/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

>>6002

is teaching gender studies free speech? is political campaigns on lies free speech? is dragqueen storytime free speech?

>>6200

>is teaching gender studies free speech? is political campaigns on lies free speech? is dragqueen storytime free speech?

To adults, yes but there are legal consequences for slander and libel, as long as it's not porn.

>>6200

Everything from the leftist ideology must be purged and all leftists must be killed along with their jewish owners.

>>6002

>I will say whatever the fuck I want. End of debate.

Here, sure. IRL you're a frightened little child.

It makes sense to always set apart places in society that allow absolute free speech, if only so the bad arguments get aired out and demonstrated to be wrong, rather than being allowed to fester away underground and gather strength.

That said, I don't think there's any obligation to make every platform an absolute free speech platform. Obviously we need to be particularly careful about what ideas are being aimed at young people in education and the media.

is drag queen story hour at the public library free speech?

>>6200

It's pretty one sided in those case because you effectively don't have freedom of speech when you say anything against it.

is drag queen story hour at the public library free speech?>>6235

sorry should have read the thread.

>>6235

I think that would fall more under freedom of expression.

>>6238

I think kids should be off-limits and shielded from adult concepts of sexuality and violence, just like the good old days

>>6239

Shielding kids too much from reality can have it's consequences, but we don't have to rub it in their faces.

>>6200

Yes. Yes. Yes.

>>6230

That, however, is not free speech. Your rights end where someone else's begins. Your rights cannot impede someone else's rights.

>>6237

Since public libraries are, well, public then yes that is free speech. It's also completely optional. The parents who attend are to blame.

>>6205

what is it about adults that makes xyz free speech to them? isn't xyz inherently wrong? why wouldn't it be wrong to adults?

how about unlicensed medical or legal advice to adults?

>legal consequences for slander and libel

because slander and libel are falsehoods that are obviously damaging to a person's social status, professional reputation, income, livelihood etc.

but what of other falsehoods? why aren't they illegal?

>>6234

>so the bad arguments get aired out and demonstrated to be wrong, rather than being allowed to fester away underground and gather strength.

>[no] obligation to make every platform an absolute free speech platform

is that not a contradiction? bad ideas will fester on those platforms without freespeech above ground and gather strength

>>6239

is transgenderism sexuality? is hatespeech violence?

>>6240

in other words, no intellectually mature themes for the intellectually immature

>>6245

>Yes. Yes. Yes.

is false advertising free speech? death threats? black mail? unlicensed medical or legal advice? if no, how is it different from xyz?

Free speech is fine. It's best for smart people though. Retards just follow retard ideologies that appeal to their retardation. As a country's overall iq rises democracy should increase

I think hate speech laws are indeed an infringement of personal liberty, at most only outright slur words should be banned. The simple implication of racism is enough to get books unpublished.

This inhibits the possibility of free scholarly debate.

I also don't think you can use the word democracy if certain groups aren't allowed to express their views or be heard.

I hear a lot of the time the defense used that it's not the government doing the censorship but does that really matter where the distinction between government and corporation isn't clearly defined?

For example in China the government doesn't actually censor the internet, it merely requires that business owners agree to remove content via automated algorithms that might cause 'social instability'. If they don't then they lose their government license. Moreover many large corporations in China are partially state-owned with the government owning up to a third of the shares. To the person being censored does it really matter whether it's the government or a private business censoring them?

People should be able to run their business the way they want to but that doesn't include infringing on other people's freedoms or personal liberties.

>>6283

People learn by exchanging ideas and that's also how you combat ideologies, by confronting them with different information. Censoring people just insulates them from ideas leading them to become more extreme and have unchallenged beliefs.

>>6200

Yes just like teaching your kids to be racist is free speech.

It doesn't matter whether it's harmful or not, free speech is free speech.

The best way to combat that harm is with more free speech so that brainwashed kids encounter different points of view.

>>5985

There's a huge logical flaw with the argument in that picture.

Declaring an "end of free speech" in favor of more specific speech rights does not solve the problem that BeaverAnon himself proposed: i.e. libel and slander are illegal with or without a concept of "free speech", which creates a potential for abuse on the part of an authority who can simply declare certain speech to be "lies" and enforce legal sanction.

So the only real effect of the proposed changes would be to dilude the concept of "free speech" as a principle (which is all it really is), while simultaneously creating much easier targets for those opposed to free speech. Specifically: Who will stand up and publicly defend the "right to hate"? The answer being, "Almost nobody", making that right extremely easy to destroy once separated from the larger concept of "free speech".

