Do people see Free Speech as a old worthless value?

Do you support Free Speech?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 75.7%
  • No, it's totally Lame.

    Votes: 18 24.3%

  • Total voters
    74

Carlos Weston Chantor

Experienced For Barb's Pleasure
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Free speech is when you have an AK-47 and can shoot any faggot who would give you trouble for shouting "HEY NIGGERS, HOLOCAUST IS A LIE" in a public square
 

Pentex

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Lately I'm seeing a lot of Kiwi's who give me the impression they see free speech as a old worthless "boomer" value because social media and their peers tell them it's worthless and bad. I've noticed people seem to react badly to announcement of Alt Tech sites that go against the monopoly of Twitter and Facebook, which gives me the impression they don't really care about free speech anymore.

Most left wingers I've met seem to be very low IQ or at least very brainwashed, and they seem to do mental gymnastics in their heads to justify being anti-free speech (or at least anti free speech for opinions that go against theirs). I fail to see why having less freedom in what you can say could even be a popular value outside of radical left wing nutjobs or authoritarian governments, so it seems weird to see people actually not want it, or at least not care about losing it.

So I'm curious who here still cares about Freedom of Speech.
I have it on good authority that OP takes approximately 10 miles of cock per week if counted by thrust. On the basis of best information available, the logical conclusion to reach is that he is indeed a faggot.

Bants aside, yes free speech and publication are individual rights and social goods that should be protected from nebulous and opaque restrictions based on mere distress at someone saying mean things about you or speculative scenarios were speech transmutes into violence.

The other side of the coin is that when the right is abused, there should be recourse for the target. NYT v. Sullivan needs to go and the corporate media should be as liable for libel as any individual. Likewise conspirators in whisper campaigns that intentionally cause reputational and financial harm should likewise be liable for slander.
 

WhatIsThePunchline

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
What? The first amendment is that the government cannot punish you for your speech. Your employer sure as hell can, as can private companies. If you called a coworker the gamer word, you'd be fired. Same idea applies. It's not a tough concept.


lol calm down jabroni
Free speech is not limited to the first amendment you absolute moron.

When youtube is deciding for you what information you are allowed to see, they are not doing you a favor. When twitter, facebook, cnn, visa, mastercard, amazon, google all decide for you what you are allowed to hear, who you are allowed to talk to, what information you are allowed to find credible, what you are allowed to say, they are hurting you, and everyone around you. When they censor someone else they are hurting you. They are making you blind, and stupid, and they are making you helpless. It is a harmful thing, on the level of a corporation poisoning your ground water. Worse probably. You going "buh buh buh muh private companies" is retarded.

If the consitution does not provide sufficient protections for the free exchange of information, that is an argument for either amending the constitution, or breaking up the companies that are able to suppress information so that they cannot do that anymore.

The point of the first amendment is to allow for the open exchange of information. So that when you're wrong about something, people are allowed to call you out on it even when you perceive them as 'bad people'(because you always will)'. It allows you to form a more accurate image of reality. If that's not happening anymore then amend the constitution.

"It's okay because private companies do it" is not just a brittle argument, it is beyond weak. You have to be an idiot to believe that resolves anything. A gigantic monopolistic social media platform such as youtube is not a goddamn cafeteria down the street. When they throw you out they are not just asking you to leave the premises they are crippling your ability to make your voice heard, and they are crippling everyone else's ability to understand a different perspective from their own, to get a better perspective on reality.
 

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Free speech is not limited to the first amendment you absolute moron.

When youtube is deciding for you what information you are allowed to see, they are not doing you a favor. When twitter, facebook, cnn, visa, mastercard, amazon, google all decide for you what you are allowed to hear, who you are allowed to talk to, what information you are allowed to find credible, what you are allowed to say, they are hurting you, and everyone around you. When they censor someone else they are hurting you. They are making you blind, and stupid, and they are making you helpless. It is a harmful thing, on the level of a corporation poisoning your ground water. Worse probably. You going "buh buh buh muh private companies" is retarded.

