Let's Talk About Freedom Of Speech

[...]

jet57 having second thoughts or did you disagree with the fact you didn't think I could do this or didn't like this? I haven't done anything illegal so if you call the police you're wasting your time.

Who said you did anything illegal? I said that certain speech can get you in trouble through our laws whether criminal or civil.

You might want to consider Ahmaud Arbery's murderers: in their felony hate crime trial, all three being convicted, the prosecutors investigated those guys' social media accounts and found that they often used racial hate speech which only made it easier for prosecutors to convict them on a hate crime. So if I were you, I'd think about what you say to whom, because if you get picked up, that stuff is only gonna work against you...

Who are 'ya gonna sue? Nobody.

 

[Road Runner]

You would be surprised how many people are treating me like I'm saying something illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Racist, sexist, or discriminatory beliefs have to always be perfectly legal.
What is illegal is only when one tries to incite others into illegal acts of violence that abuse the rights of others.

If one verbally supported Hitler, fascism, bigotry, racism, segregation, etc., that can never be illegal.
Germany is wrong to criminalize political beliefs.

 

[...]

Racist, sexist, or discriminatory beliefs have to always be perfectly legal.
What is illegal is only when one tries to incite others into illegal acts of violence that abuse the rights of others.

If one verbally supported Hitler, fascism, bigotry, racism, segregation, etc., that can never be illegal.
Germany is wrong to criminalize political beliefs.

Fascism and racial hate are not forms of political belief. They weren't then and they're not now.

 

[Rigby5]

Fascism and racial hate are not forms of political belief. They weren't then and they're not now.

Of course fascism and racial hate are political beliefs.
When you have loyalty to one tribe against another, that is political.
And while tribe is often defined by economic or governmental strategies, they have also historically been based on race, religion, appearance, etc.
Why do you think races exist?
It is because offspring inherently are drawn to those who appear most similar to their parents.
So racial divisions are normal and natural.
We can and should try to over ride our inherent emotions for the good of society, but you can't claim instincts are wrong either.
It could be that the world would be better if we remained in smaller racial groups.
Who is to say differently?
Since the world already is heterogeneous, I prefer to ignore race, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course fascism and racial hate are political beliefs.
When you have loyalty to one tribe against another, that is political.
And while tribe is often defined by economic or governmental strategies, they have also historically been based on race, religion, appearance, etc.
Why do you think races exist?

Race exists because white Europeans needed to morally justify their exploitation and mistreatment of Africans, Asians and Indigenous people.

It is because offspring inherently are drawn to those who appear most similar to their parents.

No.

Take Jews and Palestinians. These are people who look very similar to each other and why wouldn't they? They live in the same region, share similar genealogy and yet they vehemently hate one another. Most historical conflicts have taken place between groups of people who lived relatively close to one another and looked very similar. We create and invent differences and then demonize them in order to justify our violence and mistreatment of one another, whether its religion, race, sexual orientation or nationality.

So racial divisions are normal and natural.

No. Race is a construct. How can something that's a social construct be natural? That doesn't make any sense.

We can and should try to over ride our inherent emotions for the good of society, but you can't claim instincts are wrong either.

Its telling that you think of racism (a construct) as something inherent that needs to be overcome. What you're more likely describing is fear. Fear people of different races, nationalities and beliefs will out compete you for food, resources and mates. If you choose to be ruled by your fear that's on you, but I wouldn't necessarily call it wrong. Wrong in the way you use it here is entirely subjective.

It could be that the world would be better if we remained in smaller racial groups.

Better for your fragile emotions maybe. I think it makes much more sense for humanity to avail itself of all the potential avenues for innovation and advancement that a diversity of opinion affords us.

Who is to say differently?

In this country, legally, that would be the voting majority and here we have rejected the notion of a white ethno state.

Since the world already is heterogeneous, I prefer to ignore race, but that is just my opinion.

You mean since your side has already lost.

 

[foggedinn]

Since it's getting a little bit unclear for some people,.. freedom of speech means that I can share whatever opinions I have about the current situation in our country, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it. You can call the coppers if you wish but thankfully (at least for the time being) there's nothing that they can do about it either. I believe in the right to bear arms, fight our enemies and defend our country, so if you have a problem with that go ahead and just go cry a river because your empty threats don't bother me a bit. Oh yeah,.. and if you hate America then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Are you a 12 yr. old?
Stay on USMB and rant all you want. No one will do anything to you. Out in the real world, saying the wrong thing in some situations will get you beat up. Call a cop and see how much he cares. He doesn't. You made your own problems.

 

[Rigby5]

Race exists because white Europeans needed to morally justify their exploitation and mistreatment of Africans, Asians and Indigenous people.