A bit of conjecture: This seems like an engineered enemy meme.

As an idea, it SOUNDS very good to people in our ideological demographic (insofar as a "right to hate" sounds good to people who are constantly accused of "hate"), but is utterly useless in practice, and worse, would act as a tool to undermine our rights piecemeal.

>>6283

no free speech for retards?

>>6294

can everyone learn by being exposed to different information? isn't this just 'everyone can be redpilled' belief?

>>6295

>It doesn't matter whether it's harmful or not

>The best way to combat that harm is with more free speech

is that a contradiction? why combat it if it doesn't matter the harm? why allow kids be brainwashed in the first place? the thing worse than being taught a falsehood to later be corrected is to be taught something that makes correction difficult or impossible without devastating their well-being

>>6299

assuming you mean in the same sense of 'i will use the condition of universal suffrage to revoke your vote' as a paradox, is that inconsistency alone enough to do away with free speech as an applied rule in society?

or if 'free speech' is a 'right' some people can have and not others, what quality does an individual require to legally possess the 'right', and on what grounds can it be taken away?

>>6323

>which creates a potential for abuse on the part of an authority who can simply declare certain speech to be "lies" and enforce legal sanction.

why not separate legal authority and the arbiter of truth? or have truth preside over legal authority?

>>6326

is government funded propaganda inherently bad?

Like with alcohol and sex, There should be an age limit on free speech in the sense that one should not hand it to the underage. It is simply too irresponsible to allow children near harmful texts when their minds aren't capable of doubting and are thus malleable. From an early age, children should be raised alongside literature which teach them to admire and respect the values of their nation, with little exposure to (((alternative))) texts. It is only when they acquire a disposition towards these values that they will then be able to listen to the freespeech of others., with the ability to defend themselves from treacherous words. People are no less easily swayed by persuasion than they are by force, therefore it is necessary for a free nation to arm their citizens not only with firearms, but with wisdom.

>>6200

>is teaching gender studies free speech? is political campaigns on lies free speech? is dragqueen storytime free speech?

Yes to all but it shouldn't illegal to criticize, question or hate them.

>>5985

> Free Speech

Your OP is shit

and should have been deleted

but now there are several users which have replied to your shitty OP

Fucking retard OP

go back to cuckchan with your one-liner – not even one line – two word OP

absolute nothing.

You expect everyone to click on the image, but you post nothing to start the discussion.

fucking kill yourself

and then lurk 2 years before posting again you faggot

>>6207

this

>>6393

this

>>6365

That's exactly the problem. And no suprise, as right-wingers opposing the whole gender madness are experiencing repression for doing so they start to want less free speech for the other side too, because when you can't have an honest discussion it would always be preferrable to impose your own will onto everyone than having someone else's will imposed on yourself. It makes perfect sense because if only one side played dirty, the other would be at an eternal disadvantage playing by the book. You could almost say this measures how mature a given society is, and the west has become very immature and lazy.

>>5985

Truth is more important than freedom. Sage and report for spam thread.

>>6347

>why not separate legal authority and the arbiter of truth? or have truth preside over legal authority?

You can change and rearrange the rules however you want, corruption always seeps in.

The ability to game any system that can be designed is just a function of entropy.

Of course, this also applies to an ideal like free speech itself.

It will eventually fail via a combination of pro-censors and their apologists like YOU.

>>6425

>this idealistic drivel

Free speech is how we account for the fact that humans cannot directly access "truth".

We get as close as possible by fostering a competitive marketplace of ideas.

Leftists and faggots like you who preach about "muh truth" are just whiners who can't compete in that marketplace.

>>6248

What do you mean? I think we should be allowed to have sites like 8kun, obviously. I think maybe there should be a space for open debate on late night TV. I don't think people should be able to target children with their subversion though.

can you be against democracy but for free speech?

>>6355

>no 'free speech' to impressionable minds

what of low iq people with impressionable minds? or a certain sex susceptible to peer pressure?

>>6365

>>6393

do you need me to set the parameters of a contentious topic with false dichotomies and bias? the context of an ideal written in the constitution of a hundreds years old nation in the current year? to spoonfeed you an attached image?

do you even have anything to say about free speech? or any regulation of speech in past history, enforced by courts or between individuals, or new regulations based on some better principle than pro religious scripts or anti tyranny?

>>6419

is societal maturation merely an honest conversation away? is everyone going to face reality? if not, what do we do with those left? what if they're the majority?

