Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How "free" should Free Speech be?

bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:12:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

I am pro freedom.

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

Yes obviously

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

Nope, all people should have it.

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?

No
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:16:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:12:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

I am pro freedom.

Can you elaborate please? I'm assuming this means libertarian?
2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

Yes obviously

Even speech that promotes violence? If someone says, "all [----] are rapists, kill them all!", thats freedom for the speaker but that can have adverse effects on the people s/he is talking about.
3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

Nope, all people should have it.

See above.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:21:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?
State perfectionism.
2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech?
No.
Even racism or fascism for example?
It depends on whether such speech is enough of a problem in society to need to be taken care of.
3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?
Such organisations should definitely be made illegal since they are very active in spreading morally reprehensible ideas.
4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?
I don't really have an opinion on this.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:23:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:16:27 PM, bhakun wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:12:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

I am pro freedom.

Can you elaborate please? I'm assuming this means libertarian?

Yes it is the only main political ideology that is pro freedom.

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

Yes obviously

Even speech that promotes violence? If someone says, "all [----] are rapists, kill them all!", thats freedom for the speaker but that can have adverse effects on the people s/he is talking about.

The people it has an adverse effect on should be punished. The speeker is not responsible for their actions, he can only control what he does.

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

Nope, all people should have it.

See above.

It doesn't apply to the above. Speech that intentionally incites violence is different than speech that os offensive to people becaise it comes from an unpopular ideology such asbideologies espoused by the various groups you mentioned
Peepette
Posts: 1,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:44:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

Free speech is a protected right and necessary for the exchange of ideas.

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

Yes, even though we might not like what people say. Even the Westboro Baptist church won a case in the SC regarding free speech. But, fee speech does have some responsibility; such as you can't yell fire in a movie theater when there's not fire, or bomb in a crowed stadium. You would put public health in harms way.

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

Yes they are jerks, but should have free speech. If you begin silencing hate groups, as political senses change over time, other groups could be censored as well; maybe the LGBT groups and the like. A domino effect would occur.

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?

Nope, other than doing harm to the public by causing a stampede or slandering someone to where they cannot earn a living (courts handle that) there should be no limits.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:17:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

The closest thing to free speech that does exist, exists in the United States. Europeans censor whatever is politically incorrect, even to the extent of silencing legitimate political dissent. It's disgusting.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:33:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

I think itvis more people sayingvit is harmful and then engagingvin warfare with beliefs that differ from theirs, such as professors being fired believing in creationism or for saying the wage gap is a myth and pointing out the myriad of studies that prove it.

The second some group is offended, unless the group is conservative than you lose your job are painted as a villian by the media and get death threats.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:43:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

So what? This is not limiting your speech in any way. Stop complaining about it.


Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".

And we do, so.... Yet again, I have to question what there is to complain about.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:48:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:33:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

I think itvis more people sayingvit is harmful and then engagingvin warfare with beliefs that differ from theirs, such as professors being fired believing in creationism or for saying the wage gap is a myth and pointing out the myriad of studies that prove it.

The second some group is offended, unless the group is conservative than you lose your job are painted as a villian by the media and get death threats.

You don't get excused from the ramifications of your freedom. If you shoot someone with your gun that you get access to via rights, you should be charged right?

Look, if someone says some jackass thing and gets fired for it, that is not invalidating his right in any way. Go chase another car, the topic is silly. The amount of thin-skinned reactions I hear from those worked-up over a prof getting fired makes me want to hurl.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:53:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:43:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

So what? This is not limiting your speech in any way. Stop complaining about it.

Of course it limits our speech. If one values their social standing they then have to abide by certain rules of that society.

You go right on ahead and start using words like nigger or faggot and see how long you'd last in this society. If you aren't shamed, condemned, demonized, or become a pariah then come back and tell me it isn't limiting.


Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".

And we do, so.... Yet again, I have to question what there is to complain about.

