(February 26, 2017 at 2:37 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(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.

Of course it goes both ways. If this were a left wing equivilent to Milo I'd be saying the exact same thing. It's not a partisan thing for me. I think for most people it's just a partisan thing, he's right wing so they'd be fine with shutting down his speech. Whether or not that's riots, or dropping book deals or some form of legal restrictions. I mean it's all part of a society that's against free speech rather then for it. So he said that the age of consent should be 13 (the same as it is in Spain) let him defend that idea and rebut it using your own words and logic.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: What do you think are the boundaries of free speech exactly.

I cited two practical examples of limits to free speech. Therefore we have established there are boundaries to "free speech". Deal with it.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: It seems to me most people who talk about it being 'limited' have no clue what the actual legal limits are.

Too bad for them. I'm not one of them. So happy we can establish that.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: 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.

Your point? You haven't really advocated for anything concrete that refutes or asserts a change to our system as-is.

If anything, the statement quoted above seems more like a religious exhortation towards the speakers ideological position without persuasion. Or it's simply a platitude. Either way, it's not much to work with.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:44 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Of course it goes both ways. If this were a left wing equivilent to Milo I'd be saying the exact same thing. It's not a partisan thing for me. I think for most people it's just a partisan thing, he's right wing so they'd be fine with shutting down his speech. Whether or not that's riots, or dropping book deals or some form of legal restrictions. I mean it's all part of a society that's against free speech rather then for it. So he said that the age of consent should be 13 (the same as it is in Spain) let him defend that idea and rebut it using your own words and logic.

Outside of the more violent reactions, I'm still confused about how you think this is shutting down his ability to speak. As I said a few times already, others just aren't giving him their platforms to speak from. He can still speak, but he is limited to his own resources now... just like the protesters. If anyone else respected him enough, he wouldn't be in this pickle. He had those resources until he scared off even the most right-wing sources available. His mistake. Let him go online to defend his position with the same tools the rest of us "commoners" have.

The age of consent is 14 in Germany, Italy, Portugal, 13 in Spain. I mean, most of western Europe has age of consents not that different then what Milo was suggesting in that video. Personally I'm in favor of a 18 or maybe 16 year old age of consent. But when half of Europe has a similar age of consent to what he was suggesting, is it really even that controversial of an idea?

I mean, it warrants being discussed. I think any idea warrants being discussed.

---

(February 26, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: What do you think are the boundaries of free speech exactly.

I cited two practical examples of limits to free speech. Therefore we have established there are boundaries to "free speech". Deal with it.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: It seems to me most people who talk about it being 'limited' have no clue what the actual legal limits are.

Too bad for them. I'm not one of them. So happy we can establish that.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: 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.

Your point? You haven't really advocated for anything concrete that refutes or asserts a change to our system as-is.

If anything, the statement quoted above seems more like a religious exhortation towards the speakers ideological position without persuasion. Or it's simply a platitude. Either way, it's not much to work with.

You weren't clear at all on what you thought the boundaries of free speech were, so pardon my confusion.  Maybe you could take two minutes to write down exactly what you think all the boundaries are.

---

(February 26, 2017 at 2:50 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(February 26, 2017 at 2:44 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Of course it goes both ways. If this were a left wing equivilent to Milo I'd be saying the exact same thing. It's not a partisan thing for me. I think for most people it's just a partisan thing, he's right wing so they'd be fine with shutting down his speech. Whether or not that's riots, or dropping book deals or some form of legal restrictions. I mean it's all part of a society that's against free speech rather then for it. So he said that the age of consent should be 13 (the same as it is in Spain) let him defend that idea and rebut it using your own words and logic.

Outside of the more violent reactions, I'm still confused about how you think this is shutting down his ability to speak. As I said a few times already, others just aren't giving him their platforms to speak from. He can still speak, but he is limited to his own resources now... just like the protesters. If anyone else respected him enough, he wouldn't be in this pickle. He had those resources until he scared off even the most right-wing sources available. His mistake. Let him go online to defend his position with the same tools the rest of us "commoners" have.

I'm not sure I said that anything other then the violent reactions were shutting down his ability to speak. I just want a society where ideas can be discussed openly. It's clear from this thread not everybody agrees.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:52 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm not sure I said that anything other then the violent reactions were shutting down his ability to speak. I just want a society where ideas can be discussed openly. It's clear from this thread not everybody agrees.

Then he is free to discuss away with anyone who actually wants to have that discussion with him. The last time I checked, riots weren't legal anyway and they're not about to be. I'm not sure what the problem is.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:59 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(February 26, 2017 at 2:52 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm not sure I said that anything other then the violent reactions were shutting down his ability to speak. I just want a society where ideas can be discussed openly. It's clear from this thread not everybody agrees.

Then he is free to discuss away with anyone who actually wants to have that discussion with him. The last time I checked, riots weren't legal anyway and they're not about to be. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Duh, the problem is that we should have a society that promotes free speech across the board. People shouldn't lose book deals over suggesting the age of consent be the same that it is in much of western Europe. I've seen a million of these discussions online. It's always the same. People take your position when it's people they don't like politically or religiously and cry free speech when it's one of their own. Free speech is more then just a law. I don't think you and me are actually at a huge disagreement, but re-read the first few pages of this thread and tell me that there aren't anti-free speech sentiments in it.

(February 26, 2017 at 3:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Duh, the problem is that we should have a society that promotes free speech across the board. People shouldn't lose book deals over suggesting the age of consent be the same that it is in much of western Europe. I've seen a million of these discussions online. It's always the same. People take your position when it's people they don't like politically or religiously and cry free speech when it's one of their own. Free speech is more then just a law. I don't think you and me are actually at a huge disagreement, but re-read the first few pages of this thread and tell me that there aren't anti-free speech sentiments in it.

Welcome to America, then. We have both free speech and a free market. I'm sorry this isn't your personal utopia.

(February 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I don't know. I don't pay super close attention.

But you should if you're out on making an argument on a matter. It's no on the first two accounts and yes on the third.

Noone infringed on his right to talk. Yes, he cut an run, since being the usual sissy, he was afraid of the protestors.

Quote:You can exercise your free speech all you want but you're not exempt from its consequences.

Free speech is necessary for every civilized society. Not in the sense that people should be able to say whatever the vile fuck they want without any repercussions but in the sense that people should be intellectually tolerable enough to entertain differing opinions without flipping out.

If someone tells you that the earth is flat, conduct speeches for why they think the earth is flat - sure it's stupid but they are exercising their free speech, riots and violence shouldn't be the answer - use facts and figures and argue with them on a rational level - PROVE that they are wrong. If you shut everything down because of the unpopularity of an opinion and refuse to engage on a rational level then that's the exact opposite of free speech.

Asking people to not raise questions and to simply accept everything for what they are is nothing short of indoctrination and simply shuts down any sort of reasoning.

Noone shuts anyone down. They just judge you on what you're running your mouth. Which is not infringing on free speech, but the exercise thereoff.