The limits of free speech

[Hancock]

23 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

And there ya go,  "keep your idealistic nonsense to your self"  on a thread about free speech.

Kinda ironic 

 

I do have a question, whats up with this "we"  are there others your representing, they cant speak up.

 "An we've been thru enough"  

 

enough of what,,,,again with the we....

 

 

.

 

Man I know your type, it's just going to go in logical circles til you feel justified in your viewpoint which is the abstract notion that we should all hold hands an be happy. Which is true in theory, but we aren't there yet as a group of human beings.

 

We means my native best friend Ryan, Blackfoot tribe he says hi. 

 

19 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

I think if you spend some time in the military like I have like 20yrs or so,  and some others here have.

It might help address some of  the issues you've mentioned while you get a  chance to defend others rights

as I did  and others have to voice things that you might not agree with. 

 

I think you've defended an did great for the country, thanks for your service. I like how you played the military card. My stepfather uses it a lot. 

You fought for a country's ideals given by those in power who've oppressed an put others down. I know you an people like you usually are great people an have great hearts, my African-American green beret mentor, is a good guy. I still call him Mr.Bill. lol  Very much into freedom an complaining about the gripes most of us have, because he actually put his life on the line adolescent generation weren't thought of. but he still lives thru the racism and bullshit, til he plays the green beret card.

 

Stuff hasn't changed. 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Hancock

[Hancock]

24 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

I think if you spend some time in the military like I have like 20yrs or so,  and some others here have.

It might help address some of  the issues you've mentioned while you get a  chance to defend others rights

as I did  and others have to voice things that you might not agree with. 

 

With all due respect, to you and every soldier here, an to Mr.Bill. thank you for your service, you didn't let us down. We've let you down by not making this country the great nation you fought for. Still, Bless you all from the bottom of my heart.

 

[dawei]

On 8/14/2017 at 9:50 PM, Aetherous said:

 

A gathering for white supremacists, because they think they're gaining power in America. It was called "Unite the Right", not "Save the Statue".

 

Good thread for lively discussion

 

I think I get your point... that the statue issue is really just an excuse for the inevitable rally of their own cause to push forward... which maybe you see being done in such a way that we should draw a line about it being done.

 

If we remove labels of groups (which Trump did with his 'all', and I agree with), then we should equally want to condemn any group that uses an excuse (front) to push their own [violent] rhetoric...  think of the rally's against Trump; the celebrities claiming they will blow up the white house, etc.   Some people should of just been put in jail.

 

Here is the problem: Eventually, every group is going to find a time and a place and a reason to use a current issue as a front for their own agenda and ideologue to be put 'in your face'.    Look at Milo being shut down from talking at USC and the violence that ensued.   Frankly, the students should of been gassed, pepper sprayed, hauled off the jail, and kicked out of school.

 

Getting back to the point, yes?  Is there limits?  I think a few have agreed there are and one has to rely on the legalese of the courts to decide such things, whether we might agree or not.

 

I think we have to allow the rally's, gathers, protests... and regardless of how sound or rational it is... if it is not motivated to incite violence and hate crimes.  The problem is, some of these are doing just that and it may be an enforcement issue at stake: How to allow it and then control it and then step in at the right time... timing is everything.   

[Aetherous]

I agree with everything you said, Dawei.
 

50 minutes ago, dawei said:

if it is not motivated to incite violence and hate crimes.

 

I just wonder...if someone's belief system is that America is for whites, and that all other races have to go...is a gathering of people who think the same thing not motivated toward violence and hate crimes? It seems like it is inherently violent and disruptive of the public's peace.

Ralis did bring up a good point, though, that these gatherings are legally permitted, since there isn't an explicit threat.

Still...are we stupid? Are we not able to read between the lines and see that these gatherings are an attempt at amassing power, in order to achieve the end in sight? They don't have to spell it out, for some of us.

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Aetherous said:

I agree with everything you said, Dawei.
 

 

I just wonder...if someone's belief system is that America is for whites, and that all other races have to go...is a gathering of people who think the same thing not motivated toward violence and hate crimes? It seems like it is inherently violent and disruptive of the public's peace.

Ralis did bring up a good point, though, that these gatherings are legally permitted, since there isn't an explicit threat.

Still...are we stupid? Are we not able to read between the lines and see that these gatherings are an attempt at amassing power, in order to achieve the end in sight? They don't have to spell it out, for some of us.

Who decides which thoughts are acceptable and which are dangerous?  Which thoughts are permissible and which are impermissible?  Which thoughts are mandatory and which are forbidden?

 

The Thought Police?

 

The Ministry of Truth?

 

You see the problem here?

[Aetherous]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

Who decides which thoughts are acceptable and which are dangerous?  Which thoughts are permissible and which are impermissible?  Which thoughts are mandatory and which are forbidden?

 

The Thought Police?

 

The Ministry of Truth?

 

You see the problem here?

