...But I'll defend to the death, your right to say it...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Who are the ones who started blasting it over the airwaves and making it into a big deal? The MSM.

That's the reality of it. I never stated that they invented the concept, only that they are the ones who made it into a big deal with their bull# rhetoric.

a reply to: NeoSpartan

Yawn.

Charlie didn't threaten anyone at anytime in this thread.

Why not quote something to demonstrate what you're talking about ... you seem to understand how to cut-and-paste?

That is ... if you can.

My opinion is based upon observations and knowledge of the world. What other think of my opinion, and subsequent label they place on me, is their karma - not mine.

I respect everyones opinion on the various topics we all enjoy discussing here. Some opinions I agree with, and others I do not. What I won't do, is place a label on an individual, because we are far too complex for that, and besides, sometimes our opinions change as we learn things about that topic.

Everyone is equally entitled to voice their opinion - BUT, being complex individuals, one must realize that the recipient of that opinion may react with anything from agreement to violence (even resulting in death) - such is the nature of humans.

Free speech gotcha down?

Probably should avoid people.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

And if that's what anyone was advocating for here ... I'd absolutely agree with you.

It's not. Charlie is stating that he will not die for homophobes, racists and pedophiles.

To contradict that, to diminish it ... to imply that such a statement is dangerous somehow ... is that not the actions of the very PC you're condemning?

I am still unable to see how we should let people die for saying anything. The only justifiable punishment for words is more words. Take Charlie Hebdo, for instance. Yes, I think we should defend free speech with our lives. I think we should defend holocaust deniers even, as Noam Chomsky and Chris Hitchens did, at great cost to their careers.

First of all ... the nexus of the whole thread is the ubiquitous hyperbolic BS quote that anyone "would die to protect anyone's offhanded speech." This gets repeated ad nauseam and as such, has lost all meaning, mostly because the phrase is inevitably tacked on to the end of some self-righteous tirade directed at something someone said that someone else didn't like. I mean, if we're going to speak the truth, let's speak it.

My reading of Charlie's post was quite simply an HONEST statement that he is not willing to die to protect the erstwhile freedoms of those who do not honor or respect the freedoms of others. Seems to be a strong bit of honest utilitarianism to me. Personally, we can use a good bit of HONESTY in this current culture ... all round. Libs, Cons, Reds, Blues, Ups, Downs ... we have almost all entered into this virtual internet reality in which our words mean nothing in terms of actual facts and behaviors.

In fact, you yourself are one of the folks that has brought this latter issue to my attention. Actions, not words, are the key.

If, for example, we are to begin to slay the demons of "PC Culture" by ceasing to let the words (names, derogatory remarks, et. al.) of others harm us, then, by golly, so can they. Merely being called a vapid racist, or an ignorant religious nut, or a sexist pig should also be ignored ... particularly if the eponym is not accurate.

And if it is ... well ... with Marcus Aurelius ""What is this, fundamentally? What is its nature and substance, its reason for being?"

"Truth."

a reply to: Gryphon66

I've read through all posts on all pages, and I didn't see any post from the OP suggesting/insinuating killing anybody, for any reason.

What I have seen, is other posters who have accused the OP of suggesting/insinuating killing people, and making really.... bizzare hypotheticals regarding out of context accusations.

I'll take the Libertarian "Non-Agression Principle," as reference to the "personal computer," madness that is so often peddled around here.

I don't get it... since when did personal computers become sentient, have "police," and when did they start dictating what one can and can't say? (This is a joke for those who can't tell)

I agree with the OP, anyway... but I guess what the OP meant to say in his/her OP was something else entirely, according to other members, but I think I'll go with the judgement of the OP in what they were trying to convey versus the plethora of word wizards on ATS that twist and contort everything out of context.

I have to say, reading the comments of other posters who absolutely INSIST that the OP was suggesting killing people is pure entertainment. Nowhere - has the OP suggested such ridiculousness, and it's rather clear. It's also rather funny though reading some of the hyperbolized comments, especially the one that goes about saying "after you off a few million," LOL.

Oh, humans. Accusing someone of them suggesting they want to kill people, when they clearly said no thing, and rebutting with a comment such as that! Oh man, talk about logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance.

There are people advocating killing other people in this thread, and it's not the OP. Now let me get my word-Wizard over here real quick so I can show exactly where it shows that!

LOL

a reply to: NeoSpartan

You keep saying I fail at comprehension, when he furthered his views later in the thread, which I believe is something you asked for, more information?

Yet, you fail to see that there was no threat.

Even ignore the paedophilia, what then? The statement I made was '... or similar', so lets just assume it was antisemitism, anti pc, anti Muslim, anti Christian, whatever buzzword. It does not matter, so why are you focusing now on this? Comprehend?

a reply to: Kali74

Great points.

There's no laws protecting free speech from societal consequence. Perhaps you think there should be? But where to draw the lines?

You're right.

Yes I do believe laws should protect speech and speakers from societal consequences.

The arguments for absolute free speech has been laid out in great detail by John Stuart Mill in his "On Liberty". They are hard to deny. It's not a completely boring read, but in regards to where we draw the line, that right there is the contentious issue even for him. Myself, I believe in absolute free speech, and that's because I believe speech is inherently and fundamentally harmless.

Not we, just some of us understand what free speech is and what it isn't. Some won't defend the life of a bigot should prosecution become an issue, some would and some only claim they would. It is the prerogative of the individual, isn't it?