No.

Take Jews and Palestinians. These are people who look very similar to each other and why wouldn't they? They live in the same region, share similar genealogy and yet they vehemently hate one another. Most historical conflicts have taken place between groups of people who lived relatively close to one another and looked very similar. We create and invent differences and then demonize them in order to justify our violence and mistreatment of one another, whether its religion, race, sexual orientation or nationality.

No. Race is a construct. How can something that's a social construct be natural? That doesn't make any sense.

Its telling that you think of racism (a construct) as something inherent that needs to be overcome. What you're more likely describing is fear. Fear people of different races, nationalities and beliefs will out compete you for food, resources and mates. If you choose to be ruled by your fear that's on you, but I wouldn't necessarily call it wrong. Wrong in the way you use it here is entirely subjective.

Better for your fragile emotions maybe. I think it makes much more sense for humanity to avail itself of all the potential avenues for innovation and advancement that a diversity of opinion affords us.

In this country, legally, that would be the voting majority and here we have rejected the notion of a white ethno state.

You mean since your side has already lost.

That is ridiculous.
Race has ALWAYS existed, and goes back to the separation of the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
Races are the result of evolution.

Slavery, invasion, imperialism, colonialism, etc., went on for at least tens of thousands of years before western colonialists started importing slaves to the New World. And no one consciously created it. It is the other way around, where evolutionary divergence is impossible to stop, and people then will naturally prefer their own group over others.

And you are totally ignorant of the Mideast. Jews and Moslems do NOT at all hate each other. They are historic allies until around 1930 when Zionist exposed their intent to steal Palestine from the natives.
And NO, they are not at all racially the same. The ORIGINAL Hebrew were Arabs just like all the other Palestinians, but the Ashkenazi, like Netanyahu, are not Arab and are essentially white Europeans, with a native Germanic language, (Yiddish). But the conflict has NOTHING to do with race, but over the Zionist goal of STEALING Palestine from the native, legal, owners.

Race is not at all a social construct, or else races would never exist. If everyone mated indiscriminately, then races could never exist because the dominant alleles would be the only race visible. For different races to manifest, people have to deliberately select only those of similar appearance, thus inbreeding to maintain otherwise recessive traits.
Race could NEVER be a social construct, because you can't change your DNA after you are born.

And you clearly are a liar, because I was quite clear in stating I think ethnic diversity makes for a better and stronger society. Yet you falsely claimed I have lost because the US is multi ethnic.

But worst of all, you are an autocratic fascist, because you want to censor any political view you disagree with, even though you clearly are way too ignorant and incompetent to even know what reality is, much less science or what is best. You just want to control those with different opinions, which always leads to oppression and mass murder.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you a 12 yr. old?
Stay on USMB and rant all you want. No one will do anything to you. Out in the real world, saying the wrong thing in some situations will get you beat up. Call a cop and see how much he cares. He doesn't. You made your own problems.

You miss the point, in that many people DO want to increase new legislation that would censor the expression of political believes based on arbitrary criteria.
For example, the way Twitter and Facebook have censored different opinions about epidemic strategies like masks, mRNA vaccines, herd immunity, risks, etc. We clearly have diverged from historic strategies, and clearly those pushing the censorship have made obvious mistakes in the strategies being forced upon us all.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The notion of free speech involves the relationship between the government and the citizenry. It does not involve and regulate speech or consequences for speech occurring between citizens UNLESS that speech is threating, slanderous immediately dangerous, etc.

As far as government is concerned, we now DO have a situation where the globalist democrat party is working in conjunction with social media to prevent the expression of certain ideas, and since they have a stranglehold on mainstream media as well, we are now teetering on the edge of abandoning everything upon which this country was built.

 

[Curried Goats]

That is ridiculous.
Race has ALWAYS existed, and goes back to the separation of the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
Races are the result of evolution.

No... those are separate species... all humans today belong to the same species, homo sapiens.

Slavery, invasion, imperialism, colonialism, etc., went on for at least tens of thousands of years before western colonialists started importing slaves to the New World. And no one consciously created it. It is the other way around, where evolutionary divergence is impossible to stop, and people then will naturally prefer their own group over others.

Of course slavery was a conscious choice and it's existence elsewhere doesn't excuse its existence here.

And you are totally ignorant of the Mideast. Jews and Moslems do NOT at all hate each other. They are historic allies until around 1930 when Zionist exposed their intent to steal Palestine from the natives.
And NO, they are not at all racially the same. The ORIGINAL Hebrew were Arabs just like all the other Palestinians, but the Ashkenazi, like Netanyahu, are not Arab and are essentially white Europeans, with a native Germanic language, (Yiddish). But the conflict has NOTHING to do with race, but over the Zionist goal of STEALING Palestine from the native, legal, owners.

