3 ms·

You are not a proponent of free speech. You're a proponent of speech that you don't find offensive. It is, in my opinion, okay to hold those views. You're abso

by KGIII 9y ago

You are not a proponent of free speech. You're a proponent of speech that you don't find offensive. It is, in my opinion, okay to hold those views. You're absolutely entitled to have those views. However, you're not a proponent of free speech. Free speech allows people to say all lawful things. Threats and slander are unlawful and aren't protected speech. Child pornography is illegal. There are many things freedom of speech doesn't protect. I have no major complaints about the legislation aspect as it currently is. I did not assert that rape threats were civil rights. No, those are illegal. Well, they are actually only illegal of they are credible threats. Slander is illegal. Credible threats of violence are illegal. Disclosure of classified data is illegal. Certain kinds of pornography are illegal. Inciting a riot is illegal. Credibly suggesting someone harm another is illegal. There are more but that's the gist. Those acts are illegal. What is not illegal is when some jerk comes and says, "I think all women should be raped." I think we can all agree that it is deplorable, but it is not illegal. 'It would be great if all those n&ggers were strung up.' is not illegal. But, "I'm going to get a truckload of us, come back, and string up them n&ggers!' is illegal. That last one is illegal because it has become a credible threat. When the neo-Nazi marches go on, complete with their fancy clothes, and shouting how they hate K&kes, N&ggers, Sp&cks, etc... and throwing up their Nazi solute - that's legal. It's deplorable, but legal. And I support free speech. That means I support their right to express themselves within the legal framework. The right to express yourself as you see fit is very much a basic human right. There are already limits. So, I support all lawful speech. That is what it means when you defend the freedom of speech. Anything else is not defending it. Anything else doesn't need to be defended. It is okay, really. At least it is okay by me. You don't have to support free speech. There are probably a list of other rights you don't support. The rights I support are in the US Constitution. I'd like to keep them there, but I accept that it is a living document.

kelukelugames 9y ago
Wow, that's a reasonable description and stance. What do you think of "free speech" advocates like Milo and Jack Posobiec? And the people marching at the freedom of speech rallies?
- KGIII 9y ago
  They do more harm than good, but the responses to them serve to show the importance of free speech.
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    Can you help me understand how they show importance of free speech? I don't think using toxic speech accomplishes anything.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Milo, for example, will go somewhere and they will drown him out, protest, and interrupt his speech. Sometimes, they even manage to get the invite rescinded. Slowly but surely, more and more people are seeing that people are trying to limit free speech. They are noticing that the universities are favoring certain types of speech. What they are doing is bringing attention to the attempts to silence people. Slowly but surely, we are winning this fight. More people notice, more people speak out, more people exchange their ideas. Their horrible speech (and Milo isn't that bad, I've listened to him) is enough to make people try to silence him. Before, it was quiet and nobody really noticed. Now, it has started to go mainstream. Now, those who weren't paying attention are seeing the changes that have been underway since the 80s. And they are starting to speak up. They are starting to say, 'No, let them speak.' It means more people are starting to speak out about our right to freely express and that many of those people aren't, you know, Nazis. Nazis make terrible frontmen for political movements. Really, they are just horrible people. We are getting more socially acceptable people speaking out, instead of the outlandish. It is a bit like how you can't mention State's Rights without being assumed to be a racist. That has been changing recently, as the subject matter is now weed and immigration. Those are easier causes for people to get behind than the racism usually associated with it. So, it's changing. I see speech values changing rapidly. I've been at this since the 80s. I'm not dead yet, so I might just as well keep fighting the good fight. On my side are people like EFF and the ACLU, so I am in good company.
      - kelukelugames 9y ago
s73ver_ 9y ago
Again, no. I reject your absolutism. To say that someone is not a proponent of free speech because they don't believe those things are part of it is completely inane. We will never agree on this topic. In the example you give, I do not see why either is acceptable, and I don't see why both are not a threat of violence. Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference. You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups. Few people are going to stick around somewhere that those things are commonplace. Thus, that community is censoring and silencing other groups.
- ThreePostWonder 9y ago
  One day, nationalism will be the only economic option left to get us out of the mess your moral grandstanding forced the rest of us to pay for. And if the freedom to propose that option is denied to ensure amicable reforms, those solutions will be implemented anyways without amicable reforms. Every word you utter is just, "My morality has more force than yours so you better comply." I'm willing to gamble vast sums of wealth your hubris does not sync up with reality. I'm willing to bet I can raise an army more violent and more numerous than you to prove it, too.
- KGIII 9y ago
  You can reject it all you want. You're still wrong. Free speech isn't speech you like. That's limited speech. This isn't complicated. You wish to limit speech. That means you don't support free speech. It's okay to hold that opinion, even though I don't agree with you. You'd probably be better served if you were honest with yourself and others. Twitter is not obligated to provide a platform of free speech. Which is good, because they don't. They are the exact opposite of free speech. Somewhere like voat.co is actually interested in free speech and, truth be told, they are as terrible as you might imagine. But, coming in and saying that you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate? Save that for someone else. It borders on insulting that you think I'm that naive.
  - skissane 9y ago
    > you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate Everyone wants to limit some speech. Do you support limits on fraudulent speech? Defamatory speech? Incitement to imminent lawless action? Speech that violates confidentiality obligations? Perjury? Everyone agrees that some speech is so harmful it needs to be prohibited. The dispute is whether we should allow or prohibit speech that causes harms of a lesser degree; it is a dispute about what is the right balance between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be harmed by speech. Everyone is a free speech advocate (in that everyone supports people having some freedom to speak), and everyone wants to limit speech (nobody wants that freedom to be unlimited.)

