Liberal Forum

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.

 

Well...if you restrict stupid people from speaking their minds..then that becomes an arbitrary issue that I don't think is in the spirit of fairness.
It leaves the door wide open to governmental abuse.

FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm

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 left out "In my opinion".  Sans a criminal act, everything you described is protected free speech.

You don't get to decide what constitutes a stupid comment for society.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 11 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm

Well...if you restrict stupid people from speaking their minds..then that becomes an arbitrary issue that I don't think is in the spirit of fairness.
It leaves the door wide open to governmental abuse.

I'm talking about people who are literally so stupid that they are unable to even articulate any opinion. They are incapable of speaking their mind because they have no mind.

Someone can say something stupid but is at least a valid argument and I am fine with that. Like say...'the us economy will be great if we simply make every ceo black'. That is a stupid opinion but I think free speech should protect it...and the obvious retorts to it should also be protected. 

No I  talking about people like bv or ohm or various other people i have blocked where I can't make out what their actual opinions are about anything lol...cause they can't even construct a logically valid statement. Ever.
 
 

ConsRule » 11 Jul 2022, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:48 pm

You left out "In my opinion".  Sans a criminal act, everything you described is protected free speech.

You don't get to decide what constitutes a stupid comment for society.

First of all...wrong. not everything is legally protected. I mentioned some things that are in fact criminal such as obscenity and slander. 

Also sure you can say this is my opinion. But it is my opinion for very obvious reasons. How can there be any benefit to society for permitting the things I do not regard to be protected? 

And it also really doesn't matter what the law is. even if the law did reflect my opinion perfectly it would still be my opinion lol. Nothing is 'true' about law.
 

FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:49 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:49 pm

I'm talking about people who are literally so stupid that they are unable to even articulate any opinion. They are incapable of speaking their mind because they have no mind.

Someone can say something stupid but is at least a valid argument and I am fine with that. Like say...'the us economy will be great if we simply make every ceo black'. That is a stupid opinion but I think free speech shouldnprotect it...and the obvious retorts to it should also be protected. 

No I  talking about people like bv or ohm or various other people i have blocked where I can't make out what what actual opinions are about anything lol...cause they can't even construct a logically valid statement. Ever.

It is chilling to see so much evidence of what you  are talking about on full display at this forum.
There are times when I think the problem is so widespread that  the only long term fix is going to be a massive and prolonged apacolyptic event that sends us back to the 1880s.
Guess which people  of the Political Spectrum will prevail...?
 

FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:55 pm

First of all...wrong. not everything is legally protected. I mentioned some things that are in fact criminal such as obscenity and slander. 



 

I'm sorry.  I assumed you would know the definition of "sans".

FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm

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.

People do not even speak the same way now as they did 200 years ago. Many aspects of our constitution are intentionally open to interpretation (unspecific and general).
Freedom is already a word that can, by various people, be viewed differently before you ever get to "of speech".

The old saw "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater" seeks to show that not all speech CAN be protected and/or "free". But you set up some slippery slopes, young man. tsk, tsk...

When is the line crossed for stupid or obscene? Burning a flag and desecrating a symbol? Etc.

-----

I heard this once a long time ago:
If you call a cop a pig like shouting PIG! into his face and get a baton in the face, tough **** for you.
If you shout "I think you're a PIG!" he cannot legally baton your eyebrow off your face.

One is a disrespectful insult/verbal assault on a public servant.
The other is expressing an opinion.

How true or court-tested this notion is, I don't know.

It's all vague.
 
 

ConsRule » 11 Jul 2022, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:58 pm

I'm sorry.  I assumed you would know the definition of "sans".

Oh I know what sans means. Buy I don't think you get the full nuance here. 

i don't care what is criminal...and we currently life in a funny era where where lot of speech is simultaneously criminal and protecte.... just depends on how you interpret law or better yet who the sitting judge happens to be.. I provided on example,, hustler magazine.. 
 