Where do we accept or allow hate speech in the general public sphere? Let's take television for example: I don't see such things on TV, in fact, if a famous personality says the slightest "hate speech" they are instantly and excessively punished in most cases. Often times losing their jobs, social standing, and reputation. You're telling me this is a society that practices free speech? No.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 9:00:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?
Republican (not the political party, the form of government), pragmatist

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

Absolutely. If anything, unpopular speech should enjoy extra protections.

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

It's not 'free speech' if certain people aren't allowed to have it. That makes the entire concept self-defeating.

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?

Obviously not. You can think that you are, but that just means that the concept of free speech escapes your understanding.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 9:08:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:53:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:43:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

So what? This is not limiting your speech in any way. Stop complaining about it.

Of course it limits our speech. If one values their social standing they then have to abide by certain rules of that society.

No, no it is not. Stand by your convictions, and your words. If they are out of step with the norms of the society you live in, well that is your issue, not a "free speech" issue.


You go right on ahead and start using words like nigger or faggot and see how long you'd last in this society. If you aren't shamed, condemned, demonized, or become a pariah then come back and tell me it isn't limiting.

So... Your convictions, what you want to say, you are unwilling to say because someone might make YOU feel bad for saying it? Please.... How cowardly.



Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".

And we do, so.... Yet again, I have to question what there is to complain about.

Where do we accept or allow hate speech in the general public sphere? Let's take television for example: I don't see such things on TV, in fact, if a famous personality says the slightest "hate speech" they are instantly and excessively punished in most cases. Often times losing their jobs, social standing, and reputation. You're telling me this is a society that practices free speech? No.

Where do we allow hate speech? Well, all 50 of the United States of America. Is that not enough for you?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 9:11:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 8:48:00 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:33:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

I think itvis more people sayingvit is harmful and then engagingvin warfare with beliefs that differ from theirs, such as professors being fired believing in creationism or for saying the wage gap is a myth and pointing out the myriad of studies that prove it.

The second some group is offended, unless the group is conservative than you lose your job are painted as a villian by the media and get death threats.

You don't get excused from the ramifications of your freedom. If you shoot someone with your gun that you get access to via rights, you should be charged right?

Look, if someone says some jackass thing and gets fired for it, that is not invalidating his right in any way. Go chase another car, the topic is silly. The amount of thin-skinned reactions I hear from those worked-up over a prof getting fired makes me want to hurl.

To the contrary it is thin skin that get's people fired. It is cultural Marxism, to shut down voices you disagree with. It may ne a result of freedom that being an honest and intelligent person can insure you never have a job again, because liberals like TBR demanded you get fired for mentioning a true statistic that shows something unpleasent about our reality.

It may be pur freedom allows this type of cultural marxism, but the act of destroying somebody's life merely because they disagree with you, comes from a culture that is anti freedom, and honestly you are a despicable person for thinking people that disagree with you or say things that are unpleasent to you should have their lives destroyed. You are evil for siding with students who demand other students get expelled merely for their political beliefs. You are not far off from Hitler who had people rounded up and killed for their political beliefs, and I don't see much of a difference for advocating for total destruction of somebody's life and advocating for their death.

Hell you are probably one of the liberals who were ecstatic when Budd Dwyer was framed by the Democrats for being corrupt and then cheered when he killed himself for being framed and having no good alternatives.
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 9:23:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

Moderate. Leaning to the Left.

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

Yes, this is how it should be. Unfortunately, political correctness effectively censors people. The question is who is a racist? Who is a fascist? The problem is that all people who have some controversial opinions are called Nazis. All Nationalists are called fascists though such a comparison is fallacious. For example, if someone doesn't want his country to accept Muslim immigrants, is he a fascist? Because this is how such people are often called.

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

Those who break the law, behave violently, cause damage to the possessions or harm other people should be punished. Then their rights should be limited. Preventive censorship is pathological. I support the right of Nationalists (the so-called Nazis) to express their views. They are not as scary as some portray them to be. Here, in Poland, from time to time they get invited to the TV. Some things they say are sensible.

