[Benoit]

I am strongly in favour of genuine free speech - which means standing up for the right of people to say things you disagree with, not just what you already think is right.

The official motto of the UK, however:

[britchard]

I envy the free speech you have in America. Although currently you have to say something fairly outrageous (most recent example I can think of was a guy got arrested for calling black footballer Danny Welbeck 'a cotton picking nigger' or something along those lines), I feel that the laws will tighten in the UK in the future.

When I was younger I supported free speech, but that was mainly because it was the opposite to what the 'right kind of people' thought was right, I was picking an argument really. As I've got older I've realised how scary not having free speech would be.

[lskdfjldsf]

Free speech as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights:

Quote:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Note how the second clause is a complete contradiction and annulment of the first. Who determines which speech harms public safety or morals? An EU bureaucrat in Brussels? Isn't pro-immigration and pro-feminist speech a danger to public morals and territorial integrity in itself?

Free speech protections in Europe are so generic, open to interpretation, and liable to abuse by state authorities there's really no point in having them to begin with. As the Overton Window shifts further to the right, it's only a matter of time before the police coming knocking on our doors for thought crimes against humanity.

My U.S. passport is a blessing.

[Fortis]

I doubt an Australian would type that. Some may think I'm exaggerating, but Australians are very easy going dudes, for the most part. I rarely encounter an Australian who isn't up for a beer, some billiards and general shit talking. I don't get a blue pill mentality from them in the least.

We get many great, masculine actors from that place for a reason.

[Saga]

(07-25-2015 12:41 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

You obviously don't understand what "freedom of speech" means. You absolutely are free to speak your mind in the US, and people are free to disagree with you, and businesses are free to fire you.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from all repercussions from what you say, it protects you for being jailed for it. Other people also have certain freedoms which they can exercise should they wish.

if you work for McDonald's, and say all McDonald's customers are fat, disgusting fucks, then freedom of speech should not protect you from being fired. It should protect you from being imprisoned.

And who has been deported, arrested or killed due to your idea that the US has no freedom of speech?

All true, but as a consequence that means that freedom of speech is a very expensive luxury to exercise. The constitutional protection of speech (which I agree is invaluable and non-negotiable) is one aspect of a free society, but the capacity of a culture to tolerate unpopular views without exacting retribution is another. When views expressed in private conversation are now grounds for losing one's livelihood, speech is conditionally free.

Let's imagine for a moment that businesses were firing people for voting for certain candidates...would we be able to say "people have the legal right to vote for whomever they like, but they don't have any protection from the repercussions of their decision"? Perhaps, but practically speaking the right to vote would be seriously limited if not erased for the majority of the population.

The problem, though, is that it would also be wrong to deny businesses the right to fire employees for expressing certain views, so the only solution is for the general public to act like adults instead of a bunch of kindergarten brats, and for businesses to have some sack and state that even if they disagree with their employees' views they're not going to fire people for expressing unpopular views (especially in private) within reason...and that if their customers have a problem with that they can take a hike.

Neither of those things will happen anytime soon, however. The public despises independent thought, while American business is spineless and cowardly. So I think there is certainly a crisis in free speech...only it's not a legal issue, it's a cultural one, and only a cultural shift can fix it.

[CodyB]

(07-25-2015 08:19 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

I doubt an Australian would type that. Some may think I'm exaggerating, but Australians are very easy going dudes, for the most part. I rarely encounter an Australian who isn't up for a beer, some billiards and general shit talking. I don't get a blue pill mentality from them in the least.

We get many great, masculine actors from that place for a reason.

I think you don't quite know that much about typical Australian men. There is a large contingent of non-PC masculine types but they're usually apes and completely beta. More likely to waste their money on toys and shack with fat bogan sluts or Asian prostitutes the master their domain.

The other contingent are the urban, service sector PC metro sexual types.

I don't come across many well adjusted men in Australia at all.

[Hardy Daytona]

(07-24-2015 09:57 PM)Asnluver Wrote:  

The UK is a police state. No right to bare arms, the amount of surveillance and the lack of self defense laws.

1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale Dave, not an instruction manual.
When I hear people about how 'freedom of speech may have to be curtailed to ensure offense is not taken and extremism is not propagated' it makes me think of that quote by Benjamin Franklin: "Any nation which is willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither."
I pity the Americans for their being further ahead of the UK in the cultural decline but I envy their constitutional amendments.

