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.
Whites (and honoraries) can disagree, none can subvert!
Alex 
@Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin
Porn is hardly speech. In the same way, as a thrown brick is not speech.
@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?
@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.
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...
That like saying i cant preach what a demon is in heaven when im in congregation with the angels talking about evil entities. Imagine if you cant even mention who moloch is and all the stereotype moloch carries. Thatd be fucking stupid.
Hate speech is free speech. Hate speech is protective speech. Hate speech is moral principled coded world structured speech.
It is free speech. AND IT IS ALSO! CIVILIZED SPEECH!
@LukeAlmighty
As far as I know, freedom of speech only exists in a few small countries in South America (?). Everywhere else, you will find topics that are punishable by law if spoken about publicly.
@bjolokalo
Yes, when I found out the reach of speech limitations in Czech republic, I actually felt quite sick.
Most of the time, I am really proud of this nation, but one of our politicians is literally just going through a process for pointing out, that immigration won't solve all issues of society.
ひげ
@LukeAlmighty I support the right to freedom of expression. As always, your rights end where someone else's begin. It's our job to make sure that someone's "rights" aren't just some stupid shit based on their country of origin. Speech can in fact do measurable harm that intrudes on someone's rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), so that's where it would stop, naturally.
no matter what your selection is, the opposition will find a way to turn it against you, so i think this answer is probably the best. which makes sense, there is a reason why the founding fathers said the same thing. they didn't just randomly come up with it haphazardly.
@beardalaxy
Can you just say no?
@LukeAlmighty I think it mostly depends on what your definition of "full free speech" is, because free speech as I know it is as I have described. If you are referring to absolute anarchy, then I would say no. Reason being, basically, we live in a society. I don't trust the vast majority of people to have access to something like that and actually treat it with respect.
@beardalaxy
No idea why you would ever compare something so civilized as speech to anarchy, but I think you are in a clear "no" at this point.
@beardalaxy
Also, here is a truly important fact.
> your rights end where someone else's begin<
This is not a description of your position, it is a definition of word.
No matter where you actually believe the line is, it will always fit that retarded line.
Should mother be able to abort?
Obviously. The kid's right to live only begins after the right to body autonomy of the mother. BRUH...
Should mother be able to abort?
Obviously. The mothers right for body autonomy only begisn after the right of baby to live. CHUD...
@LukeAlmighty The unborn child has rights of their own. Like I said, it is up to us as a collective to decide where said rights begin and that is where the true debate lies. If we have no laws on it whatsoever, then abortion is legal at any point because the rights of the child are not recognized. So we have to find out where a person's rights begin so we know when to limit another person's.
Complete and total free speech (or any form of anarchy whatsoever) is not something I would personally use to impede on someone's rights, but I fully believe that my ideological enemies WOULD use it for that purpose and that is why it cannot exist. We live in a society 
@LukeAlmighty speech can be pretty damn uncivilized lol. As long as it doesn't impede on someone else's rights, I think it's fine.
@beardalaxy
This is the direct definition of hate speech.
Ok, thanks for explaining yourself.
@LukeAlmighty that's why I said that we shouldn't base a person's rights on their country of origin. Nobody has the right to not hear something offensive about them. People do have the right to not have pornography, edited or otherwise, of them published without their consent (which includes CP). Defamation is a pretty clear cut example of when speech is proven to harm somebody. Other examples are fraud and false advertising. There is a good reason why these things are illegal... They harm somebody else's actual rights.
It's not like I have to accept any random reason somebody might think something is a right to hold this viewpoint.
@LukeAlmighty When I think about the survey question, I answered "no" in the sense that I don't believe that freedom of speech fully exists anywhere (except in few South American countries), not in the sense that I don't want that kind of freedom.
Sadly the collective IQ of America's current populace is too low to understand why.
Oh wow...
Now, that is a seriously unexpected result.