Free Speech
- Thread starter A2K78
- 1,029 comments
- 63,939 views
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
No, I made it clear that if you go up to someone and literally - not figuratively, literally - walk up to someone and say "please punch me in the face", and they do just that, then you can't complain about the fact that someone just punched you in the face. If you film it and edit it to make it look like an unprovoked attack, that's fraud.
Or are you talking about Milo? Perhaps you could find a better example than the self-proclaimed champion of free speech who refuses to let anyone else have a voice. After all, he's repeatedly accused anyone who disagrees with him of hating free speech after he's had a chance to voice his opinion but before anyone else can speak up.
Last edited:
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It certainly is, and I don't disagree. There's implied consent, and that's fine.
On the other hand, simply speaking about one's opinion does not contain consent, implied or explicit, that one would welcome physical violence against one's person.
Perhaps you could actually come up with some evidence of him doing this? As I recall, you noped out of the conversation last time I pressured you on not providing any. Or if you think you've already done so, perhaps you could link to the post so that we can all be on the same page.
Or are you going to dodge again? That seems more likely.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
Is there any place on earth that has got complete freedom of speech?
The United States tend to be held up as the shining example but even there things like death threats and harassment is illegal, no?
The United States tend to be held up as the shining example but even there things like death threats and harassment is illegal, no?
Carlos
Premium
- 6,453
- Netherlands
On international waters maybe?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Here Paul Joseph Watson talks about Cooperate censorship.
@Scaff, This in no way means I like or endorse Alex Jones. He is a wackadoodle, I'm pretty sure if he were correct, Obama would still be President, and we would be living under martial law.
@Scaff, This in no way means I like or endorse Alex Jones. He is a wackadoodle, I'm pretty sure if he were correct, Obama would still be President, and we would be living under martial law.
- 16,502
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
^Do companies like Google and YouTube have any kind of moral responsibility to broadcast views they don't agree with? One'd think any rights to freedom of speech didn't apply to what some corporation decides what to put on their website.
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 28,552
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
What do you mean, exactly? It becomes a lack of free speech if the government tells a website to take something down.
Being censured by moderators on here is a condition of your membership you freely accepted when you registered of your own volition. Imagine being on GTP but being moderated by a governmental agency because you are posting things they don't agree with.
- 16,502
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Thanks guys, I already know all this. What I wrote was in response to @Chrunch Houston's post about corporate censorship.
Last edited:
- 11,687
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
- 16,502
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Me too, but then his video popped up on a free speech thread as well as Political Correctness (which I'm not sure it's a very good example of either).
Last edited:
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
They don't.
The corporation might choose to be seen to allow freedom of expression in order to broaden their service, but then they might also choose to censor certain things in order to make their service more customer friendly. Totally up to them, and they'll reap the rewards or pay the costs of whatever choice they make.
I take it then that you're still unable to provide any actual evidence of Yiannopolous doing what you claimed. How amusing. So much noise, so little substance. And you say you're an educator? Fascinating.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Oh god, I liked one of your posts. That's the top of a slippery slope.
I think we agree though - restricting content is discrimination or, as I'd more likely put it, censorship. There are complications to that though. For example, GTP doesn't have to leave our posts in place if it doesn't like them, that's GTP's right. Breitbart is likely to self-select content and unlikely to publish articles with a socialist bias.
The question is where is the line for private companies in choosing what to publish? As a free speech issue it must surely lie with them. Nobody should be forced to speak (or to publish) in a way they don't want to. That should be elective and self-decided by such parties. What's dangerous is the feeling that various governments (including UK and US) have a history of censoring such publishers by default and, it appears, plan to strengthen such efforts.
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Sorta, but YouTube is so dominant in that space that not being able to use it is a significant disadvantage. I get why people get pissed off about being censored. Youtube has that self-fulfilling prophecy thing going on where by being large it's better than everyone else so it gets larger. Being locked out of that sucks, and there isn't a particularly good way to compete or replace.
Which doesn't overrule Youtube's right to choose what happens on it's platform, but it does make the other side of the story slightly more complex.
- 84,466
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No private concern has the moral responsibility to play host to material it doesn't agree with.
If somebody comes to my house and starts telling shouting out of my window that the world's ills are due to Muslims and they should be exterminated, I have no moral responsibility to let them continue. There's no difference when the house is Youtube.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 10,974
- Central Coast, NSW
- EelX 5
Freedom of Speech is there to protect you from legal consequences for whatever you say. I don't support anyone who tries to take legal action over what someone says.
It isn't to protect you from social consequences, don't hide behind the free speech if someone disagrees with you, they're using there free speech, don't complain if someone kicks you out because of something you said, theyhave the freedom of expression to do that, and guess what? You have your freedom to do the same, it can constantly swing.
However I do think Freedom of Speech should protect you from physical violence done against you. Silencing someone by assaulting them is completely wrong. If someone says something you don't like, either leave or use your own Freedom of Speech to say something back.
It isn't to protect you from social consequences, don't hide behind the free speech if someone disagrees with you, they're using there free speech, don't complain if someone kicks you out because of something you said, theyhave the freedom of expression to do that, and guess what? You have your freedom to do the same, it can constantly swing.
However I do think Freedom of Speech should protect you from physical violence done against you. Silencing someone by assaulting them is completely wrong. If someone says something you don't like, either leave or use your own Freedom of Speech to say something back.
- 84,466
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's there to protect you from governmental consequences, not legal ones.
If I write an article for GTP's front page that says you're a paedophile, neither I nor Jordan should be detained by the police and put in prison for it, but you should be able to seek redress from us for it by legal means - a retraction at least, or compensation for the damage done to your reputation.
Of course if we refused to do either we could then end up in prison - not for what we said but for refusing to comply with the judgment...
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 36,525
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
And I heard Mrs Ten enjoyed @RESHIRAM5 more.