My point clearly flew over your head. You keep implying these differences and conflicts are born out of a natural fear from people who look different than us when in reality most conflict historically has been between people who look quite similar. These differences aren't natural, they are invented and taught.

Race is not at all a social construct, or else races would never exist.

Thats amazing logic....

If everyone mated indiscriminately, then races could never exist because the dominant alleles would be the only race visible. For different races to manifest, people have to deliberately select only those of similar appearance, thus inbreeding to maintain otherwise recessive traits.
Race could NEVER be a social construct, because you can't change your DNA after you are born.

The separating of people who's DNA produce more melanin than others is as arbitrary as dividing the races by eye color, or whether or not you're right or left handed.

And you clearly are a liar, because I was quite clear in stating I think ethnic diversity makes for a better and stronger society. Yet you falsely claimed I have lost because the US is multi ethnic.

You lose because you are a moron.

But worst of all, you are an autocratic fascist, because you want to censor any political view you disagree with, even though you clearly are way too ignorant and incompetent to even know what reality is, much less science or what is best. You just want to control those with different opinions, which always leads to oppression and mass murder.

I have no desire to control your speech. My only desire is to mock and ridicule it.

 

[Curried Goats]

The notion of free speech involves the relationship between the government and the citizenry. It does not involve and regulate speech or consequences for speech occurring between citizens UNLESS that speech is threating, slanderous immediately dangerous, etc.

As far as government is concerned, we now DO have a situation where the globalist democrat party is working in conjunction with social media to prevent the expression of certain ideas, and since they have a stranglehold on mainstream media as well, we are now teetering on the edge of abandoning everything upon which this country was built.

No one is preventing you from anything other than acces to their private property. You don't have a right to free speech on Twitter. It doesn't belong to you and you aren't entitled to space their just because you really really want it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No one is preventing you from anything other than acces to their private property. You don't have a right to free speech on Twitter. It doesn't belong to you and you aren't entitled to space their just because you really really want it.

You are profoundly stupid and dishonest. I made no such claim.

What I DID indicate is that government working WITH social media undermines free speech.

 

[Curried Goats]

You are profoundly stupid and dishonest. I made no such claim.

What I DID indicate is that government working WITH social media undermines free speech.

In what way? Unless the government is coercing the owners of those platforms with legal threats there is no undermining of free speech. Free speech also means allowing the owners of those platforms to collaborate with the government if they do choose.

 

[Rigby5]

No... those are separate species... all humans today belong to the same species, homo sapiens.

Of course slavery was a conscious choice and it's existence elsewhere doesn't excuse its existence here.



My point clearly flew over your head. You keep implying these differences and conflicts are born out of a natural fear from people who look different than us when in reality most conflict historically has been between people who look quite similar. These differences aren't natural, they are invented and taught.



Thats amazing logic....

The separating of people who's DNA produce more melanin than others is as arbitrary as dividing the races by eye color, or whether or not you're right or left handed.

You lose because you are a moron.



I have no desire to control your speech. My only desire is to mock and ridicule it.

Wrong.
Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and current homo sapiens are NOT at all separate species.
They not only could interbreed, which is how you determine they can NOT be a separate species, but all humans today have a mix of DNA from both.

The point about slavery is that all that is required is any difference, and that has always existed.
Early on it was the whites who were enslaved by the Black Kushites, Egyptians, Berbers, etc.

Yes, I agree differentiating on skin tone is as foolish as eye color or anything else, but the point is ALL natural societies have done that. So it has to be natural. And it is the opposite, learning tolerance of diversity, that requires artificial education.

And this whole thread is about censorship, which you clearly are in favor of, so it is hypocrisy to then claim you do not wish to censor.

The point is that divergence is normal, natural, and bound to then reduce empathy.
That is always bound to lead to things like discrimination, slavery, etc.
The fact it can also be taught, with things like conflicts of religions, is not relevant.
Humans do not instinctively or hereditarily have full empathy with divergent races.
That is biological, and over riding that has to be taught.

 

[Rigby5]

No one is preventing you from anything other than acces to their private property. You don't have a right to free speech on Twitter. It doesn't belong to you and you aren't entitled to space their just because you really really want it.

Wrong.
Twitter does not OWN any property at all, and the Internet they use is maintained by the government.
When Twitter negotiated to use the Internet, they promised to uphold the FCC regulations against discrimination and censorship, so they are in violation of their contract and the law both.

