3 ms·

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

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.)
  - KGIII 9y ago
    If you will do me a favor, you can read all the comments that I've made in this thread. I have already explained that and answered those questions. I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it. Just because it is legal doesn't make the speaker a good person. I do not want to limit speech more than it already is. I'd like to expand it in a few areas. Specifically, they have been making use of free speech zones since the 1980s. This was done by the DNC. Yup. The DNC were the first to use free speech zones. Outside those zones, speech wasn't free. Now, the front steps at the SCOTUS building are no longer a free speech zone. They moved the zone away from the public entrance. I want that fixed. I want all of them eliminated on property owned or paid for by the government. I want all public areas to be free speech zones. I love me some speech. I really do. I feel the same way about the government forcing me to house troops. I feel the same way about firearms. I can go on... All lawful speech should be permitted. Nobody is obligated to provide a platform and nobody is objigated to listen. Really, take five minutes and read my other comments. It will probably help. If you still have questions, I'll try to help. I don't expect to change your mind, by the way. I just give you a point where you can pick a direction. These same rights I mention, they are also your rights. I am positive you say things that people think are offensive and hurtful. Well, you have that right. I aim to make sure you can keep that right.
    - 9y ago
nate_meurer 9y ago
> "Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference." Tough shit. Trump doesn't see any difference between questioning his net worth and threatening his business and way of life, and he wants to use the power of the state to punish journalists who insult him so egregiously. As another example, there are plenty of folks out there who would like to see you punished for the insults against cops that I've read in your past comments. The line I often hear from LEOs is that such mindless prognostication on topics like Eric Garner's death ultimately costs police lives, and should therefore be treated as terroristic speech. Our dear president seems to agree, so this is not an idle threat. You really don't want to live in world you're promoting, whether you know it or not. > "You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups" Cool, so it sounds like you'll empathize with the white nationalists who claim to be silenced and oppressed by constant pro-immigrant propaganda from the media. There's a very good reason this line of reasoning has never been used in the U.S. as a criteria for deciding whether speech is protected.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

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.)
- KGIII 9y ago
  If you will do me a favor, you can read all the comments that I've made in this thread. I have already explained that and answered those questions. I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it. Just because it is legal doesn't make the speaker a good person. I do not want to limit speech more than it already is. I'd like to expand it in a few areas. Specifically, they have been making use of free speech zones since the 1980s. This was done by the DNC. Yup. The DNC were the first to use free speech zones. Outside those zones, speech wasn't free. Now, the front steps at the SCOTUS building are no longer a free speech zone. They moved the zone away from the public entrance. I want that fixed. I want all of them eliminated on property owned or paid for by the government. I want all public areas to be free speech zones. I love me some speech. I really do. I feel the same way about the government forcing me to house troops. I feel the same way about firearms. I can go on... All lawful speech should be permitted. Nobody is obligated to provide a platform and nobody is objigated to listen. Really, take five minutes and read my other comments. It will probably help. If you still have questions, I'll try to help. I don't expect to change your mind, by the way. I just give you a point where you can pick a direction. These same rights I mention, they are also your rights. I am positive you say things that people think are offensive and hurtful. Well, you have that right. I aim to make sure you can keep that right.
  - 9y ago

nate_meurer 9y ago

> "Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference." Tough shit. Trump doesn't see any difference between questioning his net worth and threatening his business and way of life, and he wants to use the power of the state to punish journalists who insult him so egregiously. As another example, there are plenty of folks out there who would like to see you punished for the insults against cops that I've read in your past comments. The line I often hear from LEOs is that such mindless prognostication on topics like Eric Garner's death ultimately costs police lives, and should therefore be treated as terroristic speech. Our dear president seems to agree, so this is not an idle threat. You really don't want to live in world you're promoting, whether you know it or not. > "You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups" Cool, so it sounds like you'll empathize with the white nationalists who claim to be silenced and oppressed by constant pro-immigrant propaganda from the media. There's a very good reason this line of reasoning has never been used in the U.S. as a criteria for deciding whether speech is protected.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]