If the consitution does not provide sufficient protections for the free exchange of information, that is an argument for either amending the constitution, or breaking up the companies that are able to suppress information so that they cannot do that anymore.

The point of the first amendment is to allow for the open exchange of information. So that when you're wrong about something, people are allowed to call you out on it even when you perceive them as 'bad people'(because you always will)'. It allows you to form a more accurate image of reality. If that's not happening anymore then amend the constitution.

"It's okay because private companies do it" is not just a brittle argument, it is beyond weak. You have to be an idiot to believe that resolves anything. A gigantic monopolistic social media platform such as youtube is not a goddamn cafeteria down the street. When they throw you out they are not just asking you to leave the premises they are crippling your ability to make your voice heard, and they are crippling everyone else's ability to understand a different perspective from their own, to get a better perspective on reality
So you think that Youtube shouldn't be allowed to enforce their terms of service and you are calling me the moron? :story:

The first amendment is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There's nothing in there about private companies. It's that the government/congress won't do it. Sorry you can't sperg up Youtube with gamerwords and conspiracy shit, but that's the breaks
 
Last edited:

WhatIsThePunchline

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
So you think that Youtube shouldn't be allowed to enforce their terms of service and you are calling me the moron? :story:

The first amendment is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There's nothing in there about private companies. It's that the government/congress won't do it. Sorry you can't sperg up Youtube with gamerwords and conspiracy shit, but that's the breaks
No I don't think that and yes I am calling you a moron. I am also feeling rather validated in that judgement at this moment.
 

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
I fully grasp the difference between a private corporation fucking us over and the government fucking us over. And yes I'm still calling you a moron.
You're saying that the first amendment means that private corporations can't restrict free speech. Yes, you're a dipshit and your point is completely stupid
 

WhatIsThePunchline

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
You sure as shit did. You sperged about how Youtube shouldn't be allowed to censor people
Social media platforms should not be able to suppress information anywhere close to what they can nowadays yes. But I never claimed that was covered in the 1st amendment, and I never mentioned youtubes terms of service. That is shit you made up on your own.
 

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Social media platforms should not be able to suppress information anywhere close to what they can nowadays yes. But I never claimed that was covered in the 1st amendment, and I never mentioned youtubes terms of service. That is shit you made up on your own.
read:
Free speech is not limited to the first amendment you absolute moron.

When youtube is deciding for you what information you are allowed to see, they are not doing you a favor. When twitter, facebook, cnn, visa, mastercard, amazon, google all decide for you what you are allowed to hear, who you are allowed to talk to, what information you are allowed to find credible, what you are allowed to say, they are hurting you, and everyone around you. When they censor someone else they are hurting you. They are making you blind, and stupid, and they are making you helpless. It is a harmful thing, on the level of a corporation poisoning your ground water. Worse probably. You going "buh buh buh muh private companies" is retarded.

If the consitution does not provide sufficient protections for the free exchange of information, that is an argument for either amending the constitution, or breaking up the companies that are able to suppress information so that they cannot do that anymore.

The point of the first amendment is to allow for the open exchange of information. So that when you're wrong about something, people are allowed to call you out on it even when you perceive them as 'bad people'(because you always will)'. It allows you to form a more accurate image of reality. If that's not happening anymore then amend the constitution.