 

[Rigby5]

In what way? Unless the government is coercing the owners of those platforms with legal threats there is no undermining of free speech. Free speech also means allowing the owners of those platforms to collaborate with the government if they do choose.

Wrong.
That is identical to claiming the lunch counters in Georgia were private and therefore had the right to refuse to serve Blacks.
Any business open to the public is legally bound by laws against discrimination or censorship of political expression.
Even more so with things like Twitter that are under stricter FCC regulations against discrimination.

 

[Circe]

I did; here's the line:

"freedom of speech means that I can share whatever opinions I have about the current situation in our country, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it."

That's your point?? It's not a discussion point, but rather a narrowly aimed declaration. The rest of the post is a hodgepodge of issues that say nothing about free speech.

Besides, it's wrong: lots of people can do something about it. I can mace you. Your boss can fire you. The Starbucks can refuse to serve you and tell you to leave the store. Your hostess can tell you to leave before the dinner.

 

[foggedinn]

You miss the point, in that many people DO want to increase new legislation that would censor the expression of political believes based on arbitrary criteria.
For example, the way Twitter and Facebook have censored different opinions about epidemic strategies like masks, mRNA vaccines, herd immunity, risks, etc. We clearly have diverged from historic strategies, and clearly those pushing the censorship have made obvious mistakes in the strategies being forced upon us all.

Facebook and twitter are private enterprises. The owners can control the content. You can find a place to express or read about any view you choose.
Read a biography of Henry Luce who was founder of the Time-Life publishing empire. It was an eye opener. We have all lived our lives being given filtered information. It is unavoidable and we are largely ignorant of it's nature.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong.
Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and current homo sapiens are NOT at all separate species.
They not only could interbreed, which is how you determine they can NOT be a separate species, but all humans today have a mix of DNA from both.

To clarify Neanderthals are a separate species, cro magnons are the early homo sapiens who migrated to Europe. Cro magnons did breed with Neanderthals but that's because evolution is gradual and we were still closely enough related that DNA mixing was still possible, even if only on a very small scale. We were still clearly heading along different evolutionary paths at that point. Every human alive today however is a homo sapien. In fact you will go on later in this post to admit classification of humans as different races because of skin color is as arbitrary as eye color.

The point about slavery is that all that is required is any difference, and that has always existed.
Early on it was the whites who were enslaved by the Black Kushites, Egyptians, Berbers, etc.

All that is required is greed but back then race as a construct didn't exist. Empires clashed and waged war and captured slaves and territory but generational chattel slavery wasn't a thing until Europeans invented in order to morally justify their brutality.

Yes, I agree differentiating on skin tone is as foolish as eye color or anything else, but the point is ALL natural societies have done that. So it has to be natural. And it is the opposite, learning tolerance of diversity, that requires artificial education.

No, all societies haven't done that.

And this whole thread is about censorship, which you clearly are in favor of, so it is hypocrisy to then claim you do not wish to censor.

Not only am I in favor of censorship, I'm also in favor of using mockery and ridicule to shame and embarrass white racist culture into extinction. But only private censorship. I'm not in favor of any law or act of force that would prevent a white racist from expressing their racist point of views.

The point is that divergence is normal, natural, and bound to then reduce empathy.
That is always bound to lead to things like discrimination, slavery, etc.
The fact it can also be taught, with things like conflicts of religions, is not relevant.
Humans do not instinctively or hereditarily have full empathy with divergent races.
That is biological, and over riding that has to be taught.

We've already established that there is no such thing as divergent races, that that is a arbitrary construct, so how can racial hatred be biological? What you mean to say is fear is biological but so is the sexual desire to mate and pass on your genes but I doubt you'd be here trying to excuse rape as normal like you are doing with racism.

Wrong.
Twitter does not OWN any property at all, and the Internet they use is maintained by the government.
When Twitter negotiated to use the Internet, they promised to uphold the FCC regulations against discrimination and censorship, so they are in violation of their contract and the law both.

I didn't say Twitter owns property, I said Twitter is private property. It belongs to someone, like a house or a car. Twitter doesn't own the internet nor can Twitter prevent you from accessing it, it can only prevent you from accessing their content. Same way like I don't own the telephone lines or cellphone towers which doesn't make me obligated to let you use my phone. And while we do have laws against discriminating based on race or sex we don't have laws against discriminating against racist assclowns. That's still perfectly legal.

Wrong.
That is identical to claiming the lunch counters in Georgia were private and therefore had the right to refuse to serve Blacks.
Any business open to the public is legally bound by laws against discrimination or censorship of political expression.
Even more so with things like Twitter that are under stricter FCC regulations against discrimination.

Nope. Discriminating against you for your deplorable political beliefs is totally legal.