteworthy or difficult or strenuous, I just took advantage of reliable resources at my disposal. And at no point did I even come close to needing anyone to shield me from Trump's words as the only possible way to protect me from the harm of being misled.

tl;dr Efforts to combat dangerous speech in a marketplace of ideas shouldn't jump straight to censorship - there are more moderate measures that will effectively expose dangerous speech for what it is, and the most important of these is the promotion and protection of free media.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I am not so worried about fake news in the long term. The vast majority of people and enterprises value information based on facts. If the current media environment is not up to par, I think that organizations dedicated to fact checking (which already exist) will simply be expanded/integrated to play a bigger role and be more visible. Facebook/Google are already trying to figure out how to automate their feeds/services with data from these types of partners in place. Marketers are also demanding of brand safety partners that "fake news" be analyzed and settable as a black-listable category (like adult entertainment, drugs, etc.).

I hope that the market will make ways for the verification/support behind claims becomes more visible, and consumers also learn to consume visible metrics from trusted 3rd party organizations that can be served alongside content. In many outlets, there are technological solutions to this problem if enough money and eyeballs are thrown at it.

In the short term... ughhh.....
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Tasellus But I haven't actually suggested that any speech should be banned. Just the opposite, I have argued for a more expansive conception of free speech, the one that we in fact have, which includes the freedom to be civilly disobedient. Our laws are currently in the process of being rewritten or added to, in order to change how protestors' speech is policed. I am arguing for free speech, and in fact, for more free speech than any person who claims that destroying property is not protected expression. The Bill of Rights provides for freedom of assembly, freedom to be armed, and freedom of association. These are all various protections of expression. So I am actually taking the most 'conservative' position possible, arguing for no changes to the current and historical legal status of protests, while arguing for an expansive notion of protected expression than others itt. In saying that 'destruction of property' is legitimate political expression, I'm merely arguing, for example, that if protestors are protesting in front of a for-profit abortion clinic, they should not be able to be sued for disrupting the activities of that business. Yes, I would also claim that much physical destruction of property as political expression is legally appropriate according to America's constitution (remember the boston tea party?).

The founding fathers imagined that governments and businesses could not be entrusted with securing democracies' healthy information environment hence the need for free speech, and they also envisioned that protesters organized by civil society would check the government. Checks and balances, 'three branches of government', do you imagine that the founding father's forgot about the people? Of course not, thats hence there is a bill of rights. But if the people don't advocate for their rights, but are entrapped by brainwashing into arguing against their rights, they will have dug their own grave.

This is a problem with american political discourse: people don't understand what any of the terms mean. They're so lost. Thats why they keep calling the left 'liberals' (i.e capitalists) when their actual orientation is socialist democrats, i.e, republicans from a historical standpoint, meanwhile the GOP, who support free-market ideals in rhetoric only, are the actual liberals, or neoliberals/neocons, which are the same thing. They're so lost that they think that violent expressions that will foment the murder of millions in future generations at the minimum are not violent at all, and measures taken to draw attention to violence and resist institutions responsible for it, i.e protests, are actually the more violent forms of expression. So violent that 'the police need to shut them down'. They want to be able to just call the cops to break up a protest.

d@Tasellus My argument, about a peaceful marketplace of ideas, is that it is an unrealistic and unachieved ideal because under capitalism humans are motivated to violence and to accepting justifications for that violence, because so much profit depends on it. It is all fine to note the role of free media in keeping you informed and armed against disinformation, I absolutely agree. I also point out that when the dangerous ideas that prey on a market place of ideas become the regimes' policy, as they have very frequently lately, it is vital to ensure that the rights of protestors and dissenters are protected as these exist in order to, in conjunction with a free press, to precipitate resistance. The organized people were always seen by democratic theorists as a check on their government.


Across the U.S legislation is being introduced in state legislatures to impede the ability of civil society to organize legal protests. Soon the GOP will have a anti-protest legislation 'playbook' available as a resource for any legislator to draft and introduce as bills to their assembly. Sure it won't work everywhere, but if you want to know why I think what I'm saying matters, that is why. Not to mention that I cannot stand the whiny virtue signaling of 'moderates' that use any reason to condemn a protest as a riot.

The idea that businesses will step in and save us is a joke, but I guess I still hope you're right.

I'm sorry that there is this thing called 'politics'. That politics exists at all, is bad enough. There shouldn't be politics at all, in the first place. That is the original principle of politics, that it is always already evil, already wrong. There are no political opinions, as politics is founded on the fact of reality. However, while there are no proper political opinions, there are political objectives.

The Clash (I'm sticking to a musical theme for this thread I guess) also have a song about the original wrong of politics, which is that it exists, called 'bankrobber', it has three relevant lyrics to this post:

"Her daddy was a bankrobber, but he never hurt nobody."

and

"Some is rich and some is poor,
and thats the way the world is

but I don't believe in lying back
and sayin how bad your luck is"

"The old man spoke up in a bar
Said I never been in prison.
A lifetime serving one machine
Is ten times worse than prison"

In bold we have the original wrong of politics.

Note: not all of this post is addressed at just Tasellus' remarks.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
oi sneaking in arson as free speech is cheating, unless you can reasonably argue the unity of speech-act with bodily agency.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
oi sneaking in arson as free speech is cheating, unless you can reasonably argue the unity of speech-act with bodily agency.
are you kidding me with a 1 line reply? i gave a lot of examples of what i had in mind, very specific examples and motivations.

it's called freedom of association and freedom of assembly, go read the constitution and associated rulings, and international treaties. you can have protests and civil disobedience. where did i mention arson?

glad we did this properly.

and define arson please. that is so vague.

this isn't about philosophy, this is historical and legal. smh @ category errors.

edit: "Expressive conduct, also called "symbolic speech" or "speech acts," is nonverbal conduct that intends to communicate a message." how is that for bridging the body agent speech act gap (w.e that is)
 
Last edited:
Free speech is great. As a Brit, I'm on the periphery of the culture war that has exploded stateside, although I am feeling the ripples. But I have a story to share from my side of the Atlantic - I don't know how well known it is over there.

It's 2009 and the political establishment is wobbling. At the European Parliament elections (ha! remember those?) the far-right BNP have won 6% of the vote and two MEPs - they have also won council elections up and down the country. And "far-right" is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot these days, often to mean nothing more than "something I don't like, which is to the right of my political preferences" - but these guys really are neo-Nazis that make Donald Trump look like Nelson Mandela.

The BBC invites the party leader, Nick Griffin, to be a guest on Question Time - a weekly show hosting debate from figures across the political spectrum. Needless to say, there is outrage from both sides of Parliament - not to mention the general public - calling for the BBC to suffocate this poisonous fascist, and on no account to give him the platform to speak to a wider audience. Depending on your viewpoint, this is either a heartening readiness to lay down the normal partisan point-scoring and display admirably unified opposition, or it's a sign of fear that the political consensus is being disrupted, or of guilt that the political classes could through neglect push their voters to such extremes. But whatever the motivation, politics as usual seems to stop in the few days before the programme as the nation holds its breath. Will the BBC blink?

Not a chance. As a public-service broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to showcase as wide a variety of opinion as possible, and in this instance is merely acting on its own guidelines. Mark Thomson, the platform's director general, issues a statement explaining that the move is not an endorsement of the BNP, nor even an acceptance of their political legitimacy, but merely a consequence of their recent electoral performance. The calls get louder as the day approaches, but the BBC stands its ground. It has the good fortune to be in funded by a licence fee so it can't be accused of using shock tactics to chase advertising revenues.

8 million people - more than twice as many as have ever watched the show before - settle down on a Thursday evening in front of the television. Some are watching through their fingers, some have cracked out the popcorn, and some are genuinely interested by what Mr Griffin has to say. The title theme plays, the host David Dimbleby introduces the guests, and... Nick Griffin opens his mouth. And the country hears what he says, and - guess what! - they find it repulsive. Even the right-wing newspapers recoil in horror on the following day's front pages. In the following year's general election the BNP win just 2% of the vote and don't come remotely close to winning anywhere. By 2016 they disappear completely, with the few people still left in the organisation going underground, waiting in vain for a fascist uprising that will never come.

Ever since that day in the autumn of 2009, I have believed in the power of free speech. You don't defeat fascism by ignoring it - you expose it and let it defeat itself.
 
Hiya, newbie tagging in here at 1am in the morning, because obviously talking politics on a Pokémon forum is the most efficient use of my time.

As a student journalist, the topic of freedom of speech comes up at least daily for me, and it's a rather difficult sort of concept to discuss, particularly in America, where we have this whole "political correctness" fixation which is actually more of a distraction of the actual erosion of our freedom of speech than an actual blocker on it, at least from my observation. See, in America we have this hero-worship of all things patriotic and military and business, at least our more right-wing culture branches do. And they're most often the ones who vote and make themselves heard politically. Pride in one's country is all well and dandy, but when it comes at the expense of human dignity/freedom, then we have a problem.

That's right, I'm venturing into the forbidden area of "patriotic correctness," or the lovely tendency to justify censorship in the name of patriotism (which totally isn't for the state, that would be communist!).