As you and I both know, freedoms will be exploited and used to insidious ends. However, this is not an issue with the freedom itself, but with morality. The reason you or I do not breach our free speech and delve into racism and hatred, is because we are moral, we care how others feels. That, in my opinion, is where we need to attack racists, homophobes, and bigots, but not limit our own freedoms in order to limit theirs.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Fantastic post, but it stll leaves me with a question, though I personally haven't a major issue with racists who aren't vocal, nor homophobes, nor anyone I can think of really, can you see how a refusal to die for *certain* beliefs is, to some, not an immoral attitude to hold then?

a reply to: RomeByFire

I can't speak for Charlie (who is very well able to eloquently speak for himself, and has done so here) but I can say that almost any sane person could sense a bit of a rant running in tandem with what I know as Charlie's pretty blunt honesty. Further, I would venture, that Charlie would actually be one of the few humans to put himself in harm's way on behalf of the well-being of another ... regardless of his current deficit of patience for human foolishness.

Yes, the reactions on the part of some here is nothing less than BIZARRE. That is the precise term.

The real issue in my own analysis, is that by turning this sing-song phrase that allows a certain ilk to viciously attack another's free speech and right to hold an opinion in any way they choose, as long as they mouth the requisite BS phrase "but I'll defend your right ..." yuk yuk yuk.

Charlie toppled one of their shibboleths ... and the only thing some of them know to do is to come out swinging with whatever they've got "despot," "tyrant," "communist," "nazi," "terrorist" and of course the subtle-not-so-subtle "be careful what you ask for, Muslim."

Funny isn't it ... or rather, tragically ironic, that the real "closet despots" out themselves with every word they say.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That, in my opinion, is where we need to attack racists, homophobes, and bigots, but not limit our own freedoms in order to limit theirs.

Hmmmm I went away to eat and I read that you still don't quite understand what I'm saying.

This quoted post, is a primary example of what I'm not advocating...
ie To limit people's freedom.


By all means the KKK, the Clerics, the Evangelists can say whatever they like to who they like when they like...

Just don't expect me to die for you when the time comes that someone says "I've had enough of your s#"...

That is all.

Layaly, you cracked me up lol.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kali74

Great points.

There's no laws protecting free speech from societal consequence. Perhaps you think there should be? But where to draw the lines?

You're right.

Yes I do believe laws should protect speech and speakers from societal consequences.

The arguments for absolute free speech has been laid out in great detail by John Stuart Mill in his "On Liberty". They are hard to deny. It's not a completely boring read, but in regards to where we draw the line, that right there is the contentious issue even for him. Myself, I believe in absolute free speech, and that's because I believe speech is inherently and fundamentally harmless.

Not we, just some of us understand what free speech is and what it isn't. Some won't defend the life of a bigot should prosecution become an issue, some would and some only claim they would. It is the prerogative of the individual, isn't it?

As you and I both know, freedoms will be exploited and used to insidious ends. However, this is not an issue with the freedom itself, but with morality. The reason you or I do not breach our free speech and delve into racism and hatred, is because we are moral, we care how others feels. That, in my opinion, is where we need to attack racists, homophobes, and bigots, but not limit our own freedoms in order to limit theirs.

Since I can't find the post you were replying to, forgive me for hijacking yours to respond, I really don't' mean this directed at you, but the discussion as a whole.

You claim there are no laws protecting people from consequence of speech, but that's simply not true. There are many laws on the books in every state (I would assume most nations as well) that prohibit you from flat out decking someone, killing someone, or otherwise harming your fellow man physically no matter what the reason, outside of the possibility that is was defending your life and limb as self defense of defense of your family, I do believe that there are laws that protect harm in that instance, but to haul off and deck someone because they insult your mama, or my mama, or your feelings? No, laws are there that protect people from harm in that instance, if not only for that purpose.

I have been known to break those laws on occasion myself however.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Further, I would venture, that Charlie would actually be one of the few humans to put himself in harm's way on behalf of the well-being of another

Despite my rant, ironically, I probably would, Gryph.
What can I say, I wanted to rant about an almost pointless old adage.

I can't say I ever expected any of this gobbledygook.

and of course the subtle-not-so-subtle "be careful what you ask for, Muslim."

That one did give me a chuckle...

But my favourite was the one RomeByFire highlighted of "after you off a few million"...
Hehe.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I agree. I'll defend somebody's right to be an idiot all day but I'm not going to throw my life away for one.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yeah. Let's only stand up for the people who echo our own thoughts and opinions.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

a reply to: DAVID64

Yeah. Let's only stand up for the people who echo our own thoughts and opinions.

That's already been said numerous times...

Not by me though.
I was a hell of a lot more specific in who I refuse to defend to the death.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ah you what did you get yourself into

on a serious note my personal opinion

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And some of us have pointed out that that is a dangerous opinion.

So maybe you are just talking about some random guy on the street.

But maybe not.

What if the entity that decides it's had enough of their crap is the government. Would you stand by then? Do you think the government has the right to step in and attempt to murder its people because it doesn't like what they are saying?

THAT is the argument some of us have been attempting to make. That is where we talk about defending another person's right to speech, not on the level of two people on the street necessarily, but absolutely when it comes to having political power leveraged against them to silence them. You are the one who brought in the idea of permanent silence with your OP.

If you are not willing to fight for the freedom of all groups to speak, even those groups with which you disagree vehemently, then you are in danger of losing your own right to speak out.

a reply to: DAVID64

Dude.

It's been done.

Ad nauseam.