Some time ago, the LGBT activists demanded the law against hate speech so that they are protected from insults. While I think gay people should have equal rights as straight people, including the right to marriage and adopting children, they shouldn't have some special privileges and be pampered by the state.

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?

No freedom for the enemies of freedom, Saint Just once said during the French Revolution, justifying the Terror. Go figure.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:19:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 9:11:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:48:00 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:33:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

I think itvis more people sayingvit is harmful and then engagingvin warfare with beliefs that differ from theirs, such as professors being fired believing in creationism or for saying the wage gap is a myth and pointing out the myriad of studies that prove it.

The second some group is offended, unless the group is conservative than you lose your job are painted as a villian by the media and get death threats.

You don't get excused from the ramifications of your freedom. If you shoot someone with your gun that you get access to via rights, you should be charged right?

Look, if someone says some jackass thing and gets fired for it, that is not invalidating his right in any way. Go chase another car, the topic is silly. The amount of thin-skinned reactions I hear from those worked-up over a prof getting fired makes me want to hurl.

To the contrary it is thin skin that get's people fired. It is cultural Marxism, to shut down voices you disagree with. It may ne a result of freedom that being an honest and intelligent person can insure you never have a job again, because liberals like TBR demanded you get fired for mentioning a true statistic that shows something unpleasent about our reality.

No. Nonono... They people objecting may be thin-skinned, so too are the constant crybaby's on the Internet talking about "free speech". Where is the steadfast support for the free market in this case? Just stop crying about it. Your words may result in action, good or bad. If you are sure of your convictions, say whatever the he11 you like, just stop pretending YOU are the victim of something that simply does not exist.


It may be pur freedom allows this type of cultural marxism, but the act of destroying somebody's life merely because they disagree with you, comes from a culture that is anti freedom, and honestly you are a despicable person for thinking people that disagree with you or say things that are unpleasent to you should have their lives destroyed. You are evil for siding with students who demand other students get expelled merely for their political beliefs. You are not far off from Hitler who had people rounded up and killed for their political beliefs, and I don't see much of a difference for advocating for total destruction of somebody's life and advocating for their death.

Free market. If some university or commercial enterprise sees you as a liability, it is their choice to sh1t can your a$$. Now, stop playing the child - grow-up!


Hell you are probably one of the liberals who were ecstatic when Budd Dwyer was framed by the Democrats for being corrupt and then cheered when he killed himself for being framed and having no good alternatives.

Did their words hurt poor Budd? Thought his actions were his responsibility. Where did I hear that? Wait, it was YOU!
TheWhiteKnight
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:26:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
1. Right-winger.

2. Yes.

3. Everyone should have free-speech.

4. No.

If you don't believe in free-speech then you are a fascist, it is as simple as that.
Keep the power away from the government's hands, or it will result in fascism.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:29:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?

You can say something bigoted and I am allowed to call you a bigot, and the government can't tell either of us to shut up unless we are making threats or endangering others.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:30:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 9:08:43 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:53:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:43:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

So what? This is not limiting your speech in any way. Stop complaining about it.

Of course it limits our speech. If one values their social standing they then have to abide by certain rules of that society.

No, no it is not. Stand by your convictions, and your words. If they are out of step with the norms of the society you live in, well that is your issue, not a "free speech" issue.

Of course it's a free speech issue. If the society deems certain language to be unacceptable, and openly condemns those who use such terms, then we can't say we have free speech. It goes against the very notion of the idea.

You go right on ahead and start using words like nigger or faggot and see how long you'd last in this society. If you aren't shamed, condemned, demonized, or become a pariah then come back and tell me it isn't limiting.

So... Your convictions, what you want to say, you are unwilling to say because someone might make YOU feel bad for saying it? Please.... How cowardly.