I'm a fairly socially left-leaning independent in a more conservative part of town, and the number of times I've had people get upset at me for not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance is, well, fairly high. I have to wonder, why do these same people who get angry at "political correctness" for taking away their ability to use certain "offensive" terms and get angry at "safe spaces" get upset at my simple act of noncompliance? I've been told I'm disrespecting the veterans who have served, that I'm being unloyal to my country, and all that jazz, and honestly I find it hard to not see the parallels between those perceived slights and the disrespect they show to groups by using certain terms blocked by "political correctness."

It's already rather troubling that my school has weekly mandatory pledges of allegiance to the country, but the fact that disrespecting my country's heritage/my country's veterans is considered a graver crime than, say, insulting a vulnerable minority group really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Now, I respect veterans as much as the next person, but I have a real problem with patriotism as a whole. The idea that someone's culture/country/ideals are better than another's simply by virtue of them being their home/native ones is incredibly nationalistic and blinding, and can lead to serious clouding of judgement. I can safely say America is a hell of a lot better than many other countries in terms of civil rights, standard of living and the like based on fact, but I'm not arrogant to say we're the best/top in the world. But for me to insinuate we aren't or to call out our faults, or to, gasp, not participate in patriotic loyalism events, apparently makes me a traitor/unamerican? No thanks. I try to not be combative whatsoever when discussing American faults, and to use facts exclusively, but it's still very difficult not to be branded as a "liberal socialist."

Speaking of which, buzzwords which carry negative meaning in the eyes of the average American are being misused quite heavily. I have some socialist economic views (and some very capitalist ones as well), but the moment the word gets brought up, I'm a red unamerican who wants to dismantle our freedoms. It's impossible to hold any balanced conversation if people automatically brand you as an ineffectual socialist/communist who isn't compatible with American values.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to drive at is that people are getting way caught up in "political correctness," which, while it can be misguided and overly sensitive, is at least trying (hopefully) to preserve decency/be respectful of other people's wishes/identities or not use slurs against them, "patriotic correctness" is a dangerous nationalistic force that can easily shape someone's views and opinions into rigid, staunchly "America or die" mindsets which allow for no improvement or integration of other views. And also, "political correctness" is used by both the left and right wing social movements-have you noticed that homophobic websites always refer to gay people as "homosexuals" and but parentheses around "rights" or "marriage?" Or that "pro-life" websites often refer to people in support of abortion as "anti-lifers" or simply "pro-abortion?" I'm not particularly politically correct in any sense (may come from being a journalist and having to maintain a facts-based tone, though some of my wordage may be considered a bit "politically correct" for how neutral it is), and in some cases extreme political correctness can actually be harmful (see: years of dehumanizing gay people as "homosexuals," people being afraid to report abuse because the perpetrator is Muslim, etc), I would definitely make the case that, for the most part, what we deem "political correctness" (at least leftist) are attempts at respecting minorities/groups (e.g. Not using loaded slurs, trying to minimize misrepresentation) and "patriotic correctness" stifles attempts to protest their country's wrongs or introduce a potentially beneficial foreign concept. I'm not believing in a million years that my refusal to stand at the pledge of allegiance is unamerican or a crime, and most certainly not on par with that asshole who keeps using the term "(BAN ME PLEASE)" on purpose to anger and hurt the gay people around him.

And on a semi-related note, there are literally journalists being prosecuted for reporting about the post-election riots. Their charges? Promoting violence by reporting the violence. Seriously. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest

Anyway feel free to correct me if I fucked anything up/debate me, I'm up for anything really and it's now 2am on a school night, go me.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
are you kidding me with a 1 line reply? i gave a lot of examples of what i had in mind, very specific examples and motivations.

it's called freedom of association and freedom of assembly, go read the constitution and associated rulings, and international treaties. you can have protests and civil disobedience. where did i mention arson?

glad we did this properly.

and define arson please. that is so vague.

this isn't about philosophy, this is historical and legal. smh @ category errors.

edit: "Expressive conduct, also called "symbolic speech" or "speech acts," is nonverbal conduct that intends to communicate a message." how is that for bridging the body agent speech act gap (w.e that is)
It's only that I felt you needed to qualify that, instead of just starting a bracketed defense of ALL violence as equivalent. Why the fuck would I write an ultra-long tl;dr to ask a simple question. Arson was the random instance that came to mind, along with say damage to property etc; both of which happened in the Milo Berkeley protest btw. Sure you didn't use the word, but that is what you tried to bracket under a reactive understanding of protests. Which you then defended. I took issue with that. I'm sure you didn't write that humongous post to squirrel down the concerns and basically just make the point that peaceful, reasonable protests and demonstrations are o.k
"Doing properly" includes making sure you don't rely on uninterrogated assumptions so maybe chill with the snark and poindextering.
 
