(February 26, 2017 at 10:02 am)pool the great Wrote: That aside, I like how once everyone has utterly failed to provide any actual substance to their arguments, they're started to attack my personality. Where is LastPoet? Did he not find anything? And where's Orochi? I was hoping to see her "mountains of reasons" for why I'm wrong.

... except that I have, as well as a couple of others, and you've simply waved them away. Simply because I season my replies with what I think are well-deserved insults doesn't mean they have no substance. And you're hardly in a position to cast judgement on arguments you clearly don't understand. No doubt the readership in this thread will judge all the parties involved, and that's a circumstance I'm entirely comfortable with.

Part of what Yiannopolis said seemed like a deadpan joke, but part of it seemed serious especially when he starts talking about "the left's idea of consent." So he pretty much deserved what he got.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

I have already made my position clear .You can't draw blood from a stone . You can't pound reason into the head of a MRA cultist especially a lazy one. And more then enough people have whacked you over the head in an attempt to do just that .And have failed because you don't really care any more then the hoard of creationist trolls that come to this site . This is not an attack it's a observation.

I'm always a little worried about people who put free speech in quotation marks or say something like 'abusing free speech.' Free speech exists to protect controversial speech.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm always a little worried about people who put free speech in quotation marks or say something like 'abusing free speech.' Free speech exists to protect controversial speech.

Here we go again. He's allowed to say whatever he wants. If he pisses people off enough, they don't have to publish his work or give him the use of their property or resources to speak from. Speak all you want, but you're on your own at a certain point. That's all that is happening here.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm always a little worried about people who put free speech in quotation marks or say something like 'abusing free speech.' Free speech exists to protect controversial speech.

Free speech exists to protect you from the government except under exceptional circumstances.

It is not free speech for me to call a group of people, say you are a kiddy didler and "we have to do something" - that's called incitement to riot and possibly murder.

Free speech is a limited concept - you stray outside of a few well established boundaries and you will be held legally responsible.

With respect to "responsibility", it has always been others free speech rights to socially hold you responsible for what you say - such would manifest in refusing to do business with, boycotting, etc,.

Whether their reaction is justified or sensible has only been restricted again in circumstances of overt harm. A social campaign to deny service to you on grounds of your race would be considered an abuse of free speech and grants you relief or compensation in some degree.

So yes, free speech is limited. Absolute free speech is a dangerous concept considering we had negro boys dangling from trees based on unproven allegations of sexual relations with a white woman or some other "offense".

(February 26, 2017 at 2:18 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(February 26, 2017 at 2:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm always a little worried about people who put free speech in quotation marks or say something like 'abusing free speech.' Free speech exists to protect controversial speech.

Here we go again. He's allowed to say whatever he wants. If he pisses people off enough, they don't have to publish his work or give him the use of their property or resources to speak from. Speak all you want, but you're on your own at a certain point. That's all that is happening here.

Yeah, duh. I mean everybody knows what you said. Although there are certainly people in this thread who would be in favor of banning certain speech. I mean that's obvious from just reading the first few pages and see how many people express disdain for free speech.

Although actually there have been riots and violent attempts to literally shut down his ability to speak. So even what you said is not really accurate to the situation.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:31 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Although actually there have been riots and violent attempts to literally shut down his ability to speak. So even what you said is not really accurate to the situation.

There will always be riots over something. Have they infringed on his right to spew his bullshit? Did the university revoke their invitation? Or did he just cut tail and run? Which is his prerogative, but it's not infringing on his rights.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(February 26, 2017 at 2:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm always a little worried about people who put free speech in quotation marks or say something like 'abusing free speech.' Free speech exists to protect controversial speech.

Free speech exists to protect you from the government except under exceptional circumstances.

It is not free speech for me to call a group of people, say you are a kiddy didler and "we have to do something" - that's called incitement to riot and possibly murder.

Free speech is a limited concept - you stray outside of a few well established boundaries and you will be held legally responsible.

With respect to "responsibility", it has always been others free speech rights to socially hold you responsible for what you say - such would manifest in refusing to do business with, boycotting, etc,.

Whether their reaction is justified or sensible has only been restricted again in circumstances of overt harm. A social campaign to deny service to you on grounds of your race would be considered an abuse of free speech and grants you relief or compensation in some degree.

So yes, free speech is limited. Absolute free speech is a dangerous concept considering we had negro boys dangling from trees based on unproven allegations of sexual relations with a white woman or some other "offense".

What do you think are the boundaries of free speech exactly. It seems to me most people who talk about it being 'limited' have no clue what the actual legal limits are. Also free speech is waaaay more then just a law. It's also a concept. A concept that our whole society has been built on.

---

(February 26, 2017 at 2:34 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 26, 2017 at 2:31 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Although actually there have been riots and violent attempts to literally shut down his ability to speak. So even what you said is not really accurate to the situation.

There will always be riots over something. Have they infringed on his right to spew his bullshit? Did the university revoke their invitation? Or did he just cut tail and run? Which is his prerogative, but it's not infringing on his rights.

I don't know. I don't pay super close attention. I'd assume a violent riot does limit your ability to speak. In fact that is the intent of it. I never thought that I'd see anti-free speech riots from the left though. Especially over a troll like Milo. The right wing has always had an authoritarian anti-free speech element. It frightens me to see it become so prominent in the left wing too.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:31 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Yeah, duh. I mean everybody knows what you said. Although there are certainly people in this thread who would be in favor of banning certain speech. I mean that's obvious from just reading the first few pages and see how many people express disdain for free speech.

Although actually there have been riots and violent attempts to literally shut down his ability to speak. So even what you said is not really accurate to the situation.

I'm not sure about riots, but I am fine with the protests. Even that isn't shutting down "free speech". Anything you say is open to a public response. That's just other people expressing their free speech in response to his free speech. The protesters just aren't being given the same platform Milo was given, so they're using what they have. Free speech goes both ways.