Do you believe in free speech?

[Fuki 11in2000]

Do you believe in free-speech, political variety, and anti-bias, or are some views too dangerous/ignorant?

No this is not a rightoid bait post, I'm geniunely curious on your opinions, I think free speech should be allowed within commonly-accepted standards, no bias, but if you believe in bias, let me know, don't make snarky Redditor answers.

[Pocahawtness]

Originally posted by Dusk of Oolacile:

Free speech, yes, but also consequences of free speech. It doesn't mean you can say anything "for free".

This.

There are times when people say things that damage others, are lies, hate speech, incite violence and so on, and there needs to be consequences, and if they keep on breaking the law then they may even need to lose their right to freedom of speech.

It's no different to any other criminal. If people refuse to behave then they need to be denied access to social media.

[Fuki 11in2000]

Originally posted by ✡︎sprut✡(they/them)✡.il:

Originally posted by Fuki 11in2000:

I don't think that's covered by free speech.

What do you mean?

Complete free speech is the right to say anything to anyone and the Government cannot come after you.

I'm saying I agree with freedom of speech, but it does require some limitations where it infringes over's rights and the Government can and should come after you for doing so.

I'm saying America has free speech laws but also has laws against violent speech such as slander and leaking, theyre not exclsuive

[Fuki 11in2000]

Originally posted by Pocahawtness:

Originally posted by Dusk of Oolacile:

Free speech, yes, but also consequences of free speech. It doesn't mean you can say anything "for free".

This.

There are times when people say things that damage others, are lies, hate speech, incite violence and so on, and there needs to be consequences, and if they keep on breaking the law then they may even need to lose their right to freedom of speech.

It's no different to any other criminal. If people refuse to behave then they need to be denied access to social media.

Originally posted by Fuki 11in2000:

Guys, please just have the courage to say "I don't think people should be allowed to say stupid ♥♥♥♥", none of this Reddit obscurant "freedom from consequences" line, nobody's shaming you for it

[Scorpion]

Not only i believe in it, but i also practice and profess it. Despite arbitrary, whimsical, made up "consequences".

I am always interested in the opinions of others and seeking healthy conversations. Monologues, one sided narratives and enforced speech collectively, are the natural enemy of any intellectual individual. Put plainly, enemies of Free Speech are dumb.

Thankfully, lately, there is a domino effect, among media who openly attack and oppress Free Speech; or should i say, attackED and oppressED?

[Fajita Jim]

I believe the government should neither censor nor punish you for your speech.

Free parties are free to do either.

[Scorpion]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Free parties are free to do either.

Those who bash free speech, are neither "free parties" themselves, nor have any "freedom" to do anything by themselves and most importantly, FOR themselves, whatsoever.

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Scorpion:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Free parties are free to do either.

Those who bash free speech, are neither "free parties" themselves, nor have any "freedom" to do anything.

If I think what you say makes you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, I reserve the right to call you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Then kick you off my platform.

That's also freedom of speech.

[Fuki 11in2000]

Originally posted by Scorpion:

Not only i believe in it, but i also practice and profess it. Despite arbitrary, whimsical, made up "consequences".

I am always interested in the opinions of others and seeking healthy conversations. Monologues, one sided narratives and enforced speech collectively, are the natural enemy of any intellectual individual. Put plainly, enemies of Free Speech are dumb.

Thankfully, lately, there is a domino effect, among media who openly attack and oppress Free Speech; or should i say, attackED and oppressED?

The more accurate thing to say is "freedom from external consequences is stupid", most uses of it mean internal consequences which I think is stupid. Perhaps it means a support of free speech as a constitutional law but for private property to be able to censor, but it's kind of like paradoxically saying "you should be able to kick people off your property for saying ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" but also twisting into support free flowing speech for all places.

I personally think very big companies should be forced to support free speech within ethical boundaries, and geniune free speech not the Xitter ♥♥♥♥, as they are the primary hubs from which information flows. Smaller platforms should be able to treat it as their own property, if you say ♥♥♥♥ they dont like you get kicked off, maybe we have to consider the coercion and not simplify e-capitalism like lolberts do with psychical capitalism but then again you just need money and knowledge to establish your own alternatives, it's proven to not be very hard.

