Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

Post by throwaway283423 » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 10:54 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #87

leftistcensor04 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept your challenge. Produce one fascist or racist statement made by Ben Shapiro. The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points. By imagining a concept "victims" and "injustices", progressive leftists believe they are able to completely control narratives, expression, and speech as we know it.

> The point I'm making is that "progressive philosophy" dictates that an argument is won almost entirely based on "victim" points. Aren't you making the exact opposite argument? Both Shapiro and Yiannopoulos have plenty of "victim points", which you have kindly enumerated, and are yet not winning any arguments in the eyes of "progressive philosophy," as you have stated.

Post by throwaway283423 » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:05 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #101

throwaway283423 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol leftist mobs judging by character... capable of understanding. you're full of laughs today. which political group is associated with their obsession and exploitation of racial, gender and religious divisions? read my other reply to you for why I believe Ben is enemy #1 of the left. identity politics are in play, that's for sure.

> which political group is associated with their obsession and exploitation of racial, gender and religious divisions? The Republican Party since the Southern Strategy and embrace of the Christian Right, why?

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:06 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #97

s73ver_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are flavors of free speech. I, for one, don't believe that violent threats fall under free speech. I don't believe that makes me against free speech.

Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:24 PM UTC

eradicatethots wrote: post #58

rcfox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any limitations, as we have seen, on human rights become the camel nose under the tent, and then you eventually end up with government violating the right wholesale. (eg: secret courts and secret rulings, National Security Letters an the like, illegal surveillance and wiretapping.) Free speech in Canada does not allow for hate speech or inciting violence, and we're at least no worse than the USA for whatever violat…

Thanks to the internet I’m sure you still get plenty of exposure to America’s actually free speech.

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:33 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #77

noobermin wrote: post #16

But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? The discussion around "Free Speech" is the concept, not the government's role in regulation of it or lack there of.

> But really, who is advocating the government do anything other than the fringes? Former senator Harry Reid called for the repeal of the First Amendment in 2014, in response to the Citizens United ruling which held that the First Amendment protects the right to show a film critical of a political candidate prior to an election. Whether or not one supports that action, I'd say that's certainly not on the fringes.