Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hemperor]

  i kinda wondering , seems to me that should be a Liberal Prop. right? limit hate speech is a liberal concept, why is conservative in the game? because conflicts with the free speech laws? somebody knows why works this way?

[Conradine]

Because every form of censorship can and will be used to damage political opponents. To have freedom of speech, we must also tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church and Neonazi rants, at least untill the escalate in istigation to violence ( for example, I would ban with no exitation the death penalty requests ).

[hemperor]

Because every form of censorship can and will be used to damage political opponents. To have freedom of speech, we must also tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church and Neonazi rants, at least untill the escalate in istigation to violence ( for example, I would ban with no exitation the death penalty requests ).

yeah freedom of speech implies having people saying shit too, and we need tolerate, i really believe in that nobody should be prosecutated because of words until becames incitation of violence, i mean cool! this game is more realitistic that i thought

[SlatersQuest]

Free speech in the United States allows you to advocate anything that isn't itself illegal (including advocating changing the law to make something currently illegal become legal, and then doing that once the law is changed).

So if a Neonazi advocates amending the Constitution to installing a new Fürher with dictatorial power, that's legal (in the U.S. - not in other countries!). If xe advocates installing a new Fürher with dictatorial power by other means, that's illegal if xe has reasonable belief that someone will act on that advocacy.

[BigD145]

Conservatives also want to be able to break hate speech laws and blame Liberals for putting minorities on a special "more equal than the majority" pedestal. At some level it falls under the "I hate fags" and "family values" Conservative that is found having sex with male Congressional pages or playing footsie with men in public restrooms or engaging in sexual relations with 8-year old boys but also proposes laws that limit 'homosexual behavior' and keeps gay couples from adopting.

I've just described most US Conservative deviant behavior amongst elected officials in the past 80+ years, by the way.

[FinetalPies]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

[jhxmt]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

In what way is 'speaking out against [insert item here]' different from 'hate against [insert item here]'?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing - but the danger here is in differences in definition, which is why these things aren't clean, black-and-white topics (except in LCS!  )

[FinetalPies]

It's kind of hard for me to imagine 'speaking out against', like, people.

Anyway I don't think most of the problems I have with free speech have much to do with free speech itself. It's more or less that it's often used as a smokescreen or treated like immunity. Could a country both have the right to free speech and also have the KKK be hunted down and destroyed (Like the Black Panthers were)? Absolutely, that doesn't even seem to me like hypocrisy. But that isn't what happens, and the (US and Canadian) government(s) need to stop being so racist.

[IsaacG]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

In what way is 'speaking out against [insert item here]' different from 'hate against [insert item here]'?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing - but the danger here is in differences in definition, which is why these things aren't clean, black-and-white topics (except in LCS!  )

Aye, that's why this topic is so [darn] controversial.  It's part of why it can be misleading to attempt to place all issues on a single sliding scale from liberal to conservative.

LCS attempts to simplify this and other topics by strawmanning the conservative side into fascism, and presenting liberalism as a utopia.  In order to present the two as absolute opposites, anything one side agrees to is utterly opposed by the other.  One side has guns available at every convenience store, the other lacks guns entirely.  One side has entirely private insurance and outlaws abortion and birth control, the other has free healthcare that covers abortion and birth control.

Since fascism has historically opposed freedom of speech, LCS inevitably has to support all forms of freedom of speech, otherwise it stops being a utopian/dystopian caricature, and starts being an attempt to model the intricate complexities of real world political ideology.

Additionally, seeing as LCS is a criminal organization, it stands to reason that it requires severe loyalty from its members, which largely means there should be very little disagreement over ideology.  The LCS ideology is presumably relatively homogeneous.

[SlatersQuest]

Well, the reality is that nobody likes it when people express ideologies other than their own, liberal or conservative. The reason why freedom of speech is in the Constitution in the first place is to prevent any side from gaining too much power.

IsaacG has it basically right: in LCS, the liberals are the heroes and the conservatives are the villains. We discussed what a game in which the player is the CCS instead of the LCS would look like, and agreed that many of the political issues would have to be realigned. A heroic CCS would support freedom of speech just as the heroic LCS does, and a villainous LCS would oppose it (although for somewhat different reasons).

Yes, the LCS is completely uniform in its ideology, as evinced by the fact that any liberal will have the same effect on public opinion with a given activity, even in situations where personal beliefs might matter, e.g. a sculptor making liberal art and a corporate manager making art will still have the exact same effects. This stands out in particular because, in a real LCS-like organization (note that making and selling political art in the U.S. is not criminal), there might be ideological differences. The sculptor might well be a Marxist, while the corporate manager is more likely a Smithian capitalist (i.e. favors small businesses where the employers and employees are friends and value each-other's opinions).

[FinetalPies]

The Left vs. Right political spectrum has such huge potential for comedy since it's already basically a joke.

[SlatersQuest]

The Left vs. Right political spectrum has such huge potential for comedy since it's already basically a joke.

And that, precisely, is why LCS was made in the first place!   

[Teh Barple]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

that is not free speech, you are against free speech

[BigD145]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

that is not free speech, you are against free speech

Threats of violence are not protected speech.

[SlatersQuest]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

that is not free speech, you are against free speech

True, but a statement along the lines of "We are the KKK - we don't approve of violence anymore, but we still dislike X, Y, and Z" is protected, regardless of what X, Y, and Z are.

Threats of violence are not protected speech.