[Wutang]

One argument the "Australian" brought up (like I said, wasn't 100% sure if he/is Australian or not) was how hate speech would lead to real world consequences and he kept asking his opponent if he would be fine with the parents of a transgender kid being told by his parents that trans people are degenerate freaks and then the kid committing suicide as a response, citing the case of that tranny teen guy who wrote a suicide note on Tumblr before jumping in front of a train.

A thought that popped in my head soon after that was how much that comment reminded me of a lot of "won't someone think of the children" type of arguments that has been stereo-typically associated with social conservatives. "This video game/movie/album is promoting violence/pornography/Satanism! Won't someone think of the effect it will have on our children!"

Following that line of thought, it reminded me of something I've brought up on this forum previously was how the right and the left have switched tactics and talking points over the course of the last 2 decades. I remember just 10 years ago it was typically the left that would argue for free speech and how they should be allowed to express their viewpoint with the right countering with how the viewpoints being expressed by the left were somehow morally obscene and therefore should not classified as protected speech. Now the roles have reversed with the right arguing how their right to express their agenda should be protected under free speech and the left countering by saying certain ideas should simply not be even expressed whether in public or private.

Just shows that Puritanism/authoritarianism is not merely a right-wing phenomenon despite what Huntington Post/Buzzfeed/Salon/Alternet will tell you.

[GlobalMan]

(07-24-2015 09:42 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

2nd amendment freedoms run amok

Can you expand on that? The second amendment is pretty clear. The right to keep and bear arms hasn't "run amok".

[GlobalMan]

(07-24-2015 11:14 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

Is the fundamental right of freedom of speech still alive in this "modern" western/anglosphere world?

Can you state your true opinions without any fear of it causing you to lose your job, get banned/blacklisted from a community for life from an industry or losing big fat contracts, getting arrested, deported and or killed for your views/thoughts?

Can you can question anything, any topic, especially History and historical events and "facts" without being taboo topics? And as a result of daring to question taboo topics, not risk getting expelled from university, fired from your job, your business closed, you getting deported, arrested and killed for it?

If you answered yes to all of the above, then yes there is freedom of speech.

If you truthfully cannot, then freedom of speech is a mere illusion. What you do have is a controlled frame of thoughts that those in power and in a position of power merely allows you to have.

Thats not what the First Amendment is about. Its freedom from government sanction (except where you are directly threatening others), thats it, its not freedom from the consequences of your speech in society.

[porscheguy]

I'm inclined to think that any man who is of the belief that limits should be placed on freedom of speech so as to not offend anyone, is a man who more than likely sits down to piss.

[Vacancier Permanent]

Rio,
I so wish you were right man, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

In order to see how much of free speech there is out there, try ANY of the following:

- Go and open a brick and mortar business in the US/Canada/UK and rest of the Anglosphere and clearly state that you would not serve gays/jews/muslims/mormons/blacks/whites/latinos/asians etc... and see how long your business would last. At best, you'd get a hefty fine. The most likely scenario is that you'd get a hefty fine and be sent to a sensitivity training session with the threat of closing your business, seizing all your assets, freezing your bank account(s) and being sent to jail in the slightest reoccurrence of you deviating from the narrative as "advised" to you during those above mentioned training sessions.

- Or if you're in a corporate gig, just mention as a matter of factly that marriage should be between an adult man and woman and see how long you'd last. I'm not even mentioning to say anything more "spicy and daring" such as that you are opposed to gay marriage, you don't want to do anything with gays, let alone that you're sick and tired of all this faggotry and degeneracy being celebrated and being shoved down your throat at every turn and see how long you'd last.

- If you're in academia, try challenging the fallacy of the 4/5 girls getting raped while in college or some similarly idiotic stat and see how long before not only you're expelled from the university's kangaroo "court" but also your prospects of employment completely destroyed as a result of it...

Not to mention how Trump is being shut down in the medias while being ridiculed and not even allowed to take part in debates for the simple reason that he is going against the narratives of those in power.

How many tv commentators have been fired for saying something slightly "out of the narrative"? Too many to count and it's only increasing at an alarming rate sadly.

What does all of that tell you?

That you do have "freedom of speech" as long as you keep within the guidelines and confines of what those in power deem acceptable for you and me to say, believe and do. Say, believe and do anything outside of the limits of "narrative" as outlined for you by the people in power and you're in deep shit!

Now, is that freedom of speech? It clearly cannot be. If yes, then please be my guest and go ahead and enlighten me as to what your definition of freedom of speech is.