Last edited:
Tasellus d@Tasellus My argument, about a peaceful marketplace of ideas, is that it is an unrealistic and unachieved ideal because under capitalism humans are motivated to violence and to accepting justifications for that violence, because so much profit depends on it. It is all fine to note the role of free media in keeping you informed and armed against disinformation, I absolutely agree. I also point out that when the dangerous ideas that prey on a market place of ideas become the regimes' policy, as they have very frequently lately, it is vital to ensure that the rights of protestors and dissenters are protected as these exist in order to, in conjunction with a free press, to precipitate resistance. The organized people were always seen by democratic theorists as a check on their government.
Myzozoa That's fair, thanks for clarifying. I think I get where you're coming from now. Happy to concede that:

1. Dangerous ideas that prey on a marketplace of ideas are capable of being adopted by a regime, and
2. When that happens, there is a power imbalance.

And if I understand correctly, you then say that:

3. This imbalance undermines the ideal of a 'free market' because well-informed citizens can't simply choose to pass over that idea and give their support/vote to another idea, and therefore
4. It is important to protect the rights of protestors and dissenters as a check on the regime's power, but
5. People who might argue in support of 'free speech' don't seem to extend their support to protests (including the disruption of business/destruction of property).

Perhaps then it's the causality between 3 and 4 where I'm not fully on board yet - in the context of a discussion of free speech. I suppose I have in mind a recent Australian example where Parliament was disrupted by protestors aggressively dissenting against the treatment of refugees. From memory they posed a security risk and so Parliament couldn't sit. I see that as the unrestricted right to protest ending up disrupting the democratic process. A few politicians came out and said things like 'you are entitled to your opinion - you can express it every three years at the polls but not on the steps of Parliament House.' A bit overdone but I think you get my point - surely it's not difficult to see how an unrestricted right to process can end up undermining 'free speech' in the sense of an orderly, reasoned discussion of ideas? Violent protests put 'power' back in the hands of 'the people', sure, but not all people, and not equally - it seems to me to risk a devolution to the brute force bullying tactics that free speech protections are supposed to oppose. So I think this is why I don't extend my support of free speech to the position you've reached in 5 above.
 
On-topic: I fall in the first camp, obviously. I think once you start trying to police what is okay to say and what isn't, you will invariably end up where much of this forum has, where people take offense over the most benign things and most of the community becomes a hilarious echo chamber of vacuous pretentious drivel rife with misconceptions and inconsistencies between the ideas and the people themselves. But you wouldn't know that unless someone encroached upon your safespace and tried to point these things out to you. And you know, I love discussion. Even if it's hostile and I'm the only person on my own side, I love discussing ideas and exchanging them with other people, the heat does not bother me at all. Why should it? These are all harmless words, you all have no power over me personally except what power I choose to give you, and if I'm unable to face what it is that's being said then it is up to me to leave the discussion, and that's that.

People confuse the denial of a platform for censorship.
censorship
ˈsensərSHip/
noun
  1. 1.
    the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

It boggles my mind how many members on this forum apparently miss simple definitions like this. The denial of a platform is censorship. Censorship does not always have to come from big brother to be considered censorship

From Wikipedia:

Censorshipis the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
That's hilarious. You were advocating for the censorship of harmless pro-Trump Tweets in the thread I created several days back. You know, the one where your whining led to it being locked.

LOL. First of all, that was a joke post. I promise my whining didn't lead to a shit thread getting locked it was doing it on its own, that thread was ass, much like your posts.

Twitter alleges they violated the user agreement. If you can't behave well and people ignore you in a space, denying you use of that space, thats not censorship, that's privacy, property, and community. Censorship would be when people lose their jobs, experience violence, legal consequences for expressing beliefs, facts, and opinions that threaten an entity (gov. corp, etc). This is not the case with the trump tweets, twitter is not at all threatened by them and they could make new accounts, so they aren't even being silenced on twitter.

Your post precisely illustrates the problem with an unbounded free speech that would allow individuals to shirk their contractual obligations to behave in accordance with a certain standard of class.
From Wikipedia:

Censorshipis the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]
you finally found a bad wikipedia page: here is the actual definition of censorship in the citation on the wikipedia page:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

Definition of censorship
  1. 1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring They oppose government censorship.b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively censorship that has … permitted a very limited dispersion of facts — Philip Wylie

  2. 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor

  3. 3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
The definition in the article is unrecognizable. Nothing about free speech or political correctness is central to defining censorship, but at least you tried to get a source, thats rare. Censorship, from the roman empire, has been a concept long before any concept of free expression or political correctness.