It's so much more than making someone "feel bad", you can lose your job which could lead to financial turmoil and so forth. There are plenty of cases where people have lost their livelihood and source of income from saying such things.

You're also completely ignoring the legal aspect in which there are harsher punishments for hate crimes, and using certain terms like the one's I previously gave could certainly lead to such charges depending on the circumstance and severity.

Thus, to dismiss it as cowardly is ignorant as you're completely ignoring the full ramifications of such actions.

Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".

And we do, so.... Yet again, I have to question what there is to complain about.

Where do we accept or allow hate speech in the general public sphere? Let's take television for example: I don't see such things on TV, in fact, if a famous personality says the slightest "hate speech" they are instantly and excessively punished in most cases. Often times losing their jobs, social standing, and reputation. You're telling me this is a society that practices free speech? No.

Where do we allow hate speech? Well, all 50 of the United States of America. Is that not enough for you?

We clearly do not allow such speech if people lose their jobs over utilizing that sort of speech. Either you're ignorant of this reality or you're actively seeking to argue over something that is empirically evident. I'd be happy to share some cases if that'd help.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:45:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 10:30:36 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 9:08:43 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:53:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:43:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

So what? This is not limiting your speech in any way. Stop complaining about it.

Of course it limits our speech. If one values their social standing they then have to abide by certain rules of that society.

No, no it is not. Stand by your convictions, and your words. If they are out of step with the norms of the society you live in, well that is your issue, not a "free speech" issue.

Of course it's a free speech issue. If the society deems certain language to be unacceptable, and openly condemns those who use such terms, then we can't say we have free speech. It goes against the very notion of the idea.

How? Seriously just how? Do you want the government to step in and make liberals play nice with conservatives? Want someone to say "don't be mean back to the people being mean." Is that it? do you want some famous person "side" with you? Will that make it better?


You go right on ahead and start using words like nigger or faggot and see how long you'd last in this society. If you aren't shamed, condemned, demonized, or become a pariah then come back and tell me it isn't limiting.

So... Your convictions, what you want to say, you are unwilling to say because someone might make YOU feel bad for saying it? Please.... How cowardly.

It's so much more than making someone "feel bad", you can lose your job which could lead to financial turmoil and so forth. There are plenty of cases where people have lost their livelihood and source of income from saying such things.

Free market. If you are a liability to the company you are working for, you can be sh1tcanned, or that too Libertarian for you?


You're also completely ignoring the legal aspect in which there are harsher punishments for hate crimes, and using certain terms like the one's I previously gave could certainly lead to such charges depending on the circumstance and severity.

Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech, right? Actions are different than words, right?


Thus, to dismiss it as cowardly is ignorant as you're completely ignoring the full ramifications of such actions.

Bullsh1t. You just want special treatment to spew crap with no social ramifications. F*ck that.


Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".

And we do, so.... Yet again, I have to question what there is to complain about.

Where do we accept or allow hate speech in the general public sphere? Let's take television for example: I don't see such things on TV, in fact, if a famous personality says the slightest "hate speech" they are instantly and excessively punished in most cases. Often times losing their jobs, social standing, and reputation. You're telling me this is a society that practices free speech? No.

Where do we allow hate speech? Well, all 50 of the United States of America. Is that not enough for you?

We clearly do not allow such speech if people lose their jobs over utilizing that sort of speech. Either you're ignorant of this reality or you're actively seeking to argue over something that is empirically evident. I'd be happy to share some cases if that'd help.

See free-market above.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?
Far-right ethnonationalist with libertarian leanings.

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?
Obviously

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? What about Neo-Nazis? The KKK?
Everyone should have it

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?
No
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 11:13:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 10:19:44 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 9:11:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:48:00 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:33:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

I think itvis more people sayingvit is harmful and then engagingvin warfare with beliefs that differ from theirs, such as professors being fired believing in creationism or for saying the wage gap is a myth and pointing out the myriad of studies that prove it.

