The Case Against free speech: we need to combat fascism, my friends

[Wry Catcher]

PC stifles free speech.

But you liberals knew that and, indeed, perfected it.

Seems like the five conservatives on the Supreme Court trumped your claim, "liberals knew that and, indeed, perfected it"!

See: Morse v. Frederick

{{meta.pageTitle}}

 

[OKTexas]

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Words only have the power assigned by the listener. It's mind over matter, if you don't mind, words don't matter.

.

 

[Soupnazi630]

this is how we end racism and inequality

free speech is a hollow signifier, a guise for the wealthy and powerful to oppress the poor.

Free speech oppresses no one ever.

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

Yes I disagree.

The fact is advising someone to be mindful is not oppressive. It is not oppressive to give suggestions or advice which by definition can be ignored and/or disregarded.

Had college attached some coercive measure such as penalizing those who ignored the suggestion then the ACTION would be oppressive.

That is how speech works it cannot and does not oppress anyone only actions can

 

[Soupnazi630]

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

And you are wrong

 

[OKTexas]

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

Because there is implied action behind it, as they are in a position of authority.

Right, oppressive speech. You can argue it's really only oppressive because there are actionable items that can be taken but that does not make the speech any less oppressive.

You're confusing speech with policy. It's the policy that's oppressive, not the speech.

.

 

[LaDairis]

Censorship is one of the founding pillars of fascism.

Libertarianism is the antithesis of fascism.

Those advocating censorship are not "against fascism," they ARE FASCISM....

 

[pknopp]

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

Because there is implied action behind it, as they are in a position of authority.

Right, oppressive speech. You can argue it's really only oppressive because there are actionable items that can be taken but that does not make the speech any less oppressive.

You're confusing speech with policy. It's the policy that's oppressive, not the speech.

.

People would refrain from doing what the speech was concerning. I do have to chuckle at you all defending PC speech though.

 

[Soupnazi630]

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

No it did not

As you posted it was only a suggestion which can oppress no one

You are rapidly defeating your own lame argument

 

[sartre play]

Political correctness is off the charts, both sides use it, trying to stay level headed has become difficult.

 

[satrebil]

As my profile page says: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Soupnazi630]

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

Getting offended is not being oppressed

You failed in an epic manner to prove any speech can be oppressive

 

[pknopp]

Political correctness is off the charts, both sides use it, trying to stay level headed has become difficult.

I have no problem with a person taking a position. I do find it funny how so many decide their position only after figuring out how it affects their politics.

 

[OKTexas]

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

Because there is implied action behind it, as they are in a position of authority.

Right, oppressive speech. You can argue it's really only oppressive because there are actionable items that can be taken but that does not make the speech any less oppressive.

You're confusing speech with policy. It's the policy that's oppressive, not the speech.

.

People would refrain from doing what the speech was concerning. I do have to chuckle at you all defending PC speech though.

People would refrain only if they chose to, or there was a policy that provided consequences. Speech has no power on it's own. As I said before, speech only has the power assigned to it by the listener.

.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

Because there is implied action behind it, as they are in a position of authority.

Right, oppressive speech. You can argue it's really only oppressive because there are actionable items that can be taken but that does not make the speech any less oppressive.

You're confusing speech with policy. It's the policy that's oppressive, not the speech.

.

People would refrain from doing what the speech was concerning. I do have to chuckle at you all defending PC speech though.

Only if they CHOSE to refrain from it


It is not oppression to make a choice based on a suggestion from others

So now we have established speech cannot be oppressive

 

[Mac1958]

I want to know who the nutters and zealots are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them.

Freedom of expression hands me that information all wrapped up with a nice bow.

If a person is afraid of words, that's more about them than the speaker.
.

 

[Lysistrata]

Remember all the "gag rules" that prevent people, including medical professionals, to speak freely about abortion with their clients, and the laws in some states, that require medical professionals to parrot to their patients the religious opinions of the politicians in their states. The right of Free Speech under the First Amendment already has been trashed.

Even if you ignore this post, this is still happening. There is no freedom of speech any more. The government has removed it.

 

[basquebromance]

folks will think i'm anti-free speech. that's stupid. i'm not anti anything or anti anyone, i'm just pro-myself!

 

[basquebromance]

Illinois State Sen Martin Sandoval's fundraising buddy mocks assassinating Trump with a toy gun earlier today

you dont think he should be prosecuted?

 

[basquebromance]

people are free only if and only if their material conditions are equal, my friends

Fucking Marxist communist asshole.

if someone is vocally encouraging genocide of minorities (or majorities), you think he should have free speech rights?

 

[Manonthestreet]

The case against free speech is fascism