Besides according to the definition you gave, prosecuting theft is indistinguishable from censoring a newspaper, after all it is just governments deciding it is 'harmful or inconvenient' expression to theft. THATS CENSORSHIP, GIMME MAH FREEDOM TO STEAL. (and also my freedom to cyber bully).

Honestly I don't like talking to yall that much because yall are so mind numbingly brainwashed.

Censorship- understood as that which inhibits the dispersal of facts, see def 1 given in the citation, is not at all opposed to free speech. If 'free speech' prevents the spread of facts in favor of disinformation, it has actually turned out to be censorship.
 
Last edited:
LOL. First of all, that was a joke post.
I totally believe you



https://i0.wp.com/img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/Zecro/trolling.png

Twitter alleges they violated the user agreement.
Which was incorrect, as was demonstrated by the very sources

Definition of censorship
  1. 1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring They oppose government censorship.b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively censorship that has … permitted a very limited dispersion of facts — Philip Wylie

  2. 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor

  3. 3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
The definition in the article is unrecognizable. Nothing about free speech or political correctness is central to defining censorship, but at least you tried to get a source, thats rare. Censorship, from the roman empire, has been a concept long before any concept of free expression or political correctness.

Besides according to the definition you gave, prosecuting theft is indistinguishable from censoring a newspaper, after all it is just governments deciding it is 'harmful or inconvenient' expression to theft. THATS CENSORSHIP, GIMME MAH FREEDOM TO STEAL. (and also my freedom to cyber bully).

Honestly I don't like talking to yall that much because yall are so mind numbingly brainwashed.

Censorship- understood as that which inhibits the dispersal of facts, see def 1 given in the citation, is not at all opposed to free speech. If free speech prevents the spread of facts in favor of disinformation, it has actually turned out to be censorship.
The Merriam definition is barely different; It too includes the practice in general as an instance of censorship, as is stated in the very first line.

And no, the physical act of theft is in no way likened to speech even by Wiki. You are attempting to stretch things way too far
 
Last edited:

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
The real question is "will violence be recognized as legitimate expression?" I'm talking particularly about the 'destruction of property', that 'frivolity' which protestors are so often accused of. Will society protect protestors' rights to protected expression? Free speech has always been about which speech should be protected, in legal terms. And since the 60's it was specifically about protecting the speech of dissenting groups such as the Black Panthers and communists. When protestors at UC Berkeley violently disrupted an attempt to host a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos they we're continuing the historic objective project of free speech which was famously vibrant at UC Berkeley, which has also been about protecting participatory pluralistic democracy including the integrity of intellectual institutions.
You know who destroyed property in order to make a political point? The Nazis on Kristallnacht. Breaking windows is not free speech. If I disagree with what you say on Smogon, can I come to your house and break windows?
And what made Milo fall from grace recently? Him hanging himself, not ANTIFA members burning up Berkeley. Milo's case proves why free speech is so vital.

So when the title of this thread says 'lets do this properly' that really tells the whole story about how free speech is bounded by conservatives in America: if you aren't speaking 'properly', which often has a racialized and gendered way of being enforced, your speech won't be protected. The alt-right loves to invoke free speech as a way of making it seem as though they are under attack when their speech consists in advocating for the death, incarceration or genocide (btw forced migration is genocide, look it up lol, banning syrian refugees contributes to genocide) of various groups.

Free speech doesn't exist so that someone can 'debate' whether or not women or black people/communities have basic rights that should be protected. We already debated whether women should have rights, we already debated whether climate change was real, we already debated whether minorities needed protection, we already debated whether or not 'homosexuality' was a mental illness. Free speech doesn't protect people whose platform is to advocate against the existence of certain groups. When the 9th district court affirmed the ruling against trump's ban on Muslims, they specifically discussed the president's prior rhetoric of 'muslim ban' when considering the legality of the executive order and its intent to discriminate.
OK, you want the alt-right to not advocate hate speech. Can I shut you up for anti-cop, anti-white, anti-male etc rhetoric? You want to be in power and censor people you disagree with. Fine. But Trump is president. If you say "free speech has limits, break property of people you disagree with" what stops Trump and Trump supporters from doing that, censoring you, breaking your property? You need to be ideologically consistent on issues as important as free speech, because the same laws used to censor your opponents can be used to censor you. You know in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic theocracies, atheists are jailed and punished for "disrespecting Islam"? And they quote Western law as precedent.
And let's not pretend censorship ends at the alt-right. People want to censor PewDiePie for fucking jokes. One of the thing WSJ showed was from a video where he said Youtube Heroes was like the Nazis. That joke doesn't work if you think the Nazis were good. Another one was literally from a video where he said the media was taking him out of context, then put it in as a joke. Censorship never has an end point. Once you give that power to the government, it never goes away and will only censor more.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56rAdAWYAAXudZ.jpg
And not even the alt-right is saying women don't deserve rights, they just point out that women and men are biologically different. So if you want to censor them for a strawman you come up with, that just proves my point that anyone can get censored.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C57S-leWYAI9qEW.jpg
College campuses, and the students who they are accountable to, have no obligation to allow white supremacists to speak on their campuses. These positions have no place in an intellectual environment, in the first place, there is documented histories of scientific progress being inhibited by negative attitudes and practices that exclude women and minorities. There is a Clash song about people who want to accommodate the young republicans at UC berkeley getting a neo nazi to come hold an event: "If adolf hitler flew in today/ you'd send him a limosine anyway." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/milo-yiannopoulos-protest-shooting-233962