The second some group is offended, unless the group is conservative than you lose your job are painted as a villian by the media and get death threats.

You don't get excused from the ramifications of your freedom. If you shoot someone with your gun that you get access to via rights, you should be charged right?

Look, if someone says some jackass thing and gets fired for it, that is not invalidating his right in any way. Go chase another car, the topic is silly. The amount of thin-skinned reactions I hear from those worked-up over a prof getting fired makes me want to hurl.

To the contrary it is thin skin that get's people fired. It is cultural Marxism, to shut down voices you disagree with. It may ne a result of freedom that being an honest and intelligent person can insure you never have a job again, because liberals like TBR demanded you get fired for mentioning a true statistic that shows something unpleasent about our reality.

No. Nonono... They people objecting may be thin-skinned, so too are the constant crybaby's on the Internet talking about "free speech". Where is the steadfast support for the free market in this case? Just stop crying about it. Your words may result in action, good or bad. If you are sure of your convictions, say whatever the he11 you like, just stop pretending YOU are the victim of something that simply does not exist.

It is a criticism of culture not the practices of the free market. Unlike Democrats who make lawsb to enforce their morality, we only use the government to pass laws consistent with it's duties to protect negative rights as our Libertarian founding forefathers requested, and it is easy for you to say stand behind your convictions because conservatives don't try to destroy the lives of people they disagree with, but if I am open about the fact I am pro freedom, I will be fired from my job, I will recieve death threats. I will be physically attacked like Rosalie was, but probably worse because I am even more pro freedom than her.


It may be pur freedom allows this type of cultural marxism, but the act of destroying somebody's life merely because they disagree with you, comes from a culture that is anti freedom, and honestly you are a despicable person for thinking people that disagree with you or say things that are unpleasent to you should have their lives destroyed. You are evil for siding with students who demand other students get expelled merely for their political beliefs. You are not far off from Hitler who had people rounded up and killed for their political beliefs, and I don't see much of a difference for advocating for total destruction of somebody's life and advocating for their death.

Free market. If some university or commercial enterprise sees you as a liability, it is their choice to sh1t can your a$$. Now, stop playing the child - grow-up!

I think you're playing a child by demanding your safe spaces and trying to politically assassinate those you disagree with. You probably don't know how it feels because you are a liberal, but just put your self in my shoes. I have to literally hide the fact that I believe in a small government or I will be fired and my kid will starve. Imagine if you had to hide the fact that you think the government is a omni-benevolent force or you would be hungry in the gutter and the people you love would starve.


Hell you are probably one of the liberals who were ecstatic when Budd Dwyer was framed by the Democrats for being corrupt and then cheered when he killed himself for being framed and having no good alternatives.

Did their words hurt poor Budd? Thought his actions were his responsibility. Where did I hear that? Wait, it was YOU!

Not their words, the fact they literally framed him for corruption and he was facing life behind bars.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 11:26:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 11:13:13 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 10:19:44 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 9:11:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:48:00 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:33:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

I think itvis more people sayingvit is harmful and then engagingvin warfare with beliefs that differ from theirs, such as professors being fired believing in creationism or for saying the wage gap is a myth and pointing out the myriad of studies that prove it.

The second some group is offended, unless the group is conservative than you lose your job are painted as a villian by the media and get death threats.

You don't get excused from the ramifications of your freedom. If you shoot someone with your gun that you get access to via rights, you should be charged right?

Look, if someone says some jackass thing and gets fired for it, that is not invalidating his right in any way. Go chase another car, the topic is silly. The amount of thin-skinned reactions I hear from those worked-up over a prof getting fired makes me want to hurl.

To the contrary it is thin skin that get's people fired. It is cultural Marxism, to shut down voices you disagree with. It may ne a result of freedom that being an honest and intelligent person can insure you never have a job again, because liberals like TBR demanded you get fired for mentioning a true statistic that shows something unpleasent about our reality.