DeezerShoove » 11 Jul 2022, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 5:01 pm

People do not even speak the same way now as they did 200 years ago. Many aspects of our constitution are intentionally open to interpretation (unspecific and general).
Freedom is already a word that can, by various people, be viewed differently before you ever get to "of speech".

The old saw "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater" seeks to show that not all speech CAN be protected and/or "free". But you set up some slippery slopes. young man. tsk, tsk...

When is the line crossed for stupid or obscene? Burning a flag and desecrating a symbol? Etc.

-----

I heard this once a long time ago:
If you call a cop a pig like shouting PIG! into his face and get a baton in the face, tough **** for you.
If you shout "I think you're a PIG!" he cannot legally baton your eyebrow off your face.

One is a disrespectful insult/verbal assault on a public servant.
The other is expressing an opinion.

How true or court-tested this notion is, I don't know.

It's all vague.

I agree it is pretty vague and this post I gave is my attempt to add some much needed clarity to it. 

Free speech could only cover logically coherent political speech. 

I see no benefit to society for pornography, slander, incoherent nonsense, incontrovertible disinformation, or subversion.  

FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 5:06 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 5:06 pm

Oh I know what sans means. Buy I don't think you get the full nuance here. 

i don't care what is criminal...and we currently life in a funny era where where lot of speech is simultaneously criminal and protected at the same time.. just depends on how you interpret law or better yet who the sitting judge happens to be.. I provided on example,, hustler magazine..

Funny vs obscene?  Seems funny to me...


 

I see America as a place where unfettered free speech should be protected.

The free exchange of ideas is what we should strive for. Unpopular speech needs to be protected.

I may not agree with what you say. But I'll fight for your right to say it.

I just look at the cartoons, ma.


 
 

MAGAdreaming » 11 Jul 2022, 5:29 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 5:29 pm

I see America as a place where unfettered free speech should be protected.

The free exchange of ideas is what we should strive for. Unpopular speech needs to be protected.

I may not agree with what you say. But I'll fight for your right to say it.

WHAT speech? You agree we should tell children they should chop their dicks off?

That isn't political that is just profane. 

And I don't give a **** what you think 'America' is.. america is meaningless.. it's just a shopping mall for the world. 

I care about what values would notnpreclude the survival of a people.
 

Freedom of speech is a abstract concept. I used to treasure it greatly, but when I see how stupid society is becoming, I don't think most people deserve freedom of speech

SJConspirator » 11 Jul 2022, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 6:01 pm

Freedom of speech is a abstract concept. I used to treasure it greatly, but when I see how stupid society is becoming, I don't think most people deserve freedom of speech

of course ots abstract and it is a bit vague. 

But I am willing to listen to ANY idea...no matter how disturbing...if it is actually expressed in an intelligent and coherent manner. 

I mean....that's how I became a nazi in the first place. I wasn't born this way.
 

DeezerShoove » 11 Jul 2022, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 5:31 pm

I just look at the cartoons, ma.

LOL! Rippy and Fools would ban you for that one!
 

FOS » 11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:36 pm

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.

 

shame denying life in real time is free speech sustaining corruption of next generations each great great grandchild added so far.

nuckinfutz » 11 Jul 2022, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 6:20 pm

LOL! Rippy and Fools would ban you for that one!

You're kidding, right?

GHETTOBLASTER » 11 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm

Well...if you restrict stupid people from speaking their minds..then that becomes an arbitrary issue that I don't think is in the spirit of fairness.
It leaves the door wide open to governmental abuse.

I agree....even a common idiocrat deserves to speak his or her mind.  Of course if an idiocrat hears something he, she or it doesn't like they immediately claim they feel unsafe and the other person's free speech is violence. 


If they claim it's violence we should at least be allowed to pop them in the mouth if it's of biological man gender.....if it's a biological female 30 or 40 lashes across her bare *** would suffice nicely...with a fine grain full leather belt of course to keep it civilized, proper and real