11 Jul 2022 4:48 pm
You left out "In my opinion". Sans a criminal act, everything you described is protected free speech.FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑ People love to be vague about freedom of speech so that they can cry about it in stupid situations where it does not apply...which also cheapens the concept of it.
Free speech only should refer to valid political speech. People should be able to discuss the pros and cons of fascism, for example. I could even tell you things that EVEN I see as potential downsides of fascism (but naturally nobody who tries to 'argue' with me about fascism bother to bring up...nor is anyone ever curious enough to ask me lol.)
Obscenity and pornography is not freedom of speech. Hustler magazine won some lawsuit that literally argues that pornogrsphy is some sort of free speech issue. ****. There is no way that obscenity can be an interesting idea. There is nothing interesting about 'piss christ'. Such belligerent grunting need not be protected in any way because no positive contribution can possibly be made with it.
Also...being stupid is not free speech. If you are too retarded to deal with basic logic and you cannot form a valid argument ever (which is why I have so many people here on ignore)...nobody needs to be subjected to your stupidity. This can ALSO apply to people who are habitually very wrong about facts...for example the people suggesting that drinking bleach might cure covid. That is potentially harmful misinformation...and I don't think they should be allowed to lie like that. Or people who claim that Hitler hated jews for 'no reason'...utter **** and demonstrably false historical revisionism. Or people who claim that the Tulsa negro uprising was when white people just killed a huge number of Blacks for no reason...again false ****. Freedom of speech should not protect stupidity nor obvious misinformation.
Subversion or slander also has no free speech protection. For example saying that Vladimir putin poops in his pants. If that is false them I actually have no problem with vlad throwing that speaker in prison. Again, it is not political speech. And again there is no benefit to allowing purely subversive speech. Also...societies often require some dogmatic assumptions in order to maintain social cohesion. Russia seems to have decides that it is going to be based on traditional orthodox values...it cannot allow undermining those values. So people who preach gay stuff in russia...even if they were RIGHT that Russia should be nicer to gays (they arent...but hypothetically)...I think it is perfectly fine for putin to shut them down because they are undermining the very bedrock of moral values that the entire society is built on.
Anyway I hope this clears up free speech stuff.
You don't get to decide what constitutes a stupid comment for society.