Free speech or Censorship

There are actually many people (mostly indoctrinated youths) whom refer to free speech as "muh freeze peach" as if to mock it, and we are retarded for supporting it .

If the youth of America think free speech is a mock-worthy joke, then we're in big trouble.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If you're needing assurance then you have already put the shackles on.

That was an Observation , not a Reality . I am as Free as I Wish to be , and Bow Down to no one Other than My Creator .

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The conflating of child pornography and stolen passwords with free speech is lazy.

Then why not answer the question instead of lazily avoiding it? If there is one place where censorship SHOULD be allowed, is to protect those most vulnerable in society. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. By making people victims of speech you only weeken them to it. There are not victims to speech.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Not one human being has come under death, injury or corruption because he happened to hear certain combinations of words and sentences deemed dangerous by some censor or bigot, yet the bodies of censored men and women litter the earth, their works stolen and destroyed because censors fear the opposite.

I don't believe that for a second.
Speech is a very powerful and can be a dangerous thing.

I'm 100% for free speech, I support your right to yell "fire" in a theater.

But the best argument for free speech is the power of it.
Trying to belittle the effects that words can have on people only hurts your argument.

You’re not 100% for free speech if you seek to limit it.

Speech is not powerful. Speech is only the extension and articulation of thought.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Where did I say I seek to limit it?

a reply to: Wookiep

The tightly cornered youth in Free Speech Corners? They didn't pipe up on the Patriot Act, or did they?

Astounding!

and we are retarded for supporting it

Well. The upside would be, that you're just psychological morons eventually and thus incapable to catch the drift. Which is why we should be talking about medical conditions and possible treatment.
You're already in first contact with said youth, what exactly did they suggest?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Speech is not powerful. Speech is only the extension and articulation of thought.

If speech is not powerful then why is free speech important?

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Nvm. Not sure I get your post enough to bother anyway.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The conflating of child pornography and stolen passwords with free speech is lazy.

Then why not answer the question instead of lazily avoiding it? If there is one place where censorship SHOULD be allowed, is to protect those most vulnerable in society. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. By making people victims of speech you only weeken them to it. There are not victims to speech.

Censorship also covers images. Don't be obtuse, you understood my question.

You then disagree with the censorship of underage porn? Just so I understand.

a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

The people that get me laughing are those that believe and defend that they have complete freedom of speech on facebook.

Uh no. Facebook is privately owned, freedom of speech is out of the window there.

Morons

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The conflating of child pornography and stolen passwords with free speech is lazy.

Then why not answer the question instead of lazily avoiding it? If there is one place where censorship SHOULD be allowed, is to protect those most vulnerable in society. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. By making people victims of speech you only weeken them to it. There are not victims to speech.

Censorship also covers images. Don't be obtuse, you understood my question.

You then disagree with the censorship of underage porn? Just so I understand.

There are two types of people who say child porn is free speech, advocates for censorship and people busted for child porn.

You think child porn is free speech? Just so I understand.

Child pornography is not speech, in my opinion. It is contraband, the product of despicable crimes. If you want to call child porn speech, and the criminalization of its dissemination and production censorship, be my guest.

On the other hand, there was an artist in Finland who made an art piece which contained child porn, which she readily found on the internet. The piece was meant to bring awareness to the availability of child pornography. Her show was cancelled and the work confiscated by Finnish authorities. I disagree with that decision.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There must be at least a few caveats on freedom of speech if we are to maintain a civilised society. 100% unrestricted freedom of speech is not logically a good idea. For example, what if somebody in the US wants to do a speaking tour of universities about becoming jihadists. Would you really be all for somebody advocating for people being allowed to promote and network fellow jihadists to promote the killing of Westerners and non-believers on campus?

originally posted by: Incandescent
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There must be at least a few caveats on freedom of speech if we are to maintain a civilised society. 100% unrestricted freedom of speech is not logically a good idea. For example, what if somebody in the US wants to do a speaking tour of universities about becoming jihadists. Would you really be all for somebody advocating for people being allowed to promote and network fellow jihadists to promote the killing of Westerners and non-believers on campus?

That's a bad example. I'm sure Berkeley would be happy to host that. Now, if you said what if a group wanted to talk about being a born-again Christian? There would be outrage, protests and followers beaten.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

Of course not. I'm simply asking the 'no censorship at ANY cost ' OP if she would allow it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The conflating of child pornography and stolen passwords with free speech is lazy.

Then why not answer the question instead of lazily avoiding it? If there is one place where censorship SHOULD be allowed, is to protect those most vulnerable in society. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. By making people victims of speech you only weeken them to it. There are not victims to speech.

Censorship also covers images. Don't be obtuse, you understood my question.

You then disagree with the censorship of underage porn? Just so I understand.

There are two types of people who say child porn is free speech, advocates for censorship and people busted for child porn.

You think child porn is free speech? Just so I understand.

Child pornography is not speech, in my opinion. It is contraband, the product of despicable crimes. If you want to call child porn speech, and the criminalization of its dissemination and production censorship, be my guest.

On the other hand, there was an artist in Finland who made an art piece which contained child porn, which she readily found on the internet. The piece was meant to bring awareness to the availability of child pornography. Her show was cancelled and the work confiscated by Finnish authorities. I disagree with that decision.

Thats a tough line to walk.

So you would disallow it for some, but not for others who are trying to 'educate'. Since this ladies that you would allow would be considered 'art', I would assume it would be open for all to see? In an art gallery or such where it could be photographed, uploaded to the web and then downloaded millions of times until it is no longer art.

You might as well just say you would allow it.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DBCowboy

WTF lol After I read your second sentence I was rolling around laughing and crying. You make a good point but to put it the way you did is funny. You get a star sir. Was that the name of your band in college?

His band name used to be dicking bimbos cowboy..but he had to shorten to DBCowboy for forum rules.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it was originally you, bill and bill in the dicking bimbos cowboy correct?

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

Of course not. I'm simply asking the 'no censorship at ANY cost ' OP if she would allow it.

Infringing on another's rights is not a protected right.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DBCowboy

WTF lol After I read your second sentence I was rolling around laughing and crying. You make a good point but to put it the way you did is funny. You get a star sir. Was that the name of your band in college?

His band name used to be dicking bimbos cowboy..but he had to shorten to DBCowboy for forum rules.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it was originally you, bill and bill in the dicking bimbos cowboy correct?

All true.

I played the air guitar.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nightbringr

Child porn is an infringement of under-aged minors rights.

Are you for infringing on the rights of a minor?

Of course not. I'm simply asking the 'no censorship at ANY cost ' OP if she would allow it.

Infringing on another's rights is not a protected right.

I see! So you DO agree that type of thing should be censored.

Too bad the OP doesn't agree.