Do you believe in a full free speech?

(If your answer contains the word "but", just click no you hypocrite)

@LukeAlmighty That's a complicated question.
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.

He didn't want it to be complicated. I selected "no US" because I had two or three "buts" like that child porn doesn't count and I won't protect the free speech of people that are actively anti-free speech.

Sorry we're hypocrites.

@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.

@LukeAlmighty @bjolokalo @Deplorable_Degenerate @Curvin The freedom of speech tends to be more broadly about expression, no, and that would include things like pornography. So, personally, I'd say it depends. Do you support the freedom to express yourself, or literally just speech?

@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".