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

Rio,
I so wish you were right man, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

In order to see how much of free speech there is out there, try ANY of the following:

various examples follow

The original text of the first amendment:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

All the retaliatory actions that you mentioned are coming from private business entities and private individuals, not the government, and while each reaction is fucked-up they aren't illegal.

Congress won't expel you from school from arguing against feminist talking points. Trump's opinions aren't being suppressed by the federal government it's privately-held media outlets doing it.

Eel, freedom of speech simply means that the government won't suppress opinions it doesn't like or punish people for expressing them. Like Rio said, you're free to say what you want and others are free to respond to you how they want.

[WanderingSoul]

(07-26-2015 12:47 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

Rio,
I so wish you were right man, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

In order to see how much of free speech there is out there, try ANY of the following:

- Go and open a brick and mortar business in the US/Canada/UK and rest of the Anglosphere and clearly state that you would not serve gays/jews/muslims/mormons/blacks/whites/latinos/asians etc... and see how long your business would last. At best, you'd get a hefty fine. The most likely scenario is that you'd get a hefty fine and be sent to a sensitivity training session with the threat of closing your business, seizing all your assets, freezing your bank account(s) and being sent to jail in the slightest reoccurrence of you deviating from the narrative as "advised" to you during those above mentioned training sessions.

In the US we have anti-discrimination laws. Refusing to serve people based on their race/religions/etc. has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The owner of a restaurant could say he hates Muslims and there would be no criminal repercussions, which is what freedom of speech is about. If his business refuses to serve Muslims then that has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and there may be repercussions because of that. We will see with the gunshop owner in Florida who did just that.

Quote:

- Or if you're in a corporate gig, just mention as a matter of factly that marriage should be between an adult man and woman and see how long you'd last. I'm not even mentioning to say anything more "spicy and daring" such as that you are opposed to gay marriage, you don't want to do anything with gays, let alone that you're sick and tired of all this faggotry and degeneracy being celebrated and being shoved down your throat at every turn and see how long you'd last.

Again, businesses who fire employees because they say something the business does not like has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Businessed have rights just as individuals do. They are free to fire employees, and employees are free to say what the wish without CRIMINAL repercussions, but that doesn't mean they are safe from being fired.

Do you really think the manager of a local restaurant should be able to go on YouTube/Facebook/local newspaper and say it is his opinion that his restaurant has food that tastes like dogshit and the people who patronize the restaurant are dumb motherfuckers with whores for wives, and NOT be fired? That is your definition of freedom of speech, correct?

Quote:

- If you're in academia, try challenging the fallacy of the 4/5 girls getting raped while in college or some similarly idiotic stat and see how long before not only you're expelled from the university's kangaroo "court" but also your prospects of employment completely destroyed as a result of it...

Can you link to any cases where someone has been expelled form a public university/college for simply challenging the 4/5 myth, or something similar?

As far as your employment prospects being destroyed, again, business have their own rights. They do not have to hire you if they don't like what you say. This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

Quote:

Not to mention how Trump is being shut down in the medias while being ridiculed and not even allowed to take part in debates for the simple reason that he is going against the narratives of those in power.

Yet again, not a 1st amendment issue. The media are private businesses. They can do what they'd like.

Quote:

How many tv commentators have been fired for saying something slightly "out of the narrative"? Too many to count and it's only increasing at an alarming rate sadly.

And again.

Quote:

What does all of that tell you?

That you do not understand the 1st amendment at all.

Quote:

That you do have "freedom of speech" as long as you keep within the guidelines and confines of what those in power deem acceptable for you and me to say, believe and do. Say, believe and do anything outside of the limits of "narrative" as outlined for you by the people in power and you're in deep shit!

Now, is that freedom of speech? It clearly cannot be. If yes, then please be my guest and go ahead and enlighten me as to what your definition of freedom of speech is.

Yes, it is freedom of speech. And people have the freedom to not patronize, or to patronize, your business if they wish, just like many people did with Chik Fil A.

Businesses have the freedom to hire and fire who they wish. Employees have the freedom to say what they want without CRIMINAL repercussions from the government.

Citizens/Employees DO NOT have carte blanche to say whatever they'd like without social and career repercussions.

You seem to think freedom of speech means having a totalitarian government to dictate who a business can hire and fire, which companies society must patronize, even if they disagree with the opinions of employees/owners of that company, and for society to not ostracize people for their opinions and beliefs if they so wish.

So if that is what freedom of speech is supposed to be to you, then that would mean we no longer have freedom at all.