"It's okay because private companies do it" is not just a brittle argument, it is beyond weak. You have to be an idiot to believe that resolves anything. A gigantic monopolistic social media platform such as youtube is not a goddamn cafeteria down the street. When they throw you out they are not just asking you to leave the premises they are crippling your ability to make your voice heard, and they are crippling everyone else's ability to understand a different perspective from their own, to get a better perspective on reality.
The whole point of the first amendment isn't to allow for an open exchange of information. It's so that the government cannot censor your speech. Just because you're assblasted that conspiracy theorists are getting banned from Youtube doesn't mean that Youtube is under an obligation not to ban them
 

WhatIsThePunchline

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
read:

The whole point of the first amendment isn't to allow for an open exchange of information. It's so that the government cannot censor your speech. Just because you're assblasted that conspiracy theorists are getting banned from Youtube doesn't mean that Youtube is under an obligation not to ban them
"Uuh the point of outlawing theft is not to enforce property right it's so that people can't steal from you"
"Uuuuhm, the point of outlawing murder is not to protect people's life, it's so people won't murder you"
"*drools* the point of outlawing mass pollution is not to protect the environment, it's so corporations can't pollute*"

Moron.

If visa, mastercard, paypal, patreon, facebook, reddit, twitter, youtube, and google decide for you what you are able to see, if they are manipulating you, and if your constitution does not protect you from this, then amend the constitution.

As for conspiracy theories, you're completely fine with them when they're blue anon bullshit so don't even start.
 

Yinci

Another Lain PfP
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
For a little bit I was sorta worondering if the far right millennials were gonna Youthanise the boomers. I end up blaming the US government for not giving a shit about free speech themselves and constantly trying to make it's population cannibalize it's self.

Free speech is when you have an AK-47 and can shoot any faggot who would give you trouble for shouting "HEY NIGGERS, HOLOCAUST IS A LIE" in a public square
Why I stopped being a Alt-Right femboy
 

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
"Uuh the point of outlawing theft is not to enforce property right it's so that people can't steal from you"
"Uuuuhm, the point of outlawing murder is not to protect people's life, it's so people won't murder you"
"*drools* the point of outlawing mass pollution is not to protect the environment, it's so corporations can't pollute*"

Moron.

If visa, mastercard, paypal, patreon, facebook, reddit, twitter, youtube, and google decide for you what you are able to see, if they are manipulating you, and if your constitution does not protect you from this, then amend the constitution.

As for conspiracy theories, you're completely fine with them when they're blue anon bullshit so don't even start.
Can you be any more autistic?

So you think Youtube shouldn't be allowed to censor people, but you also said higher up that you think Youtube should be allowed to enforce their TOS. You are not only severely autistic but you also have a terrible memory. You can't have it both ways. I am sorry you are assblasted that Youtube is banning people for violating their TOS by sharing baseless conspiracy theories, but that's too bad

What the fuck is "blue anon" and how am I "blue anon"?
 

WhatIsThePunchline

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Can you be any more autistic?

So you think Youtube shouldn't be allowed to censor people, but you also said higher up that you think Youtube should be allowed to enforce their TOS. You are not only severely autistic but you also have a terrible memory. You can't have it both ways. I am sorry you are assblasted that Youtube is banning people for violating their TOS by sharing baseless conspiracy theories, but that's too bad

What the fuck is "blue anon" and how am I "blue anon"?
Youtube is obviously free to enforce their terms of services. Only an idiot would think that an argument to enforce, change or alter laws means that a company would not be able to enforce their own terms of services. If increased protection for free speech would run contrary to youtubes terms of service obviously they'd either have to change those terms (and be fully allowed to enforce whatever new tos they had) or they'd have to take on greater accountability for whatever current tos they have in order to met the increased standards. Terms of service are not some unchangeable laws of nature you absolute nitwit, they are changed constantly.

As for a blue anon, it refers to people who whines about "conspiracy theories" while mindlessly believing whatever conspiracy theories are fed to them.

As for you being sorry, don't bother. It's no wonder your small mind takes your ability to freely share information and criticize people, and the only things you are able to conceive of using that for is saying nigger and ranting about lizard people. I'm sorry your mind is to small to grasp the fact that when people can freely share information they are better able to perceive reality.
 

Similar threads

Replies
322
Views
41K
One is perfectly acceptable to host in the name of free speech while the other must be purged with fire. Why not purge both?
Replies
77
Views
6K
A average run of the mill right wing personality
Replies
11
Views
1K