Do you believe in a full free speech?
(If your answer contains the word "but", just click no you hypocrite)
If I said Yes I would love being able to speak whatever, but at the same time I would have to suffer the opinions of retards I do not agree with and I would be a hypocrite for wanting to smash someone's head in over a retarded thing they said.
However if I said No, the moment I get filtered for My speech I would quickly become rebellious and oppose it in any way I can in order to be able to be heard again.
There is no easy answer that you can go with, without sacrificing something to make it work as written.
Sorry we're hypocrites.
@Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin
Porn is hardly speech. In the same way, as a thrown brick is not speech.
@bjolokalo @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin
You are now literally comparing hand movement to rape.
I don't care if you're trolling or serious, since either way, continuing this debate would be worthless even for me.
@fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin @bjolokalo
An academic distraction, but this time, it's an advanced one, so I am happy to elaborate.
I do not agree with Jordan Peterson often, but on this topic, he formulated it perfectly. Freedom to speak is the freedom to THINK.
You need to hear an idea in order to even start thinking about it, and you do need other people to build on it. This is the reason, why you also need the ability to hear all versions of the idea you care about, not just an approved academic one. Because you never know where in the noise is the breakpoint you need to see a new truth.
So, why is freedom of expresion the subversion? because a thrown brick is an expresion of your idea. So is glueing yourself on the road to stop an ambulance. The left loves their "non violent" but deadly protests, and they will do anything they can to hide this psychopathic tendency under a wordplay. But does that brick thrown at your head allow you to think about the complex implications in the new law? I don't think so.
So, no. I am definitely not going to accept the frame of "freedom of expression".
Y'all do you. I'm not taking any stance on this matter, either for or against.
Heil to generic freedoms is all I'll say. 🙂
PS I like your arguments though. No issues with how you've presented that.
@fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin @bjolokalo
Don't worry, I also like jumping into a long threads without reading :D
Well, at least I am happy I got to form my thoughts for people in here to read.
@fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin @bjolokalo
Also, that is WHY i DESPISE Destiny's new free speech video. He literally says, that it is important for only the "highest quality of speech to be allowed" in order to "save free speech".
I mean, how many brain worms do you need to believe that shit?
There is NO case to be made for criminalizing "hate speech" against Niggers, Jews, Muslims and other minority parasites.
Alex I guess the idiot doesn't have a good elaboration on who gets to decide what speech is qualified as "high quality speech".
@LukeAlmighty
But not everything can be expressed in words, nor should it be. And if some freedom of nonverbal expression does not involve any real sacrifice, then why restrict it?
And remember that you too could be the person who is restricted by an unnecessary law... (for example, go to Britain in these days and try to fly their flag without saying a word).
@fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin
An interesting take, that I haven't heard about before. I kinda like it, and its rejection of freedom of expression.
>thought provoking brick
The brick will allow me to ponder the complexities of it's make for the half-second before it beams me between the eyes, lmao. 😆
Now I want a brick with the words "my argument" chiseled on it.
@Alex1488
Please, send me a photo once you manage to create that statue of verbal briliance.
@fish
In my view, I would see the reason for punishment not in the fact that it is on video, but in the act itself.
Murder recorded on video is not illegal because of the recording itself, but because of the murder itself.
IMHO, so-called making of pornography should not be limited for example by that there are two minors in the recording, but only if it is not consensual sex (just if it is actually rape).
However, this would not be a restriction of freedom of expression, but rather a punishment for the crime itself, which took place in front of the camera. And with should be punishable even if there is no camera present.
@LukeAlmighty
My answer is serious.
When two 14-year-olds have sex, it is legal. And I am not talking about rape, but about mutual consent. However, as soon as they record it on video and publish it, they are committing the illegal distribution of pornography from a legal perspective (if I understand the law correctly).
In this sense, the law restricts their freedom of expression in this area, even if it is nonverbal expression.
What do you disagree with in my view—maybe I'm just looking at it too much like by my autistic way...
@LukeAlmighty @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin
Pornography is an body activity, typicly in front of a camera.
Giving the Nazi salute in front of a camera is also an body activity.
Would you say that banning videos showing people giving the Nazi salute, just without any verbal speech, is not a restriction of freedom of speach /expression?