[✡︎sprut✡(they/them)✡.il]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

I believe the government should neither censor nor punish you for your speech.

Free parties are free to do either.

even if it infrindges on someone else's rights?

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by ✡︎sprut✡(they/them)✡.il:

even if it infrindges on someone else's rights?

Made up rights or actual legal rights?

Cause on the stage I built, you have very few actual legal rights, and even those end when I warn you about trespassing.

[Scorpion]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

If I think what you say makes you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, I reserve the right to call you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Then kick you off my platform.

That's also freedom of speech.

With all due respect, kind sir, speaking to somebody and kicking said somebody out, are two entirely different things or rather, polar opposites.

What kind of a barbarian equates speech with kick?

This is Preferential Treatment at its finest, as in Double Standards. Free Speech is all about hearing out, even those we personally want to kick or rather, especially them and at the same time, defend their right to be heard out.

[Fuki 11in2000]

Originally posted by Fuki 11in2000:

Originally posted by Scorpion:

Not only i believe in it, but i also practice and profess it. Despite arbitrary, whimsical, made up "consequences".

I am always interested in the opinions of others and seeking healthy conversations. Monologues, one sided narratives and enforced speech collectively, are the natural enemy of any intellectual individual. Put plainly, enemies of Free Speech are dumb.

Thankfully, lately, there is a domino effect, among media who openly attack and oppress Free Speech; or should i say, attackED and oppressED?

The more accurate thing to say is "freedom from external consequences is stupid", most uses of it mean internal consequences which I think is stupid. Perhaps it means a support of free speech as a constitutional law but for private property to be able to censor, but it's kind of like paradoxically saying "you should be able to kick people off your property for saying ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" but also twisting into support free flowing speech for all places.

I personally think very big companies should be forced to support free speech within ethical boundaries, and geniune free speech not the Xitter ♥♥♥♥, as they are the primary hubs from which information flows. Smaller platforms should be able to treat it as their own property, if you say ♥♥♥♥ they dont like you get kicked off, maybe we have to consider the coercion and not simplify e-capitalism like lolberts do with psychical capitalism but then again you just need money and knowledge to establish your own alternatives, it's proven to not be very hard.

I'm basically saying that you should have the right to express all opinions and all of the political spectrum unpopular or not if its not hateful or otherwise unethical and infringing but don't cry about your rights if people find that you're a piece of ♥♥♥♥.

[✡︎sprut✡(they/them)✡.il]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by ✡︎sprut✡(they/them)✡.il:

even if it infrindges on someone else's rights?

Made up rights or actual legal rights?

Cause on the stage I built, you have very few actual legal rights, and even those end when I warn you about trespassing.

Well lets say if you annoyed me, should I be able to publically dox you to my hundreds of rapid fans?

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Scorpion:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

If I think what you say makes you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, I reserve the right to call you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Then kick you off my platform.

That's also freedom of speech.

With all due respect, kind sir, speaking to somebody and kicking said somebody out, are two entirely different things or rather, polar opposites.

What kind of a barbarian equates speech and kick?

This is Preferential Treatment at its finest, as in Double Standards. Free Speech is all about hearing out, even those we personally want to kick and defend their right to be heard out.

It is you who wish to import a double standard. You do realize what Freedom of Speech legally is, right? If you're saying I can't silence you in a space that I outright own, where's the right to conduct my affairs as I see fit in my own space?

A little refresher on what Free Speech is and isn't:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3403154692

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by Xero_Daxter:

I believe in freedom of speech; there is no freedom of consequence.

^^ this.

Everyone that says "freedom of speech but not freedom of consequence" does not believe in a free speech system. They believe in a system of censorship that prevents people from talking freely.

The whole point is that you don't get punished for saying what you think. Not that some things are okay, and some things aren't.

You can't have freedom of speech and restrictions on speech at the same time. To think otherwise? That requires mental gymnastics.