Further, protests are a legitimate expression as much as the intended speech of the event being protest against. Protests are inherently reactive, they are responses, usually to some imminent physical violence, but it's the gospel of the sheep that it is actually the leftist protestors that are the violent ones. Such a projection, a deflection of blame on to the representatives of the victim, is a great way to lose track of the actual violence constantly taking place... mislay the blame on to fringe opponents. When they protest, beat them up, they deserve it, they were violent. Denying climate change is a qualification to hold elected office, but it is protestors that are going to get us killed? Police can start shooting them whenever they want in this political climate. When did protestors get so powerful? Tell me about the Soros conspiracy please.

And you'll be begging for leftist protestors when the water in American faucets becomes undrinkable. You'll be begging for leftist protestors when FEMA doesn't come for a month because they cant decide whether the earthquake/hurricane/ tidal wave "really" happened. You'll be begging for leftist protestors when police departments start charging for their services and all the poor people with guns are off government assistance. You're going to get a collapse of the government, congratulations this is what God always wanted since Reagan, Gingrich, Bush Sr and Jr, now Trump to be the Nero of America: "slay the beast", that is the american government, and "the government isn't the solution, it's the problem". But the 'liberal' media and Putin shills dare to call the protestors the anarchists... You'll see the what anarchy is like once the energy corporations are allowed to bring their private armies into continental america. You'll be wishing for a 'liberal bubble' to flee to, if you can afford it.
Once again, nobody wants to shut down leftist protesters. They just shouldn't be able to break windows. Also another strawman, milo is not a neo-nazi. Go to the daily stormer (first look at their banner lol) and search up what they think on milo. Oops, they hate him! And if police start shooting you, then you can shoot back. But then again you're probably anti 2nd amendment so that wouldn't be possible. Well the whole point of the second amendment is to protect the first (also freedom of religion, taxation without representation, etc).

And the idea of a liberal bubble? You mean state's rights? Well, to quote a certain genius philosopher,
Also 'states rights' are all about states' rights to allow slavery.
So no liberal bubbles in your world!
Not gonna address the rest because I agree with a lot of it, protests should be legal, but you strawmanned your opponents, assumed only awesome lovable perfect people will be in charge of the government instead of realizing you are opening the door to totalitarianism, and make a few other mistakes. So I still disagree with a lot of the points you made.
[edit: sorry i have no clue why the pictures are so big, i unembedded them, but they are quality memes, plz view them]
 
Last edited:

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
That's hilarious. You were advocating for the censorship of harmless pro-Trump Tweets in the thread I created several days back. You know, the one where your whining led to it being locked.
Your OP led to it being locked.

This is also pretty out of context in general. Stick to the argument, don't ad-hominem.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/opinion/sunday/ai-weiwei-how-censorship-works.html?

here we go again:

"... Wherever fear dominates, true happiness vanishes and individual willpower runs dry. Judgments become distorted and rationality itself begins to slip away. Group behavior can become wild, abnormal and violent.

Whenever the state controls or blocks information, it not only reasserts its absolute power; it also elicits from the people whom it rules a voluntary submission to the system and an acknowledgment of its dominion. This, in turn, supports the axiom of the debased: Accept dependency in return for practical benefits." -- Ai Weiwei

This is how Tasellus you can come to perceive that the people disrupting the australian legislature are disrupting the democratic process: in fact their act of protest asserting their rights as citizens, is actually democracy in action because the australian legislature is financed at the teat of corporate oligarchy and is guilty of wild infringements upon the rights and property of australia's citizens.

And when you do Tasellus consider my context of living in america:

http://www.snopes.com/woman-prosecuted-laughing-sessions/ - this is maybe more worrying.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-t...s-121259915.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb

I honestly have no idea what context the legislature was disrupted in, I follow Aussie politics, probably better than many aussies do, so here are 2 guesses:

1. protesting concessions to destroyers of the environment, such as corporations that mine or frack in australia.

