0
1

[–] jamesed 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The big problem with so called free speech is with the big deep pockets political machines. They have a floor of a building somewhere with young 20 somethings setting wall to wall on rows of desks trolling the internet. They have very sophisticated programs that allow one of their workers to to post on hundreds of threads using hundreds of different names. If an individual says something they don't like you get dumped on by what is seen to be a thousand different people who in reality are maybe one or two people. So you get shouted down by people who have your complete history from the first day in grade school to your latest Friend with Benefits at their fingertips.

So you may have free speech but there are goons out there in ski masks with baseball bats to break you knee caps, (virtually of course)

0
0

[–] Yazi ago  (edited ago)

It shelters you from ideas and thoughts you wouldn't ordinarily come across.

Y'know, a lot of people just wouldn't be able to get by without this. Not everybody is an intellectual. Not everybody is able or willing to reshape themselves. That's fine. You shouldn't expect them to, because they're the rabble, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The question of free speech is something I hadn't previously put much time into thinking about. I just assumed it a good thing because freedom, but now I just don't know. A common line of reasoning in this department is that people should be allowed to say what they want to say, but that I'd be right to punch a guy in the nose for saying the wrong thing. But then there isn't a huge distance between that and prosecuting people for saying the wrong thing, is there? Either way, you're punishing somebody for their speech.

But then there's the fact of nature. If one man insults another man's wife, is the married man not right to punch the guy in the nose? I don't think it's in most peoples' nature to passively allow one's self or family to be abused. To impose consequences for wrongdoing is only natural, so need the freedom of speech apply?

In the same way, is it not then a denial of free speech to withdraw one's consumership with a business due to the ideas they espouse? Where do we draw the line? Clearly this is a highly complex issue.

Ultimately, I think the desire for free speech has to do with the desire for the freedom of the human spirit. The freedom of the human spirit is the freedom for an individual or group to be what they are. God tells us very clearly what we are. He has told us the limits within which we must remain lest we should regress into something lesser than what we are or destroy ourselves utterly. So is freedom just about tearing down limits? If so, then freedom would inherently be a regression, because to defy God's instruction is to deny one's self and to engage in self-destructive behaviour. I don't think that's what liberty is, though. I don't think it's simply the freedom to do whatever, because absolute freedom wouldn't be liberating by any means.

So what does this mean with respect to freedom of speech? Are there certain kinds of speech which spell our destruction? That lay the preconditions for us to annhiliate our own existence as a people? There are such kinds of speech. The ideals of the atheistic philosophies—objectivism, marxism, utilitarianism, anarchy, etc— though sometimes in good faith, pose an existential threat. Atheistic philosophy inevitably leads to existential nihilism and the destruction of society, not to mention that it essentially spits in God's face. So for liberty's sake, should we censor these ideas? If so, then to what extent? In what institutions? In schools? In media? Social media? Where do we draw the line between insuring our existence and totalitarian regimes?

Maybe I shouldn't bite the hand that feeds me. Freedom of speech is the only reason I'm allowed to say the things I say. But does that fact negate what I've said? And to what extent am I able to say this? Considering the points I've raised, would this be free speech if I said this sort of thing in real life? I'm unsure, because undoubtedly, I'd meet social ramifications.

0
0

[–] Imapopulistnow ago 

Pragmatically. Why do corporations and government censor free speech? Because they can. Or if not censor, clearly they can and will manipulate it. While the internet was thought at its inception to provide a platform for greater openess in communication, it has as you pointed out had the opposite effect of creating narrowly focused ideology hives that serve to magnify extreme points of view rather than to openly debate and reconcile their conflicts, inherent deficiencies as well as strengths and achieve a higher understanding. The participants in these ideology hives are being manipulated by the cognitive elites to further their objectives.

If i were to guess the future, the left will win this battle as they possess superior communication skills in the inforation age. They will excel at in the art and science of manipulative techniques and will retain in place the infrastructure to ensure that they can control internet narratives of the people to conform to their world view and best interests as the elite class.

Thus society will be in the future an entirely different social structure than has been the past history of the nation. The individual will be subserviant to the communal. Big will replace small, in business, government, media. Traditional religions, a source of conflict and risk of opposing ideas, will be replaced by a uniform societal religion of social justice, equality and earth worship.

The Orwellian manipulation of the masses will become a reality. Why? Because they can.

This is in the cards and we will not be able to counter it. It is already happening. It is what is going to be. And in my opinion it will result in a continuation of the shift in wealth and prosperity to the elites coupled with a continuation of subsistance lifestyles for the masses. Because, regardless of rhetoric to the contrary, humans are a selfish species. The elites, as progressive and enlightened as they may portray themselves to be or in fact falsely convince themselves that they are, will skim off the great spoils of society for themselves. Why? Because they can.

0
0

[–] Malphius [S] ago 

I made a sub called CensorShame and posted picts from my account being blocked and deleted at AlterNet. They're heavily trying to control the narrative in the comments. It's shameful.

0
1

[–] Stanley_Yelnats_IV 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think the current system the US has in place is the best one: the government cannot restrict the content of your speech (barring things like direct threats and hiring criminals, of course), which means that you can never be thrown in jail or silenced for having the wrong opinions. However, you also have a right to control your own places of business, so if you create one, you can decide what kinds of speech are allowed there.

This system, when combined with a free market, means that the worst censorship that can be imposed upon you is being kicked out of some private business, in which case you can fight back by taking your business elsewhere. Companies are thus kept in check by the knowledge that if they go too far in limiting speech, they'll lose large amounts of business. That's exactly what's happening with a certain other site right now, and I think the system has what it takes to protect free speech as long as people continue to care about it.

0
2

[–] Tanaghrison 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This isn't the reality in the United States. A variety of first amendment protections are not extended to businesses, including free speech. Businesses have several viewpoint restrictions imposed on them by the government. These include views on gay marriage, religion, segregation, even smoking. People do not have the right to control their businesses, or to control what kind of speech happens there in the current environment, unless they agree with the regime in power.

0
1

[–] Stanley_Yelnats_IV 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I agree that those restrictions are unnecessary, but they aren't actually about speech, but service: a business is not required to prevent people in it from saying "I think racial segregation is a good idea," and indeed they are perfectly free to allow or disallow that sort of speech. What they can't do is discriminate on the basis of race when offering services.

0
1

[–] Malphius [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

An interesting and accurate observation.

0
3

[–] bm2112 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why we should only embrace and support websites that protect our right to free speech.

0
1

[–] Malphius [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There should be a hall of shame sub-thread. I'm not sure how to make one though. I'm new here :/

0
0

[–] Malphius [S] ago 

I made a sub called CensorShame and posted picts from my account being blocked and deleted at AlterNet. They're heavily trying to control the narrative in the comments. It's shameful. I figured it out :)