|
This is a thread centered around the ideal of "free speech." What is it? Who is it for? How is it suppressed by the state, capital, or those dirty Antifas, and more importantly, should certain ideals and movements be suppressed from making Speech? (not the best wording, I know) Please round out your ideal of Free Speech and it's role in a modern society before participating, so that we don't talk past each other. I hope we all learn something!
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
How can it be free if there are rules???
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Is 4chan truly free? Is everyone's natural state one where they constantly scream racial slurs in people's faces?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
free speech is one of those things people talk about all the time like it's really easy and cut and dry so they just slurp up the ACLU's propaganda and miss the forest for a couple trees
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
free speech aint as bullshit as freedom of the press 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
what I want every loving redditor who are "100%" for free speech is why they also oppose citizens united
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Typo posted:what I want every loving redditor who are "100%" for free speech is why they also oppose citizens united Remove corporate personhood, and citizens united doesn't matter anymore because corporation don't get free speech. Boom, contradiction solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Words can't kill people, but also thanks obama for telling the drone pilots who to bomb! - liberals
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Remove corporate personhood, and citizens united doesn't matter anymore because corporation don't get free speech. Boom, contradiction solved. what about billionaires
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Typo posted:what I want every loving redditor who are "100%" for free speech is why they also oppose citizens united the state should not restrict anyone's speech including campaign cash but that cash should be completely public so that people can name and shame the shitheads funding nazi politicos similarly it should be legal to beat up racists but not too badly e: also ideally nobody should have the sort of capital lying around to the extent they can throw a million dollars at some election campaign but that's Advanced Socialism
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:what about billionaires
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:the state should not restrict anyone's speech including campaign cash but that cash should be completely public so that people can name and shame the shitheads funding nazi politicos You do realize these that is unworkable right? You let the rich give as much as they want = their cronies win the elections due to better funding = hypothetical legislation that forces campaign cash to be public is repealed in short order, and we're back where we started This is why incrementalism doesn't work
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:what about billionaires pretty sure the issue is allowing concentration of wealth at that level in the first place, controlling resources at that level will give you undue access and influence even with extremely strict campaign finance laws
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
citizen's united is a naked ploy to allow corruption to roam free in our politics, because corporations are simply not people; they are instead, organizations now, free speech it's only free if it can weather, and tolerate response twitter/reddit/4chan nazis can't tolerate the smallest amount of criticism, so they then claim free speech as something that is an isolated right that only they have, because *surprise!* they only perceive white racist straight men as having personhood you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, because of the danger it poses to people in the theater, so you can't scream out hate speech laced with racial slurs in public, because it poses a danger to the public we are free, yet we have laws speech is free, yet it has consequences those who do not understand or accept this suffer from an aggravated case of peter pan syndrome
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Taint runned again
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
I say let's restrict political speech a lot more but commercial speech and obscenity a lot less like lovely tweets should be banned but if you want to put up live porno on billboards it should be fine
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
LGD posted:pretty sure the issue is allowing concentration of wealth at that level in the first place, controlling resources at that level will give you undue access and influence even with extremely strict campaign finance laws Yes, that is the point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
LGD posted:pretty sure the issue is allowing concentration of wealth at that level in the first place, controlling resources at that level will give you undue access and influence even with extremely strict campaign finance laws so you're saying letting a private citizen have $90 billion dollars and absolute command over 350,000 people is a bad thing...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:what about billionaires Revisit Campaign Financing Law. It's not unworkable to restrict money as speech and leave speech as speech alone. Lindsey O. Graham posted:
