6 ms·

I think it's okay to be disgusted by what spoken of somewhere, and aware of the harm it can potentially cause, yet guard fiercely the ability to say it. I don'

I think it's okay to be disgusted by what spoken of somewhere, and aware of the harm it can potentially cause, yet guard fiercely the ability to say it. I don't think freedom of speech should be axiomatic, though. Firstly, I take a realist stance -- it isn't treated that way by the world, there are some things you could say that would make your life much worse. Second, it seems that freedom of speech is a good heuristic due to how awful the alternative is: forcibly inflicting silence on people. But there are many degrees between speech and glorified, internationally accessible scum, and that's often what ends up on the internet -- I'm not sure it deserves much more glorification.

vaksel 18y ago
You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at the same time, so I guess there are plenty of people who don't mind the openness of the site. Freedom of speech IS axiomatic, in the bill of rights they didn't write..."freedom of speech, except when it disagrees with our beliefs", all the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights are not there to protect the opinions of the majority, they are there to protect the opinions of the minority. Sure its not treated this way in the real world, and that's where the hypocrisy lies. All these people being proud of "the freedoms we enjoy in America", are usually the same people who then go around and start telling everyone what they can or can't do. Internet really is the last standing bastion of actual freedoms. I can call you a little bitch when you act like one, and you won't run to the boss crying about getting your feelings hurt. No there aren't any degrees, when you start applying degrees and stop giving a shit because it doesn't apply to you that's when you start helping others to strip away your own rights. The key is to set precedent, and when you have one its much easier to go for the bigger fish. And here is a good quote for you: "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." So you may disagree with whats being said, but you really need to take the approach of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." because if you don't, it won't be long before it affects you.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent. When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become. One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.
  - pg 18y ago
    Though I agree with your point about freedom of speech being internally inconsistent, the founding fathers definitely meant speech to include the printed word.
  - vaksel 18y ago
    a) There is more to trolling than "bigot firefights". That's amateur hour. Real trolling is coming to say a PC forum and calling them retards for not owning a mac b) And I would hardly call 4chan a big firefight either. Its not like its stormfront, its not like the site is only about racism. That's the whole point of the site, everything that is not illegal goes. And who are you to impose your morality on other people? c)You can run your site however you want, you have the freedom.Like I said, if you don't like it, stop your bitching, close your browser, and move on with your life. d)Like I said thats the whole point of freedom of speech, its not there to protect "not intrusive" speech, its there to protect the speech that makes religious zealots like you, bitch and moan about, like video games, just because the main characters uses the word fuck. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" e) There you go again selectively choosing which rights people should have. Ok I'll play your little game, we aren't allowed to use freedom of speech about published content that people can see(even though if you read this wiki entry it specifically talks about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet). But then using your distorted view of the bill of rights, we can then use the freedom of the press to justify keeping the speech on the internet free. f) Yet this is EXACTLY what you are doing, you want to deny other people their freedom of speech, just because you disagree with what they say. Calling someone a bitch does not intrude on their freedom of speech, they can call you a faggot right on back.

vaksel 18y ago

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at the same time, so I guess there are plenty of people who don't mind the openness of the site. Freedom of speech IS axiomatic, in the bill of rights they didn't write..."freedom of speech, except when it disagrees with our beliefs", all the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights are not there to protect the opinions of the majority, they are there to protect the opinions of the minority. Sure its not treated this way in the real world, and that's where the hypocrisy lies. All these people being proud of "the freedoms we enjoy in America", are usually the same people who then go around and start telling everyone what they can or can't do. Internet really is the last standing bastion of actual freedoms. I can call you a little bitch when you act like one, and you won't run to the boss crying about getting your feelings hurt. No there aren't any degrees, when you start applying degrees and stop giving a shit because it doesn't apply to you that's when you start helping others to strip away your own rights. The key is to set precedent, and when you have one its much easier to go for the bigger fish. And here is a good quote for you: "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." So you may disagree with whats being said, but you really need to take the approach of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." because if you don't, it won't be long before it affects you.

DaniFong 18y ago
I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent. When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become. One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.
- pg 18y ago
  Though I agree with your point about freedom of speech being internally inconsistent, the founding fathers definitely meant speech to include the printed word.
- vaksel 18y ago
  a) There is more to trolling than "bigot firefights". That's amateur hour. Real trolling is coming to say a PC forum and calling them retards for not owning a mac b) And I would hardly call 4chan a big firefight either. Its not like its stormfront, its not like the site is only about racism. That's the whole point of the site, everything that is not illegal goes. And who are you to impose your morality on other people? c)You can run your site however you want, you have the freedom.Like I said, if you don't like it, stop your bitching, close your browser, and move on with your life. d)Like I said thats the whole point of freedom of speech, its not there to protect "not intrusive" speech, its there to protect the speech that makes religious zealots like you, bitch and moan about, like video games, just because the main characters uses the word fuck. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" e) There you go again selectively choosing which rights people should have. Ok I'll play your little game, we aren't allowed to use freedom of speech about published content that people can see(even though if you read this wiki entry it specifically talks about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet). But then using your distorted view of the bill of rights, we can then use the freedom of the press to justify keeping the speech on the internet free. f) Yet this is EXACTLY what you are doing, you want to deny other people their freedom of speech, just because you disagree with what they say. Calling someone a bitch does not intrude on their freedom of speech, they can call you a faggot right on back.