No. Nonono... They people objecting may be thin-skinned, so too are the constant crybaby's on the Internet talking about "free speech". Where is the steadfast support for the free market in this case? Just stop crying about it. Your words may result in action, good or bad. If you are sure of your convictions, say whatever the he11 you like, just stop pretending YOU are the victim of something that simply does not exist.

It is a criticism of culture not the practices of the free market. Unlike Democrats who make lawsb to enforce their morality, we only use the government to pass laws consistent with it's duties to protect negative rights as our Libertarian founding forefathers requested

What? Who is useing law to enforce morality? Consertatives that want to change the constitution to stop SSM? How about abortion? The religious right? Please.... This argument is a joke at this point.

and it is easy for you to say stand behind your convictions because conservatives don't try to destroy the lives of people they disagree with, but if I am open about the fact I am pro freedom, I will be fired from my job, I will recieve death threats. I will be physically attacked like Rosalie was, but probably worse because I am even more pro freedom than her.

Is that so? Conservatives are not out to destroy people because of what they say? How about we just let this one slide.



It may be pur freedom allows this type of cultural marxism, but the act of destroying somebody's life merely because they disagree with you, comes from a culture that is anti freedom, and honestly you are a despicable person for thinking people that disagree with you or say things that are unpleasent to you should have their lives destroyed. You are evil for siding with students who demand other students get expelled merely for their political beliefs. You are not far off from Hitler who had people rounded up and killed for their political beliefs, and I don't see much of a difference for advocating for total destruction of somebody's life and advocating for their death.

Free market. If some university or commercial enterprise sees you as a liability, it is their choice to sh1t can your a$$. Now, stop playing the child - grow-up!

I think you're playing a child by demanding your safe spaces and trying to politically assassinate those you disagree with. You probably don't know how it feels because you are a liberal, but just put your self in my shoes. I have to literally hide the fact that I believe in a small government or I will be fired and my kid will starve. Imagine if you had to hide the fact that you think the government is a omni-benevolent force or you would be hungry in the gutter and the people you love would starve.

I am not demanding a safe space, you simply want to point at any extreme you can find to cover the lack of argument. That is, until you and others imply you want "Safe space" to spew crap. That is, in essence, what you are doing! You SAY you want the space to say what you like without the ramifications of the judgment of others. What does that sound like to you?



Hell you are probably one of the liberals who were ecstatic when Budd Dwyer was framed by the Democrats for being corrupt and then cheered when he killed himself for being framed and having no good alternatives.

Did their words hurt poor Budd? Thought his actions were his responsibility. Where did I hear that? Wait, it was YOU!

Not their words, the fact they literally framed him for corruption and he was facing life behind bars.

Look back to Wylteds post about personal responsibility. It is not their problem that he killed himself.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 11:44:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 6:11:10 PM, bhakun wrote:
Free Speech is an interesting topic. So I have questions for people across the political spectrum.

1. What is your political ideology/leaning?

Liberal.

2. Does free speech apply to every and all kinds of speech? Even racism or fascism for example?

I value the harm principle, to an extent. Speech absolutely has the ability to harm people, and we do not have the right to harm others. Yet, whether or not it actually harms is very subjective and hard to quantify, and harm also may be the fault of the misinterpretation of the listener. To err on the side of freedom, I believe that the only speech that may be restricted is speech that betrays a clear intent to harm others (in addition to actual harm occurring). I anticipate most of the objections being to the principle and not the specifics of how exactly to implement that, but I can get down to the details if need be, and might do so anyway if its expedient to defending the principle.

3. Should certain people not have free speech? What about people that do not believe in free speech? . . .

Everyone should have free speech consistent with the principles of freedom above. What is important is that people are entitled to hold and express their own beliefs, but not entitled to attempt manipulating the great concept of freedom so that they may openly and intentionally verbally assault others without reprisal.

