Free speech

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,481
Thanked
717
This one is interesting for people living in Europe.

What type of "free speech" would you prefer, and why?

American-style where pretty much anything goes (as long as you're not obviously calling for terrorism/violence)?* Exceptions:
  1. Obscenity
  2. Fraud
  3. CP
  4. Speech for illegal conduct/lawless action
  5. Speech violating IP laws
  6. True threats
  7. Defamation
  8. Commercial speech (ex. advertising - not protected by 1st amendment)

Restricted "free speech," which is more common in the rest of the Western world?

Discuss

*This is not the same as freedom from consequences. Even in America you can receive societal pushback from whatever it is that you're saying, including losing your job, but the government can't legally imprison you for it
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
2,028
Thanked
1,232
Location
Serbia
I prefer the TranceFix model, where I am put in power and can freely decide what is acceptable and what isn't.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag and dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,481
Thanked
717
I prefer the TranceFix model, where I am put in power and can freely decide what is acceptable and what isn't.
cover7.jpg


:p
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
Restricted free speech is Authoritarianism pretending to be manners.
It misuses concepts like empathy to either stifle legitimate decent of, or increase power/ control for and via,government fiat and/or similar (authoritarian) institutions like religion.


I think proponents of restricted speech are unwittingly self-defeating in their position since the problem of “who decides” remains and can simply be put back on their head as in:

“and now I’m the one in power and I decide that you advocating for more restricted speech is now a form of illegal speech, and you have no choice but to willingly and happily abide by that, since I’m doing what you want by shutting you up”

I think the alleged safety/stability trade-off propounded by advocates for restricted speech is, when push comes to shove simply moving the problem to the near future, or burying it temporarily (only for it to resurface with a vengeance later) instead of solving it.

and I think the idea of "the right not to be offended" is as absurd a concept as "the right not to get wet when it rains"

my preferred speech would actually exclude certain arbitrary concepts like Obscenity and Speech for illegal conduct/lawless action.

since it, for instance, basically renders the entire corpus of gangster rap an illegal form of music.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96 and Gagi