Speech != violence. H T H The word "fire" isn't "banned," even if said in a theater.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Revisit Campaign Financing Law. It's not unworkable to restrict money as speech and leave speech as speech alone. Not according to the highest court of the land, whose whole job is to decide what's copacetic with the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Revisit Campaign Financing Law. It's not unworkable to restrict money as speech and leave speech as speech alone. welp, you are right about the crowded theater point  "In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine)." - The Atlantic Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 00:01 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Not according to the highest court of the land, whose whole job is to decide what's copacetic with the constitution. Welp I guess it's decided, there is literally no way anything can ever be done again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
as a cyberpunk i say make whatever bullshit laws you want ill just shitpost via tor
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:as a cyberpunk i say make whatever bullshit laws you want ill just shitpost via tor I'd rather rights not be restricted to the Priests of the technocracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Revisit Campaign Financing Law. It's not unworkable to restrict money as speech and leave speech as speech alone. citizens united got started over the ban the showing of an anti-clinton movie on the eve of 2008 democratic primaries I think at one point campaign finance laws as interpreted by the courts said you couldn't distribute pamphlets either when it's too close to an election but they ended up making an exception for it that's not to say campaign finance laws are bad, but it seems to me that they do limit free speech, it's just that not all restrictions on political speechs are illegitimate see Australia banning campaign ads within certain time frame of election day: and Australia is hardly some tinpot dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
the supreme court imposed limits on free speech to imprison socialists then overturned the concept that there are limits on free speech for the ku klux klan this nation is a failed experiment 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I'd rather rights not be restricted to the Priests of the technocracy. lol if you want to sit around playing COD and smoking weed instead of learning C and hacking gibsons that's on you buddy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
freedom isn't free
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Typo posted:citizens united got started over the ban the showing of an anti-clinton movie on the eve of 2008 democratic primaries france has similar restrictions and avoided electing the nazi because of it
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Welp I guess it's decided, there is literally no way anything can ever be done again. it would be easier to realize communism in the United States than to overturn citizens united within the next 10 years
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
i am shouting fire in a crowded theater next time i watch a movie i want to be trampled to death 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Typo posted:citizens united got started over the ban the showing of an anti-clinton movie on the eve of 2008 democratic primaries Temporal/Locational restrictions on speech are fine imo. For example you if you want to show up to a movie theater with a soap box and start ranting about the jews that control hollywood, you can be kicked out without having your rights infringed. However if the theater allowed people to do that, but then banned you when you started talking about Single-Payer Healthcare, that would certainly be a restriction on free speech. My number one thing isn't 100% free speech at all times and places. My thing is just making sure that the Specific Content of the speech isn't the reason for the restriction. Banning all political speech a few days before an election? Reasonable. Banning only Pro-hitler speech a few days before the election? Not reasonable. ate shit on live tv has issued a correction as of 00:12 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:it would be easier to realize communism in the United States than to overturn citizens united within the next 10 years Disagree. But I'd take either one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Disagree. But I'd take either one. What's your roadmap to overturning Citizens United?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:What's your roadmap to overturning Citizens United? Literally just rewriting the BCRA to be constitutionally compliant in the speech restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Freeze Peach is the most important part of the continuing American revolution. If Thermos Jefferson and the Sons of the Patriots didn't have access to Free Preach the Krang of England would have been able to keep them from gossiping with a well turned leg while hoisting flagon's of ale in the Klaverns of olde. As John Cockhands said upon his signing of the Declarative Statement of Breaking Up For Real This Time "I never had time to take the Oath of Service to the Coalition. How about this one? I swear not to rest until UNitedstATes.CO is free of you and the other crooked bureaucrats who have perverted its mission."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Literally just rewriting the BCRA to be constitutionally compliant in the speech restrictions. How can you rewrite it while remaining compliant with Citizens United?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:the supreme court imposed limits on free speech to imprison socialists I am constantly baffled by how little people who are interested in politics actually know about the history of 1A jurisprudence like leftists going "oh no, how can the ACLU possibly stand to defend the Klan?" without understanding that there was a literal 50 year effort to get from Schenck to Brandenburg (with plenty of pro-Communist pit stops like Yates v. United States along the way), and turning back the clock on content restrictions "just a little" means people probably start getting poo poo on by the GOP-congress' update to the Smith Act immediately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:27
|
|