4. Can you still be "pro free-speech" if you believe in limitations on free speech?

No, but that's getting into a semantic game. I don't believe my moral compass limits it at all, as I believe that allowing any action that intentionally harms others isn't really consistent with freedom; yet, to someone who believes freedom is more congruent with the ability to say anything, heedless of the consequences, I'm advocating for "limitations".

On an unrelated note, most of the limitations on discourse in the modern day are the result of the power of society itself to shape discourse. Protesters who interrupt events are a product of society, not our laws; the same is true of "safe spaces" (at least, as far as I'm aware, there's no law on the books about them). I see less that the government is restrictive of speech, and more that the government (especially state and local) doesn't actively do enough to protect speech. I'm curious to know how others would solve that issue, as it seems that there's a point where active protection of speech can become active infringement upon other rights, and I'm not sure where the line should be drawn.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 11:47:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
What? Who is useing law to enforce morality? Consertatives that want to change the constitution to stop SSM? How about abortion? The religious right? Please.... This argument is a joke at this point.

All statists are the same as far as using the state as a weapon. Don't ask me differentiate between 100% of liberals who are evil and the 98% of conservatives who are evil. Evil is evil, this is like asking that I differentiate between Hitler and Pol Pot.

And mentioning abortion there is stupid, abortion is murder unless there are medical reasons or it is before viability. Nobody with any morality supports murder.

and it is easy for you to say stand behind your convictions because conservatives don't try to destroy the lives of people they disagree with, but if I am open about the fact I am pro freedom, I will be fired from my job, I will recieve death threats. I will be physically attacked like Rosalie was, but probably worse because I am even more pro freedom than her.

Is that so? Conservatives are not out to destroy people because of what they say? How about we just let this one slide.

You have to. You won't see a real conservative destroying the Duke Lacrosse team over false charges.



It may be pur freedom allows this type of cultural marxism, but the act of destroying somebody's life merely because they disagree with you, comes from a culture that is anti freedom, and honestly you are a despicable person for thinking people that disagree with you or say things that are unpleasent to you should have their lives destroyed. You are evil for siding with students who demand other students get expelled merely for their political beliefs. You are not far off from Hitler who had people rounded up and killed for their political beliefs, and I don't see much of a difference for advocating for total destruction of somebody's life and advocating for their death.

Free market. If some university or commercial enterprise sees you as a liability, it is their choice to sh1t can your a$$. Now, stop playing the child - grow-up!

I think you're playing a child by demanding your safe spaces and trying to politically assassinate those you disagree with. You probably don't know how it feels because you are a liberal, but just put your self in my shoes. I have to literally hide the fact that I believe in a small government or I will be fired and my kid will starve. Imagine if you had to hide the fact that you think the government is a omni-benevolent force or you would be hungry in the gutter and the people you love would starve.

I am not demanding a safe space, you simply want to point at any extreme you can find to cover the lack of argument. That is, until you and others imply you want "Safe space" to spew crap. That is, in essence, what you are doing! You SAY you want the space to say what you like without the ramifications of the judgment of others. What does that sound like to you?

No just so that lives don't get destroyed, because you arebliberal you don't face this, but just ask Rosalie who was physically attacked. If I tell people I am pro freedom I face the risk of being fired and not being able to feed my kid, I will recieve death threats. I will be physically attacked. You don't face this, Do I need to show you videos of liberals physically attacking people for being conservative? Of the people who asked the verlteran if he supported BLM and he said no so they put him in the hospital and stole his wallet? That is what happens to me if I say myvpolitical beliefs in public,



Hell you are probably one of the liberals who were ecstatic when Budd Dwyer was framed by the Democrats for being corrupt and then cheered when he killed himself for being framed and having no good alternatives.

Did their words hurt poor Budd? Thought his actions were his responsibility. Where did I hear that? Wait, it was YOU!

Not their words, the fact they literally framed him for corruption and he was facing life behind bars.

Look back to Wylteds post about personal responsibility. It is not their problem that he killed himself.