 

Don't we already decide, as a society, that ISIS is dangerous? Who is the one that chose for us to think that?

 

I realize that you like thought games...but to cut through the facade: you're arguing in favor of white supremacists. Why?

Is this issue not clear enough for you to take a stance?

[Aetherous]

If the Islamic State held a rally, would they get a permit in the US, so long as there were no explicit threats against individuals? If not, why not?

Should they be allowed to?

[Brian]

25 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Don't we already decide, as a society, that ISIS is dangerous? Who is the one that chose for us to think that?

 

I realize that you like thought games...but to cut through the facade: you're arguing in favor of white supremacists. Why?

Is this issue not clear enough for you to take a stance?

No, I am arguing in favor of individual sovereignty, uniform rule of law and limited-government.

 

I find white nationalism, black nationalism, national socialism, democratic socialism and all other forms of oligarchical collectivism repugnant.

[Brian]

24 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

If the Islamic State held a rally, would they get a permit in the US, so long as there were no explicit threats against individuals? If not, why not?

Should they be allowed to?

Yes and yes, just as the Nation of Islam and the Klan and Black Lives Matter and the CPUSA should.

 

Freedom of speech is not about protecting ideas everyone likes.

[Aetherous]

Just now, Brian said:

Yes and yes, just as the Nation of Islam and the Klan and Black Lives Matter and the CPUSA should.

 

Freedom of speech is not about protecting ideas everyone likes.

 

Thanks for the clear answer...I can't agree at all. As the topic states, free speech has its limits (which courts and law enforcement decide...and others of us simply have opinions on).

Some people think that giving unlimited free speech to everyone without discrimination is a virtue. I think lacking the faculty of discrimination is the opposite of a virtue! We'd be a wise country if we just put two and two together, and said, "Terrorist rallies aren't permitted, for obvious reasons".

[Brian]

Just now, Aetherous said:

 

Thanks for the clear answer...I can't agree at all. As the topic states, free speech has its limits (which courts and law enforcement decide...and others of us simply have opinions on).

Some people think that giving unlimited free speech to everyone without discrimination is a virtue. I think lacking the faculty of discrimination is the opposite of a virtue! We'd be a wise country if we just put two and two together, and said, "Terrorist rallies aren't permitted, for obvious reasons".

Excellent!  So are you OK if I get to determine which ideas you are legally permitted to express?

[dawei]

1 hour ago, Aetherous said:

I agree with everything you said, Dawei.
 

 

I just wonder...if someone's belief system is that America is for whites, and that all other races have to go...is a gathering of people who think the same thing not motivated toward violence and hate crimes? It seems like it is inherently violent and disruptive of the public's peace.

Ralis did bring up a good point, though, that these gatherings are legally permitted, since there isn't an explicit threat.

Still...are we stupid? Are we not able to read between the lines and see that these gatherings are an attempt at amassing power, in order to achieve the end in sight? They don't have to spell it out, for some of us.

 

I think these are natural counter-questions... but I agree with the line of comment from Brian.   there is a real problem when we start to consider how to judge thoughts or truth and who is able to speak openly as they want.  Academia may of lost their historical position of teaching this. 

 

The good news is.. the current events has ripened the discussion about such things.  

[Brian]

12 minutes ago, Brian said:

Yes and yes, just as the Nation of Islam and the Klan and Black Lives Matter and the CPUSA should.

 

Freedom of speech is not about protecting ideas everyone likes.

 

6 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Thanks for the clear answer...I can't agree at all. As the topic states, free speech has its limits (which courts and law enforcement decide...and others of us simply have opinions on).

Some people think that giving unlimited free speech to everyone without discrimination is a virtue. I think lacking the faculty of discrimination is the opposite of a virtue! We'd be a wise country if we just put two and two together, and said, "Terrorist rallies aren't permitted, for obvious reasons".

Which of the groups I identify above would you deem permissible?

Edited August 16, 2017 by Brian
Stupid smartphone...

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Thanks for the clear answer...I can't agree at all. As the topic states, free speech has its limits (which courts and law enforcement decide...and others of us simply have opinions on).

Some people think that giving unlimited free speech to everyone without discrimination is a virtue. I think lacking the faculty of discrimination is the opposite of a virtue! We'd be a wise country if we just put two and two together, and said, "Terrorist rallies aren't permitted, for obvious reasons".

However, if it is the truth it should be spoken.  Forbidding the truth is very dangerous.

 

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

However, if it is the truth it should be spoken.  Forbidding the truth is very dangerous.

 

So the government should be empowered to determine which thoughts are "truth" and which ideas are too dangerous to be allowed to exist?

[Aetherous]

2 minutes ago, Brian said:

Excellent!  So are you OK if I get to determine which ideas you are legally permitted to express?

 

This seems to be textbook strawman, and really just detracts from the discussion at hand (which seems to be the point).

