...no matter who's speaking.

Not being able to express an opinion and having an opinion be illegal is a pretty dangerous idea. People on the left often want their ideas to be law just as much as people on the right. When the right wing decides to do that, then it becomes a really big issues for marginalized people. If the tables are turned, and the situation didn’t favor the left wing, then we would be the ones hoping for neutrality and freedom of speech. I don’t agree with far right politics at all, yet I still think it’s important to stand up for their rights to freedom of speech, because if the opposite was true then we’ve created a government which can control whatever people say regardless of if it’s right or wrong.

It seems like hate speech laws are so vague they could be twisted to mean anything. It’s just like I said, if someone right wing decides to get into office and define what hate speech means, then they would be the ones deciding what speech should be restricted. A prime example of why freedom of speech should be allowed, look at vladimir putin in russia. He has restricted “pro gay propaganda”, people aren’t allowed to have gay pride parades or say pro gay stuff. That’s horrendous against human rights and it’s one of the reasons I despise putin.

Another reason, is that if you tell people they can’t say something when they have shitty opinions, they will never learn why their shitty opinions are shitty. There was recently a right wing politician named Geert Wilders, who got prosecuted by the courts for hate speech against Muslims, wanting to ban all muslims and the koran, close all masques, and leave the european union if he becomes prime minister. His popularity since the guilty verdict has risen, he may become the dutch next prime minister. That shows that even if you try to limit what people think, that won’t actually change what they think, people will still hold their idiotic beliefs and they will just form an uprising and rebel against the people telling them what not to think.

I mean, there’s puritanical laws throughout all history, from the left wing and the right wing. It’s two sides of the same coin though, it will always lead to the same thing. The fact is that throughout history it’s been absolutely ubiquitous, that there’s going to be two different groups of opinions - a group of people who want reform and enlightened new ideas and progress, and a group of red necks who want to hold on to old ideas and have a hard time thinking in nuanced ways and are bigoted people. If you listen to people talk about all the way back to roman times, this is still a ubiquitous part of human culture. So, unfortunately it’s just another one of those things where we’re not going to be able to solve the problem by simply trying to control what people think.

I think about george orwell, and his book 1984. It’s amazing how that book has non partisan support. I think it’s because the ideas he’s expressing are universal. The reason that people on both sides try to claim orwell, is because there’s something astoundingly universal about the message he was trying to make. What both conservatives and liberals can agree on, is that they don’t want thought crimes, they don’t want omnipresent governments watching over them and arresting them if they detect descent. This is why people hold orwell to such a high regard. It’s not just that it’s the book saying these things which make them true, it’s that it’s reflected in the general opinion of the audience, that the ideas are universal.

Free speech is great an all, but does it djent?

"There was recently a right wing politician named Geert Wilders, who got prosecuted by the courts for hate speech against Muslims, wanting to ban all muslims and the koran, close all masques, and leave the european union if he becomes prime minister."

This is incorrect on so many levels.

Oh, really? Well you're not going to bother defending your point of view so you're dismissed.

FLEE BTFO

Flee prepping them truth bombs

Quote from: Dietrich Six on December 18, 2016, 01:26:28 PM

Flee prepping them truth bombs

why are you constantly on his dick

It's not so much that I'm on his dick but that he shuts down the people I don't like.

It's magnificent every time

Freedom of speech is the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to verbally harass someone.

Freedom of expression is the freedom to hold whatever opinion you'd like and let it be known you hold it, without persecution.

One is a joke, the other is the foundation of democracy.

actually "freedom of expression" is an umbrella term for the five freedoms--speech, assembly, petition, press, religion

what you described as freedom of expression is still freedom of speech--harassment, threats, yelling fire, etc. are simply cited as exceptions that are not protected under free speech laws

Quote from: Verbatim on December 18, 2016, 05:15:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on December 18, 2016, 04:53:55 PM

Freedom of speech is the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to verbally harass someone.

Freedom of expression is the freedom to hold whatever opinion you'd like and let it be known you hold it, without persecution.

One is a joke, the other is the foundation of democracy.

actually "freedom of expression" is an umbrella term for the five freedoms--speech, assembly, petition, press, religion

what you described as freedom of expression is still freedom of speech--harassment, threats, yelling fire, etc. are simply cited as exceptions that are not protected under free speech laws

nah

Destroyed

Quote from: SecondClass on December 18, 2016, 04:53:55 PM

Freedom of speech is the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to verbally harass someone.

Freedom of expression is the freedom to hold whatever opinion you'd like and let it be known you hold it, without persecution.

One is a joke, the other is the foundation of democracy.

I don't think I've ever seen that distinction made before and I've had to read a ton about free speech and limits to human rights. Is this some American approach I'm not familiar with?

No, SecondClass just likes to redefine things a lot based on his own conception of how things work. Which would be fine if he made that clear, but he doesn't ever.