>>6425

i actually agree.

we can't have restaurants selling poisoned food freely, car manufacturers selling deathtraps freely, why have news, universities, etc. selling lies freely? what do we do with bad restaurants and car manufacturers?

>>6457

corruption, like many crimes, is a rational choice for amoral people with the opportunity, short-time preference (inability to see long-term consequences) and a sense they're just not paid enough

countries with absurd crime rates are invariably populated and governed by people with short-time preferences

there are countries less corrupt than others

what do you suppose then is the solution to corruption?

>>6459

what rules are there in this marketplace of ideas? by what measure do we find truth? how do we know who's lying? what happens to people who peddle lies?

>>6467

if not every platform is free speech in hopes that alone can do away with bad arguments, won't you end up with platforms where bad arguments and people attached to those bad arguments hold conventions and sanctuary from contradiction? ideas get extreme enough and you'll have to be do something about them, but more importantly their ideas

>>6581

>what of low iq people with impressionable minds? or a certain sex susceptible to peer pressure?

If an impression was already made on them from an early childhood, then there is nothing to fear. To clarify, the aim is not to make genuinely intelligent citizens, but merely ones with deep seated values and ethics. Any information which they come into contact with would be rejected if it contradicts their previously established beliefs. The female and low iq populations you mentioned would be the most affected by this change, since the unintelligent are, by nature, unquestioning and inconsiderate while the females will be amongst those who are also subject to the same education. As such, their instincts will encourage them to 'follow the herd'.

>>6597

You have to see that more in context.

When i grew up on the internet which means early 2000s, it was natural to call someone else a nazi a nigger or wish they would die in a car accident. Why didnt think of it very much, and why should we? At the end of the node there was just another guy that didnt think of it much either. Now you have all the governments, the corporations and the (riled up) low iq people flooding in. And not just that, you have certain social problems that encompasses a certain demographic that would usually uphold that.

And the more a certain environment becomes "toxic" the more rats will spawn. So from the inncocent nerd culture bit by bit a more toxic culture would come to terms reflecting the society at large. That is why the balloons say "what you become on the internet will make define you in rl" because the "boarder" will get chipped away.

>>6634

>>6634

Hmm last pic is irritation because of the proportions.

>>6634

>>6634

Right picture, will buy up as many roids as she/it/he can until it dies. Injects astronomical amounts of steroids.

>>6648

Will literally kill herself/himself by roids because the dick never appears.

>>6657

Unlike what i mentioned which is unique by sudoku be steroids. Most of them are just a bit fucked up.

The butch thingy might be very volatile.

>>6634

how does that explain people going into university and coming out marx'd? or bluepilled becoming redpilled? or attempts to civilize and convert mudhut savages?

These three people certainly arrived at different conclusions, however, the commonality among them all is their transference from their previous beliefs, which were either non existent or on shaky unproven foundations, to a stronger belief backed up by reason and logic. In our current society, children are encouraged to pursue practical pursuits, to earn a wage. This is fine in itself, however, it is done to the exclusion of exercises which build character and intuitive thinking, like philosophy or history. Growing up these deficits, any laughable belief or empty platitude that they lived by would be dislodged by Marxist thought or the Redpill. As for the the savages, I would say that being conquered implies that they must've been intellectually inferior, so it easy to imagine their local beliefs being replaced by the bible. It is important, therefore, that these children engage in these character-building exercises, with no interruption from speech concerned with anything but the values of the nation/state, in order for them to be well-equipped against foreign ideas.

>>6581

>what do you suppose then is the solution to corruption?

Asking for a solution to corruption is to literally ask for a solution to entropy. Such a thing obviously doesn't exist.

There are treatments, but no cure.

>what rules are there in this marketplace of ideas?

inherently none. The system is anarchic, and attempts to impose rules against "wrong-think" only serve to turn "pro-rule and anti-rule" into yet another area of competition within that marketplace.

>by what measure do we find truth?

"We" do not. Individuals find personal "truth", and large-scale similarities among personal truths form a "consensus", or if the concepts are less concrete, a "zeitgeist".

>On the managing of lies

Ask again in two decades.

There's a very good reason why the "information age" has given way to an unprecedented age of lies, and that situation continues to develop.

That being said, there has never been a real system for "dealing with lies" because in the broadest possible sense, "power is the only truth", insofar as people with power have always decided what is true for the largest number of people.

>>6673

You dont build a hose by the fine facade you build by brick and mortar.

>>6678

It is because it would undermine the brick and mortar by rats.

>>6679

What part of my post are you replying to?