But I'll give a crystal clear answer to the subject of thought policing: yes, we do need to police some thoughts (for instance, Islamic State terrorism type thoughts...also, white supremacist thoughts). No, it doesn't mean that all thoughts are subject to policing when we start to police some.

Who is capable of judging fairly which ones? Anyone with logic and humanity functioning normally. Can we as a society trust any individual or group to this task? Not indefinitely.

[Brian]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

 

This seems to be textbook strawman, and really just detracts from the discussion at hand (which seems to be the point).

But I'll give a crystal clear answer to the subject of thought policing: yes, we do need to police some thoughts (for instance, Islamic State terrorism type thoughts...also, white supremacist thoughts). No, it doesn't mean that all thoughts are subject to policing when we start to police some.

Who is capable of judging fairly which ones? Anyone with logic and humanity functioning normally. Can we as a society trust any individual or group to this task? Not indefinitely.

Would you say that I have "logic and humanity functioning normally"?

[Marblehead]

15 minutes ago, Brian said:

So the government should be empowered to determine which thoughts are "truth" and which ideas are too dangerous to be allowed to exist?

You've got to be shitting me.  The government is one of, if not the biggest, tellers of lies ever.

 

The government should comply with the Constitution and keep its mouth shut.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Marblehead

[Aetherous]

4 minutes ago, Brian said:

Would you say that I have "logic and humanity functioning normally"?

 

It seems the logic aspect is running too high, at times overriding the higher wisdom of the heart (which could otherwise illuminate the logical aspect to an even greater functioning)...but your humanity is intact. Really not viewing you in a negative light, but you asked.

Also, I will purposefully avoid answering the question about which groups you listed should be allowed to free speech. I think we're in a scenario now, with white supremacists, where it's very clear where to stand on the issue. Time to choose a side. Asking about other groups just seems to attempt to muddy the crystal clear waters. (although I do think some of BLM is black supremacist and are just as bad)

[Aetherous]

Capable thinkers are able to directly address a point pragmatically, rather than be stuck in the clouds on an issue.

"If we don't let the terrorists speak, then who can have free speech? Who decides? What group is next on the chopping block?" = ineffective thinking.

 

"Terrorists aren't allowed to speak." = effective thinking.

[Brian]

People who aren't in favor of tearing down a Robert E. Lee statue are terrorists who shouldn't be allowed to express that idea?

 

What should the government do with/to those people?

 

Are people who believe Sharia law would work pretty well also terrorists?

 

What about people who believe the Communist Manifesto is a better foundational model than the US Constitution?

 

Personally, I don't think any of those beliefs is sufficient to label someone as a terrorist, or to deny them the right to express those beliefs in the public square.  Expressing the belief that the use of violence as a means to create a state of terrorism in order to force a particular change is an acceptable course of action isn't even sufficient in my book.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Brian

[Aetherous]

2 minutes ago, Brian said:

People who aren't in favor of tearing down a Robert E. Lee statue are terrorists who shouldn't be allowed to express that idea?

 

Nope.

 

But white supremacists are...the people who organized the Unite the Right rally are, and many of its attendees who identify as white separatist or whatever other name, are.

I'm not up in the sky about what a terrorist is, either. Someone who is oppositional to the peace and the way of the life of this country.

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Yes and yes, just as the Nation of Islam and the Klan and Black Lives Matter and the CPUSA should.

 

Freedom of speech is not about protecting ideas everyone likes.

 

agree 

 

It would seem that some here may be getting what they advocate

"Support for free speech is starting to dwindle in Silicon Valley, according to Wired, who claim that major tech companies are starting to doubt the concept."

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/16/wired-notes-silicon-valley-companies-are-starting-to-doubt-concept-of-free-speech/

 

which tends to work until it hits what ever group one happens to belong to.

 

What would happen if some one or something decided this site was not accordance with their beliefs

and wanted to shut it down....would some here agree or not agree...

 

In China they have the great fire wall...

 

" It is the main instrument used by the government to achieve Internet censorship in China. These CPC regulations include criminalizing certain online speech and activities, blocking selected websites from view, filtering key words out of searches initiated from computers located in Mainland China, requiring international online service providers to store their Chinese customer information within China, and slowing down cross-border internet traffic.[1]

 

Today, a number of politically sensitive Wikipedia entries continue to be censored by the Chinese government from users who do not use a secure connection."

 

 

Actually the US has this in play directed at different things,.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by windwalker

[dawei]

1 hour ago, Aetherous said:

 

Nope.

 

But white supremacists are...the people who organized the Unite the Right rally are, and many of its attendees who identify as white separatist or whatever other name, are.

I'm not up in the sky about what a terrorist is, either. Someone who is oppositional to the peace and the way of the life of this country.

 

Not to derail this but your passion for the topic can't be ignored... where does it come from, at its root?  An early life experience or just an adult look at the issue?

 

I am very curious why this issue is so important to you... and i think this topic is important to discuss.

[Aetherous]

I encourage everyone to watch and see what the Unite the Right rally was...