The Absurd GOP

[Angrboda]

Whether it exists in fact is irrelevant to the question of whether greater freedom of speech is desirable or good.  That speech can be used for ill as well as for good is not an argument against it, any more than that guns can be used for ill is an argument for the elimination of guns.

It is relevant because clowns are trying to appeal to right that does not exist; free speech isn't universal "get out of the jail card". Even stereotypically free USA restricts it quite heavily if Wikipedia is to be believed. "Free speech" is nothing but empty phrase weaponized by right wing that want to have right to spread bigotry and yet cries when is faced with any criticism. It's regulated speech all the way, except perhaps in fallen states.

I'm all for regulated speech as letting fascist to get away with spreading hatred results in shit we see all over the world. I don't really give a shit if it is idea that some will not like - fascist trash, alt right scum or maoist cunts (along with plain racists or other similar scum) should be censored, fined and in final step jailed. Free speech may sound nice in theory (like communism) but in reality it results (or help to get them in power) in orbans, trumps or kaczynskies.

It results in bad things, it also results in good things. That it results in bad things is not by itself an argument against it.

[Angrboda]

Let them say what they want to say, but be yourself mindful enough to recognize the absurdity for what it is

And if they should attack you personally with that absurdity, do not be fooled into thinking that remaining passive will resolve the matter.

Why? There is no value in allowing fascist scum to resurrect "arguments" debunked long ago. There is no value in alt right trash to promote white supremacy. State have responsibility to it's citizens and thus it shouldn't allow spreading hatred when it can at least try to stop it.

Letting scum to say what they want without facing consequences for it only results in flood of shit whether IRL or online.

The value in allowing bad speech is that doing so also allows good speech. Forbidding bad speech also forbids good speech. What do you have against good speech?

[Ivan Denisovich]

Why? There is no value in allowing fascist scum to resurrect "arguments" debunked long ago. There is no value in alt right trash to promote white supremacy. State have responsibility to it's citizens and thus it shouldn't allow spreading hatred when it can at least try to stop it.

Letting scum to say what they want without facing consequences for it only results in flood of shit whether IRL or online.

The value in allowing bad speech is that doing so also allows good speech.  Forbidding bad speech also forbids good speech.  What do you have against good speech?

Sure. Allowing subhumans to scream heil hitler also allows good speech. Certainly an unconventional take.

If you want to write shit like that do me courtesy of not addressing it to me.

[Ivan Denisovich]

It is relevant because clowns are trying to appeal to right that does not exist; free speech isn't universal "get out of the jail card". Even stereotypically free USA restricts it quite heavily if Wikipedia is to be believed. "Free speech" is nothing but empty phrase weaponized by right wing that want to have right to spread bigotry and yet cries when is faced with any criticism. It's regulated speech all the way, except perhaps in fallen states.

I'm all for regulated speech as letting fascist to get away with spreading hatred results in shit we see all over the world. I don't really give a shit if it is idea that some will not like - fascist trash, alt right scum or maoist cunts (along with plain racists or other similar scum) should be censored, fined and in final step jailed. Free speech may sound nice in theory (like communism) but in reality it results (or help to get them in power) in orbans, trumps or kaczynskies.

It results in bad things, it also results in good things.  That it results in bad things is not by itself an argument against it.

Argument is that there is nothing to defend. There is no such thing as "free speech" and since all speech is regulated pointing to "freedom" as only argument against further regulation is asinine.

[Nanny]

The issue is with the notion of "allowing" speech. Everyone should be allowed to say whatever nonsense they want, even if it's offensive, crude, ignorant, cruel, or false. No one gets to be the umpire of who gets to say what.

Speech does come with consequences. If you piss someone off they can complain to your employer, your spouse, the authorities, etc, and you have to deal with that as the price of your free speech. Consequences do not mean regulation of speech.

[Paraselene]

Even where they claim to speak of love and goodness, they support it with thoughts of you burning in hell while wearing a "bless your heart" smile.

[Angrboda]

The value in allowing bad speech is that doing so also allows good speech.  Forbidding bad speech also forbids good speech.  What do you have against good speech?

Sure. Allowing subhumans to scream heil hitler also allows good speech. Certainly an unconventional take.

If you want to write shit like that do me courtesy of not addressing it to me.

Do you have anything rational to say in response?

[Angrboda]

It results in bad things, it also results in good things.  That it results in bad things is not by itself an argument against it.

Argument is that there is nothing to defend. There is no such thing as "free speech" and since all speech is regulated pointing to "freedom" as only argument against further regulation is asinine.

Freedom exists on a continuum. To say that there is no such thing as free speech because there does not exist absolute freedom of speech is just invalid.

[Ivan Denisovich]

The issue is with the notion of "allowing" speech. Everyone should be allowed to say whatever nonsense they want, even if it's offensive, crude, ignorant, cruel, or false. No one gets to be the umpire of who gets to say what.

Why? Also if you practice what you preach then what you recently did to make USA a bastion of free speech? Surely you protest against injustice like one mentioned below:

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Argument is that there is nothing to defend. There is no such thing as "free speech" and since all speech is regulated pointing to "freedom" as only argument against further regulation is asinine.

Freedom exists on a continuum.  To say that there is no such thing as free speech because there does not exist absolute freedom of speech is just invalid.

No. There is no free speech because speech is regulated everywhere; speech is either less or more regulated exactly as it should be.