Whatever, the point is that it is unethical to frame somebody for something they didn't do anf make them spend the rest of their life in prison. Liberals did that to Budd Dwyer. I can't run for public office because I may face the safe consequences, unlike you because conservatives don't try to frame their political enemies for things and get them locked up for the rest of your life.

Don't you think their should be a dialogue instead of just physically attacking, politically assassinating and imprisoning people merely because you disagree with them?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 12:25:03 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/30/2016 10:45:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 10:30:36 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 9:08:43 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:53:27 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:43:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:38:58 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 5/30/2016 8:15:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 5/30/2016 7:42:57 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
There is no such thing as free speech, lol. It's a nice idea, but it's never going to happen as long as people get offended by certain words. There will always be words that are 'off-limits' either in the social sphere or legal sphere.

With this said, I would like to see absolute free speech. We are stifling our progress by not allowing certain issues to be fully fleshed out due to them being "hurtful" to certain people.

How is someone saying words are "hurtful" harming free speech?

It sets a social stigma against the use of that word. To the point where if anyone uses certain terms they are immediately scorned or demonized. This, in turn, forces people to choose between abiding by social standards or speaking how they'd truly like to.

So what? This is not limiting your speech in any way. Stop complaining about it.

Of course it limits our speech. If one values their social standing they then have to abide by certain rules of that society.

No, no it is not. Stand by your convictions, and your words. If they are out of step with the norms of the society you live in, well that is your issue, not a "free speech" issue.

Of course it's a free speech issue. If the society deems certain language to be unacceptable, and openly condemns those who use such terms, then we can't say we have free speech. It goes against the very notion of the idea.

How? Seriously just how? Do you want the government to step in and make liberals play nice with conservatives? Want someone to say "don't be mean back to the people being mean." Is that it? do you want some famous person "side" with you? Will that make it better?

You are making no sense here. Breathe, think, and try again.

You go right on ahead and start using words like nigger or faggot and see how long you'd last in this society. If you aren't shamed, condemned, demonized, or become a pariah then come back and tell me it isn't limiting.

So... Your convictions, what you want to say, you are unwilling to say because someone might make YOU feel bad for saying it? Please.... How cowardly.

It's so much more than making someone "feel bad", you can lose your job which could lead to financial turmoil and so forth. There are plenty of cases where people have lost their livelihood and source of income from saying such things.

Free market. If you are a liability to the company you are working for, you can be sh1tcanned, or that too Libertarian for you?

What does the free market have to do with any of this? The very fact that a company would fire someone for using certain terms or language, again, reflects the fact that we don't have free speech.

You're also completely ignoring the legal aspect in which there are harsher punishments for hate crimes, and using certain terms like the one's I previously gave could certainly lead to such charges depending on the circumstance and severity.

Hate crimes are not the same as hate speech, right? Actions are different than words, right?

Not in certain instances. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thus, to dismiss it as cowardly is ignorant as you're completely ignoring the full ramifications of such actions.

Bullsh1t. You just want special treatment to spew crap with no social ramifications. F*ck that.

Lol, so I take it you're against free speech then huh?

Hate speech is a good example of this. Regardless of if it's hateful or not, we should openly accept or allow it if we are to have true "free speech".

And we do, so.... Yet again, I have to question what there is to complain about.

Where do we accept or allow hate speech in the general public sphere? Let's take television for example: I don't see such things on TV, in fact, if a famous personality says the slightest "hate speech" they are instantly and excessively punished in most cases. Often times losing their jobs, social standing, and reputation. You're telling me this is a society that practices free speech? No.

Where do we allow hate speech? Well, all 50 of the United States of America. Is that not enough for you?

We clearly do not allow such speech if people lose their jobs over utilizing that sort of speech. Either you're ignorant of this reality or you're actively seeking to argue over something that is empirically evident. I'd be happy to share some cases if that'd help.

See free-market above.

I did, it holds no relevance to this comment though. Please feel free to try again.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...