Do you believe in a full free speech?
(If your answer contains the word "but", just click no you hypocrite)
1. Fraud (knowingly lying to someone to take advantage of them)
2. Conspiracy "I just SAID that anyone who kills trump will get a million dollars in Monero, what ever happened free speech?! I thought this is America!!"
3. Child porn "Wow look, it's just a bunch of random words, totally speech, but when you use this little program to decode it, it's actually pedobear.jpg" - Interestingly, this is the only "speech" that is restricted not because of its result but rather because of it's origin.
4. Incitement to violence/crime: Trying to manipulate someone into becoming violent and/or breaking the law. A fairly straightforward case would be if a hypnotist were to hypnotize people and tell them to go do crime. But this is a controversial topic, there have been cases where factual news was suppressed by the argument that "if people heard that, they'd riot", which is very much bullshit.
An interesting case was in the 60s(?) someone had a kids TV show and they told kids to dial some phone number that was a pay number (like those old phone sex things). I don't think they really lied, but they did get in trouble because it was considered manipulative.
@cjd
I would mostly agree, but the left had managed to subvert the points 2 and 4.
These people seriously believe, that saying your nation is worth protecting is a direct call for genocide, while they also claiming, that saying that whitey doesn't have any right for a job to feed his family is completely ok and violence free.
So, until I find a way to define these terms in a subversion free form, I cannot accept your framework, even though it would be completely correct in a sane world.
>If the next thing is entirely autocratic with no way to hold those in power accountable, that's going to be out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire.
I do think that Hoppe had a point in that democracy encouraged you to hate your neighbor with the wrong yard sign instead of the leader he's supporting. Autocracy would at least get people to focus on where the problems really lie.
@cjd
My point is, that in the same way as you wan to make sure, that you can say female to make sure no dudes are included when you say "women", I want to find a way to say "calls to violence" without making literally all of right wing thought illegal by misinterpretation.
It was not an assumption of bad faith from you. The problem is, that this definitional line was already broken.
That's because the people defining it (government) are acting in bad faith.
If someone thinks "silence is violence" or whatever kids say these days, it doesn't matter as long as they aren't the ones governing.
@cjd
Don't worry, this point is pure autism on my side.
I just find it hilarious, that if an average conservative had and IQ over 80, they could press a reset button on entire transgender debate by saying:
Sorry, these are male and female bathrooms...
Sorry, you cannot compete in female sports, but we have a female devision though..
and so on.
In a place like KSA or China, things don't work that way so when someone has a batshit insane idea, the culture is to say "STFU loser".
What we would want is a world like that, except when the government starts saying batshit insane / bad faith stuff, we can just say "your government sucks, I applied to join <someone else's> government and got accepted so I quit"
> the left had managed to subvert
When you don't have trust and assumption of good faith from the people in power, all is lost. I think we're already to the point that no serious person really believes in Democracy anymore, it's just that changing things is dangerous and nobody is 100% sure what to replace it with.
If the next thing is entirely autocratic with no way to hold those in power accountable, that's going to be out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire.