Film General : Okay please explain Free Speech

Because a lot of college twits that protest speakers at certain event seem like they do not want Free Speech.

- - - -
Whadda ya hear! Whadda ya say!

It seems many of them nowadays hold the view that "free speech is over-rated".

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/

Remember Madotsuki_the_Dreamer?

---

The recent controversy at the University of Iowa in which an artist (supposedly an anti-racist one) put up an art exhibit which resembles a KKK member covered in newspaper clippings about racial violence is a perfect example of why we need to implement real legislation against hate speech in the United States. The year is 2015 and all other countries have laws against hate speech along with laws against other forms of speech which violate basic human rights. As a matter of fact, international human rights law MANDATES laws against hate speech. Protecting vulnerable minorities from hate speech is one of the most basic and fundamental of human rights obligations, and all human rights organizations worldwide have emphasized this. But the United States refuses to protect even the most basic of human rights, firmly establishing itself as a pariah state that falls far behind the rest of the world in terms of protecting fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms.

---

http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/here-is-why-its-time-to-get-tough-on-hate-speech-in-america/

They are excising their freedom of speech by protesting against freedom of speech and you are using your freedom of speech to invalidate their freedom of speech which consists of protesting against freedom of speech using their freedom of speech.

Yes I understand that but driving the speakers away under fears for their safety is not covered by free speech. Nor does free speech cover violence and property damage.

- - - -
Whadda ya hear! Whadda ya say!

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

I'm still here.

If you listen to what the protesters are saying, it is a good bet that many are not protesting against the speaker's right to speak. They are protesting against the content of statements, or actions, of the speaker. So, no, those protesters are not against free speech.

With regard to legal rights, the constitutional right to free speech legally applies to government restriction of speech - not to restriction of speech by private organizations or individuals.

My real name is Jeff

^ This.



Refugees of FG, join us on Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/IMDbFilmGeneral/

This is all completely wrong. You can't pretend to be in favor of speech when you take delight in the fact that the first amendment only applies to government.

Jesus fking Christ. You really know nothing about our country. You're a sick little racist prick, and I'm glad to be shed of you.

---

Where do butterflies go when it rains? Who goes around & tucks in the trains?

---

What does this have to do with our country? This is about him and other liberals being opposed to speech. Why can't he come out and say it instead of being coy? Is he a scoundrel?

College students are so brainwashed they don't believe in free speech. They want the First Ammendment done away with.

All college students? Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian?

What are you gonna do with those pies, boys?

Libtards which seem to make up 99% of college students, now.

Spoken like a true libtard.

What are you gonna do with those pies, boys?

you got some stats on that

oh wait no you don't lmao

vengeance for the dead
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

You think libertarians, not liberals, want to get rid of free speech? Whose ideas are more likely to be censored?

i think libertarians and liberals are p stupid tbh but the stat in question was 99%

vengeance for the dead
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

40.5% of 18 to 25 year's old americans attend postsecondary institutions,

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_302.60.asp

The sector with the most graduate is business:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.10.asp

Look at the butthurt snowflake cuckservative, totally clueless as to what he's posting about.

Can't wait for you to be gone, shthead racist prick.

---

Where do butterflies go when it rains? Who goes around & tucks in the trains?

---

Free Speech is the freedom to express yourself without fear of prosecution from the government (unless you were to physically harm somebody without their consent). This is a right protected in the United States by the first Amendment in the Constitution.

This right does not - however - protect a person expressing themselves from admonishment or retaliation from another individual or individuals.


Willie hears ya. Willie don' care.

True, we have other laws to protect people from violent retaliation by these animals. Unfortunately these laws were not enforced by campus police in the case of the recent Berkeley riots.

Why would you need to "retaliate" against someone for speaking?

Someone may have the right to say something derogatory about one's spouse, but the freedom of speech does not protect them from getting their ass kicked for saying it.


Willie hears ya. Willie don' care.

i mean there are usually other laws to prevent that from happening

vengeance for the dead
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

True


Willie hears ya. Willie don' care.

I'll tell you what free speech is not. It is not when a majority of people disagree with what you've said and tell you why.

Which is what usually happens when people try and invoke the denial of free speech.

Free speech means that you can say what you like without fear of arrest .Except for when the consequence of your speech is designed or is likely to cause the breaking of some other law or does break some other law.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority.

---

I'll tell you what free speech is not. It is not when a majority of people disagree with what you've said and tell you why.

Which is what usually happens when people try and invoke the denial of free speech.

---

It's the opposite. People try to shut down speech in order to AVOID having to explain why they disagree. That's what censorship is, and it shows you which side has power. Nobody wants to debate Milo Yianopolus. He might convince someone. If you look at critics of holocaust denial, a big issue for them is why they should not "give a platform" to holocaust denial. They are not eager to voice their own view or to counter yours. They are eager to suppress. Curious, not at all like you said. This stuff always backfires. Holocaust denial grows faster and faster.

---

Free speech means that you can say what you like without fear of arrest .Except for when the consequence of your speech is designed or is likely to cause the breaking of some other law or does break some other law.

---

No it doesn't. Free speech means free speech. Discrimination isn't suddenly not discrimination because it's private rather than public.

---

Nobody wants to debate Milo Yianopolus. He might convince someone

---

That seem like an exageration no ?

He is in debate all the time, on tv all the time, he has a platform on a billionaire website.

---

If you look at critics of holocaust denial, a big issue for them is why they should not "give a platform" to holocaust denial. They are not eager to voice their own view or to counter yours. . They are not eager to voice their own view or to counter yours.

---

That a bit of exaggeration, it exist platform that counter all negationist points already that people can look at. Some of the people that get angry at them and want to shoot them down are actual Nazi that actively participated to the Shoah and are angry at them to diminish their accomplishment, that how weird it is.

---

This stuff always backfires. Holocaust denial grows faster and faster.

---

It is true, it often does, it make it sexy, and people can lack logic so much, that you can easily tell them: "See, if they make it illegal or try to shut it down, it is because they do not have good arguments against it, because it is true and we would convince people if they would let us speech", that is obviously totally faulty logic, but people can believe stuff like that, specially if they want to.

Being able to say what you want without fear of harassment/molestation. Protest is useless anyway. Nothing but militant tribalism chanting the same slogans over and over again. Much of what is considered anti-fascist is actually blindly fascist, blindly doing what they want and savagely curtailing freedoms because they believe that they are right and they can do no wrong, no matter what they're about, there is the enemy, and the enemy is always the same. Abandonment of reasoning in favour of action and taking a stand, applying the same label to anything that does not fit with their view, words that now automatically denote evil, like "fascist" and "racist," that are not linked. Before the Nazis "fascism" had no negative connotations and many Americans were pro-fascist.

People should be allowed to say whatever they want without scrutiny or scandal, but people jump on what you say and apply their own wrong meanings to it to fit their own ends, so anything could be construed as fascist, or evil, or wrong according to the mob.

---

Being able to say what you want without fear of harassment/molestation.

---

Wrong. All Free Speech guarentees is protection from criminal prosecution.


Willie hears ya. Willie don' care.

And from criminal acts against them.

No, there are other laws protecting individuals from being harmed by others. But admonishing somebody or condemning them is not a criminal act.


Willie hears ya. Willie don' care.

---

Being able to say what you want without fear of harassment/molestation.

---

People should be able to say what they want without being physically threatened or harmed, but people angrily disagreeing with what you say isn't in and of itself a restriction of your right to speak.

---

Protest is useless anyway. Nothing but militant tribalism chanting the same slogans over and over again.

---

Totally wrong. Public protest is actually the primary engine of progress and change in society.

---

Much of what is considered anti-fascist is actually blindly fascist, blindly doing what they want and savagely curtailing freedoms because they believe that they are right and they can do no wrong

---

---

People should be allowed to say whatever they want without scrutiny or scandal

---

This two statements show that your perspective on this topic is self-contradictory. You want people to have total freedom to say what they want without being questioned, and yet here you are, questioning the validity of what people are saying. Opposing or disagreeing with what someone says is not "curtailing freedom", and you obviously actually agree with this because you are here making an argument against other people's opinions. If you really believed what you say you believe, you wouldn't speak out against protesters, because they are just saying what they want to say, right? And shouldn't they "have total freedom to say what they want without being questioned"? But here you are, questioning them, which only proves the opposite point you're trying to make: that people can disagree without infringing on each other's right to speak. You're here demonstrating that right now.

---

words that now automatically denote evil, like "fascist" and "racist,"

---

So there's a kind of fascism and racism that isn't evil? Please explain.

---

Before the Nazis "fascism" had no negative connotations and many Americans were pro-fascist.

---

It is true that many Americans had fascist views prior to WW2, but you say that as if that's a good thing. Just because, in some quarters, it wasn't yet thought of in a negative way, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been thought of in a negative way. I mean, seriously, are you suggesting that society was better off when people had positive views of fascism?

---

So there's a kind of fascism and racism that isn't evil? Please explain.

---

Apparently. Why else wouldn't you just say evil?

Really? Not technology? Education? Protest amounts to a long standing tradition of rallying for a cause, it is mostly ineffectual, the action remains the same and largely useless but the cause and the subject of the protest changes.

I'm not speaking out against protesters and saying that protest is wrong, I'm saying that I don't like protest and mob mentality personally. That is not the same as saying it should not be allowed. There's a difference between pointing at something and saying "that's wrong" and looking critically at something and saying not necessarily that it's wrong, but there's a better way. The impulse to point a finger and say "that's wrong," or "that's fascist" or "that's racist" and jump to action is a fascist impulse, applying a label to something and trying to discredit it and destroy it. I would not know though, as I have a burst testicle.

As for fascism being inherently evil, there have been benevolent dictatorships. It is a flawed idea as life is not perfect and predictable and nor is man, so a perfectly functioning, whole utopia under man cannot work.

---

People should be allowed to say whatever they want without scrutiny

---

So basically your definition of free speech is that you can say whatever you want but no one is allowed to say anything back to you? Tell me more about how college liberals are pussies who ant to live in a safe space.

That's not free speech, it's treating the whole world like your own personal echo chamber.

^ This, EXACTLY.

Fed and I agree. What do you, know, lightning strikes sometimes.

These racist alt-righters like to say that liberals are snowflakes and can't handle criticism, but as soon as you actually call them on their BS it's "You're denying my free speech! Stop calling me racist! Wahhhh!" Their idea of "free speech" is being able to spew their bile without actually getting called out on it.

I consider myself a big free speech advocate and was very critical of the "PC movement" or whatever as being restrictive, but the Alt-right is even worse.

The fact that they can't comprehend that criticism of their freedom of speech falls under the criteria of freedom of speech is mind boggling.

I'm wrong on that count. Insecurity speaks.

Well said

college kids can protest speakers and not have them speak at their school at will. that doesn't fall into any constitutional law. it's a private party telling another private party that they don't want to hear what they have to say, which is 100% okay.

anywho i'm torn on free speech because i can see a lot of disadvantages to the system. i don't have a clear opinion on it, but i tend to lean towards it should be restricted in some way.

vengeance for the dead
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

---

college kids can protest speakers and not have them speak at their school at will. that doesn't fall into any constitutional law. it's a private party telling another private party that they don't want to hear what they have to say, which is 100% okay.

anywho i'm torn on free speech because i can see a lot of disadvantages to the system. i don't have a clear opinion on it, but i tend to lean towards it should be restricted in some way.

---

Public universities receive federal funding. The government should not be in the position of choosing sides.

so the college kids are government employees? lmao yeah try using that one in court fam

vengeance for the dead
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

They weren't protesting. They were rioting. In the case of Milo, he was already given the platform to speak.

i'm glad they rioted.

it doesn't matter that he was given the platform, that sort of thing can be revoked all the time. & it's totally legal.

vengeance for the dead
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

Free Speech is not simply an Amendment. It is first a morality that has since been (was the first to be) recognized constitutionally; the latter does not somehow absolve private individuals of the former. This notion that it doesn't apply outside constitutional law government restriction is bullshít. Free Speech is simply a philosophical principle of one's liberty as an individual, as is their physical body and property, that any just-and-healthy society should recognize regardless of the state. So while any privately owned platform or media has the right to censor its content, in part by denying certain users/guest speakers or therein censoring certain expressed views, it is not above criticism for doing so; for its actions/agenda facing the court of public opinion.

Secondly, the objection in question is not (or should not) concern those protesting against someone's expressed view, per se, but rioting. When violence or coercion is used to prevent or intimidate someone from speaking publically in the first place when chaos is instigated to shutdown platform events already granted such is in direct violation of Free Speech. But even that aside, the mere act of protesting itself (against public speakers, anyways) is stupid.

You don't protest someone's view, you contest itspecifically through argument and debate. A protest, at best, is that which strives to open up, or bring awareness to, discussions that otherwise aren't taking place. But protesting the mere event of a public speaker is just a soft bullying tactic of verbal abuse; putting up walls of sheer noise intended to drown-out any opposing view. Immoral? No, but cowardly and intellectually bankrupt.