2. violating the international treaties regarding the proper, normal, and legal, treatment of refugees.

In either case these it is obvious to everyone that it is actually the australian legislature that is doing violence to its body politic by neglecting to uphold australian citizen's expectation to a clean globe and/or to one day, in the event that their government goes all fascist or the environment takes its revenge or w.e, you aussies might be received welcomingly as refugees by some other state.

So there's a hot take on that, i'm happy to discuss it further.

I'll lay it out like a philosopher so that you all know I gave it to you, and no one can say I didn't do this 100% properly:


Here the problem of strength and weakness originates:

1. The weak perish of it;

2. those who are stronger destroy what does not perish;

3. those who are strongest overcome the values that pass judgment.

In sum this constitutes the tragic age.

-Nietzsche



So while you won't see me with antifa banner beating up whoever shows up claiming to be a neo-nazi at a rally, you can bet ill save my breath when it comes time to be told i should condemn them, or their tactics. Because I don't know how I would proceed if I was in their situation, in their communities.

Same goes for protests disrupting climate change denying or protests against administrations that violate norms about non-refoulment and treatment of refugees, refugees that are usually in the position of that of the forced migrant, which is that of the victim of a genocide or other similar level of catastrophe such as hurricane, famine, etc. at least as far as I'm concerned.

In these circumstances, where we assume a constitutional democracy is in place, but its substance is actually to con the people for the benefit of a corporate oligarchy, it would all be fine if the rights and freedoms of the citizens were maintained and actual existential threats such as climate change were prioritized.

But when the government, by acting on behalf of corporations and industries, contributes substantially to an existential threat, such as skirting basic international norms about how to treat people or to climate change; I believe this is sufficient to be force majeure and break whatever contract it is that exists that says I'm not supposed to interrupt because of the law or the respect for 'the democratic process' of the legislature and in return they will not be an existential threat to me. <- and there thats some legal terminology right there you so you know I'm doing this really properly and giving you a really good theory that you can later write a paper about and get an A- on, or w.e it is that you do with what I've supposedly revealed to you by laying it out 'properly'.


https://www.facebook.com/CityonaHillPress/videos/10154352787051968/

context: on a college campus, students occupy administration office spaces to pressure the administration to cease misusing funds (lawsuit to come), housing and facilities that had already been marked to serve certain students. Essentially, they had to resort to civil disobedience in order to get what they were already promised, what they already should have had access to. They shouldn't have had to protest, but they had to and they did. Just like the aussies: they shouldnt have to protest, they shouldnt have to break the law, but they do, because the laws are the police, and the police are anti-democratic. Hence I say: fuck the police. But, notice how polite and respectful the leaders are: even asking people stop clapping and to snap instead as it is less disturbing to the quietude of the campus. Direct action works and is certainly appropriate for meeting many objectives. I'm sure they were imminently aware of the violence that would likely ensue if police had been brought in to contain 'african and black caribbean student rioters' and thus they had to brilliantly execute and discipline a 3 day occupation involving hundreds of people that could disrupt campus administration without being sufficiently disapproved of to get violently pressed back. Do you get why I'm out here in this thread being like 'please respect protestors and recognize that wat you percieve as them doing violence is actually bringing attention and resistance against much greater and more substantive violences facing our democracies' yet? We need outside people to support and defend our expression the way they are currently defending neo-nazi's expressions.

Final addition:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/donald-trump-anti-protest-bills

More than 20 states have proposed bills that would crack down on protests and demonstrations since Donald Trump was elected, in a moved that UN experts have branded “incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law”.

So, again, if you don't like protests, I would only remind you that free speech isn't just for the expressions that you like.

I could go on and on, but even gun nuts intuit in some very basic and misguided way that there is no legal or actual equality or freedom without the capacity to protect and sustain it through violence. If the constitution promises equality, but there is no protection for minorized individuals and communities, then soon, either they will rise up and change the constitution, or they will disappear and the constitution will be changed to reflect their absence. Either way revolution is inevitable when the constitution promises equality but the political-economic conditions (oppression, but maybe a more precise term would be 'disenfranchisement') foreclose material equality.


just try not to hate me for posting in this thread as much as i hate me for it.
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/richard-spencer-gym?utm_term=.kcqxk9Yg4#.bwMXrOm9b

"I anticipate being kicked out from our gym, Old Town Sport&Health in Alexandria, VA, because I confronted Richard Spencer, aka the Neo Nazi who has moved his hate operations to Alexandria Virginia.

