Print

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

[TempAcc]

You talk as if antifa wasn't mostly made of rich kids who just want to break shit :v

[MorleyDev]

And I dislike when people parrot this argument like the first amendment is the only thing that defines free speech. Why is it not a fundamental right? Why does it deserve less protection than freedom of religion, free movement, or whatever you hold to be fundamental?

"A person's rights stop where another person's start". For example, the right to religious freedom stops applying when actions from it impede the rights rights of another.

It's simple: If a person is in your house, you are allowed to tell him to get the fuck out or shut the fuck up. Those are the two options available to that person, at that point. They're free to still hold that opinion. Free to still hold that belief. Free to leave your house. They aren't free to keep talking without forfeiting their right to be on your private property. You have retracted that consent. You can't suppress the opinion, just the expression of that opinion in an area under your private control. And you're free to gather together and shout louder than them in a public space to drown them out, if they go outside and start shouting.

You can't use violence to prevent them either, legally. I'm not saying that using violence is right or justified. I am saying it is an understandable response, though not one that can be condoned, when you believe the current powers in government are literally seeking to remove your basic rights in your country of citizenship, especially when historically those rights have not been afforded to you.

People still need to be arrested, laws enforced, but just pointing at it and going "See, those violent SJWs are no better" really is completely missing the point. "Treat a person like an animal for long enough and they'll eventually act like one" and all that.

(As for the misgendering thing, I fail to see how "You can't continue to write incorrect information down on legal documents after being informed that it is incorrect" is the same as "Being gay should mean people are allowed to lock you up in a mental hospital without your consent" are equitable positions. It's like when people claim the temporary suspension of new visas from Iraq under Obama is equivalent to what Trump did, despite the scale, context and consequences all being much different with the Obama EO).

[Sheb]

You talk as if antifa wasn't mostly made of rich kids who just want to break shit :v

In my experience, they're not really rich kids at all.

[LoSboccacc]

If a person is in your house, you are allowed to tell him to get the fuck out or shut the fuck up.

Also perjury, libel and slander are a thing. Plus words might endanger people, classic example is yelling fire in a theater.

That's why the rights usually covers "the" freedom of speech, not the speech itself.

[Reelya]

Also there's no fundamental universal reason that human speech should be privileged over any other action. Why should someone have a "fundamental" right to nag at you but you not have a right to shove a sock in their mouth? Any reason you can give is always posited on some human-created value system, and people can in fact dispute that with an alternate value system.

We can say that we think something "should" be important, but that's just our opinion. Saying something is "fundamental" implies there's some objectively measurable value to it. But that only works when you apply your value system, and value systems are something humans make up, they're not objective in any sense.

[Sergarr]

That's like saying that there's no fundamental reason why humans should prefer life over death. Sure, technically it's correct, but it misses the point.

[Neonivek]

Also there's no fundamental universal reason that human speech should be privileged over any other action. Why should someone have a "fundamental" right to nag at you but you not have a right to shove a sock in their mouth? Any reason you can give is always posited on some human-created value system, and people can in fact dispute that with an alternate value system.

We can say that we think something "should" be important, but that's just our opinion. Saying something is "fundamental" implies there's some objectively measurable value to it. But that only works when you apply your value system, and value systems are something humans make up, they're not objective in any sense.

Because, and I know it isn't obvious, the right of free speech is... at its nature the right to your own thoughts.

Remember that quote: "If we wouldn't trust our enemies to have weapons, why should we allow them to have thoughts?" or something along those lines.

THAT is why Free Speech is so damn protected over everything else. Just messing with it is essentially an attempt to manipulate people into one way of thinking.

[smjjames]

Former Norwegian PM held at Dulles airport because..... he had been to Iran in 2014.

Shows how ridiculous this whole thing is. Sure, it could be considered an outlier, but it's still ridiculous.

[TheBiggerFish]

If a person is in your house, you are allowed to tell him to get the fuck out or shut the fuck up.

Also perjury, libel and slander are a thing. Plus words might endanger people, classic example is yelling fire in a theater.

That's why the rights usually covers "the" freedom of speech, not the speech itself.

....
May I point you to Trope #2.

And generally that entire thing.

[Helgoland]

That's like saying that there's no fundamental reason why humans should prefer life over death. Sure, technically it's correct, but it misses the point.

Well, that's a very valid point when talking about suicides, and with suicidal people in general.


Re:Free speech: I think the reason for protecting free speech as opposed to the many other things folks tend to do is not that it's somehow intrinsically special, but rather because free speech is necessary to the health of our political system. The right to free speech is not a moral right, but a practical political one.

[TheBiggerFish]

@Helgoland:Technically, yes, but you're missing the point.

[Strife26]

It's not *just* a moral right but also one critical to our political system, yes. That's why not only is free speech protected, but political speech is super-specially protected.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Former Norwegian PM held at Dulles airport because..... he had been to Iran in 2014.

Shows how ridiculous this whole thing is. Sure, it could be considered an outlier, but it's still ridiculous.

You know what the reaction of someone related to me was when I told them this?  'He's former, so what does it matter?'  What.  The.  Fuck.

[MrRoboto75]

doot doot

[martinuzz]

Trump's reaction to the Norwegian former PM being detained would probably be 'can't blame customs, all those arabs look the same'.
European geography lessons are scheduled for 2019.