by KGIII 9y ago

kelukelugames 9y ago

Wow, that's a reasonable description and stance. What do you think of "free speech" advocates like Milo and Jack Posobiec? And the people marching at the freedom of speech rallies?

KGIII 9y ago
They do more harm than good, but the responses to them serve to show the importance of free speech.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Can you help me understand how they show importance of free speech? I don't think using toxic speech accomplishes anything.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Milo, for example, will go somewhere and they will drown him out, protest, and interrupt his speech. Sometimes, they even manage to get the invite rescinded. Slowly but surely, more and more people are seeing that people are trying to limit free speech. They are noticing that the universities are favoring certain types of speech. What they are doing is bringing attention to the attempts to silence people. Slowly but surely, we are winning this fight. More people notice, more people speak out, more people exchange their ideas. Their horrible speech (and Milo isn't that bad, I've listened to him) is enough to make people try to silence him. Before, it was quiet and nobody really noticed. Now, it has started to go mainstream. Now, those who weren't paying attention are seeing the changes that have been underway since the 80s. And they are starting to speak up. They are starting to say, 'No, let them speak.' It means more people are starting to speak out about our right to freely express and that many of those people aren't, you know, Nazis. Nazis make terrible frontmen for political movements. Really, they are just horrible people. We are getting more socially acceptable people speaking out, instead of the outlandish. It is a bit like how you can't mention State's Rights without being assumed to be a racist. That has been changing recently, as the subject matter is now weed and immigration. Those are easier causes for people to get behind than the racism usually associated with it. So, it's changing. I see speech values changing rapidly. I've been at this since the 80s. I'm not dead yet, so I might just as well keep fighting the good fight. On my side are people like EFF and the ACLU, so I am in good company.
    - kelukelugames 9y ago

s73ver_ 9y ago

Again, no. I reject your absolutism. To say that someone is not a proponent of free speech because they don't believe those things are part of it is completely inane. We will never agree on this topic. In the example you give, I do not see why either is acceptable, and I don't see why both are not a threat of violence. Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference. You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups. Few people are going to stick around somewhere that those things are commonplace. Thus, that community is censoring and silencing other groups.

ThreePostWonder 9y ago
One day, nationalism will be the only economic option left to get us out of the mess your moral grandstanding forced the rest of us to pay for. And if the freedom to propose that option is denied to ensure amicable reforms, those solutions will be implemented anyways without amicable reforms. Every word you utter is just, "My morality has more force than yours so you better comply." I'm willing to gamble vast sums of wealth your hubris does not sync up with reality. I'm willing to bet I can raise an army more violent and more numerous than you to prove it, too.
KGIII 9y ago
You can reject it all you want. You're still wrong. Free speech isn't speech you like. That's limited speech. This isn't complicated. You wish to limit speech. That means you don't support free speech. It's okay to hold that opinion, even though I don't agree with you. You'd probably be better served if you were honest with yourself and others. Twitter is not obligated to provide a platform of free speech. Which is good, because they don't. They are the exact opposite of free speech. Somewhere like voat.co is actually interested in free speech and, truth be told, they are as terrible as you might imagine. But, coming in and saying that you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate? Save that for someone else. It borders on insulting that you think I'm that naive.
- skissane 9y ago
  > you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate Everyone wants to limit some speech. Do you support limits on fraudulent speech? Defamatory speech? Incitement to imminent lawless action? Speech that violates confidentiality obligations? Perjury? Everyone agrees that some speech is so harmful it needs to be prohibited. The dispute is whether we should allow or prohibit speech that causes harms of a lesser degree; it is a dispute about what is the right balance between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be harmed by speech. Everyone is a free speech advocate (in that everyone supports people having some freedom to speak), and everyone wants to limit speech (nobody wants that freedom to be unlimited.)