First, I want to note that this man is a supreme coward. When I approached this flaccid, sorry excuse of a man and asked ‘Are you Richard Spencer,“ this pendulous poltroon said "No. I am not.” But of course he was. (Recall that when he booked a restaurant reservation at Maggiano’s Little Italy Chevy Chase under a false name (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/alt-right-donald-trump-conference-restaurant)?

Second, I exploited the full range of my first amendment entitlements by telling him that this country does not belong to white men. As a white woman, I find his membership at this gym to be unacceptable. I found his membership at this gym to be an unfair burden upon the women and people of color–and white male allies of the same. I also loudly identified him as a neo-Nazi who has said, inter alia, the below detailed things.

Third, as the attached photo attests, this pusillanimous shitbird actually requested one of the African American Female Trainers to help him escape from my confronting him. Seriously? This superior race of a white man needed the help of a female African American? What kind of martial race member is he?


To my abject horror–a white woman defended him and yelled at me for making a scene and threatned to call the police to which I said “Do it. I’m not breaking the law.” She claimed that she had no idea who he was and expressed indifference to the same. I told her that when she googles this wretch, she should be ashamed of herself and apologize to me and every employee at this gym who must suffer the indignities of treating this man like a civilized person when he is orthogonal to a civilized person. He is a hateful, white supremacist who has no place in this century..much less our gym.

To refresh your memories, these are some of his “greatest hits”:

““America belongs to white men.” (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/07/america-belongs-white-men-alt-right-founder-says/)

Has saluted (using the Nazi salute of course) Trump as their Fuhrer (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/).

Has recently marched on Charlottesville to protest the removal of Gen Lee statue hollering "You will not replace us” and furthering “What brings us together is that we are white, we are a people, we will not be replaced.” To complete the fuckwitery he and his associate desported about with Tiki torches…because KKK-standard-issue torches are no longer available at Walmart. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/alt-rights-richard-spencer-leads-torch-bearing-protesters-defending-lee-statue/2017/05/14/766aaa56-38ac-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.c7c2cb9ea6dd).

Let’s get a few facts straight. The majority of employees of Old Town Sport&Health are women and/or people of color, whom “Dick” Spencer has repeatedly asserted (on his Twitter feed for example, https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer) to be inferior to his kind who are entitled to rule over us because we are not christian, white or have a vagina. (Also..fuck him again. With a giant strap-on and no lube.)

In my book, this is a clear case of a hostile environment being perpetrated by the general manager, who is an indifferent, asinine white feller who demanded that I remove my “Puck Trump” hat a few weeks back while asserting the “right” of this Nazi to join our gym some two months ago. Priorities anyone? He says that “corporate is working on this.” What a load of rubbish. He is the GM. He has the right to kick out folks…like me for telling a neo Nazi to go to hell…but not the neo Nazi, despite the hostile environment this creates for his employees who know who is..and most do.

Would any of you who are lawyers be willing to represent the trainers and employees of this gym–many of whom I love like family–on a percentage of win basis? These trainers are not well paid and they need this job. But this is high order bullshit. No one should have to put up with this just because they lack the resources to hire a lawyer.

I will be writing a piece in the HuffPo. I will be writing to corporate and demanding the firing of this GM and the ousting of this Nazi.

And the General Manger of Old Town Sport&Health is ultimately responsible for ensuring a safe, nonthreatening work environment for his employees. By allowing this savage into our gym, he has undermined his own position. He even asked one of the African American trainers to meet with him! Un-fucking-believable. Best part of this event this evening: the General Manger accused me of creating the “hostile environment” for hollering in a non-threatening way at this Nazi asshole. He has no idea what hornets nest he has kicked over.
I won’t rest until the GM is out and my friends at this gym are relieved of this hostile environment. "

richard spencer: "I am a model gym-goer"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../my_first_big_boy_trip_by_donald_j_trump.html
 
Last edited:
yes some freelance journalist from Boston making bad taste jokes about a terrorist attack that happened 4 hours ago.
 
Yes, I saw that. I think he's a huge asshole because of it but as long as the comments don't break Twitter's TOS I don't see a fundamental problem with it.
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
where does free speech slot in on people joking about terrorists incidents?
Your free speech ends where somebody else's freedom begins. Joking about terrorist attacks, the holocaust, slavery, or any other atrocity is repulsive and people who joke about such things should be called out on it, but as long as they aren't threatening anyone's safety or rights, they can't be legally punished.

An example of a more contentious issue is a remark Katie Hopkins tweeted in response to the Manchester bombing where she calls for a "final solution", a term literally used by the nazis wrt the holocaust. It's not very difficult to interpret this as a call for the limitations of muslims' rights or even an endorsement of outright violence against them. Not saying this should necessarily lead to prosecution, but it should clarify the difference between jokes and calls for political action.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top