Free Speech: Let's do this properly

So, here we have an actual, literal, dictionary-definition infringement - nay, shitting on and flushing away - of the First Amendment.

That's a group of peaceful protestors being ripped from their wheelchairs on the orders of Trump's federal government, picked up and dragged away like sacks of potatoes.

Are any "Free speech absolutists" going to stand up and speak out against this? Anyone? Bueller? Because so far, I've only seen a lot of humming, hawing, deflecting, denying, excusing, conspiracy mongering and flat-out lying. Speak now or forever drop the Goddamn pretense.
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
So, here we have an actual, literal, dictionary-definition infringement - nay, shitting on and flushing away - of the First Amendment.

That's a group of peaceful protestors being ripped from their wheelchairs on the orders of Trump's federal government, picked up and dragged away like sacks of potatoes.

Are any "Free speech absolutists" going to stand up and speak out against this? Anyone? Bueller? Because so far, I've only seen a lot of humming, hawing, deflecting, denying, excusing, conspiracy mongering and flat-out lying. Speak now or forever drop the Goddamn pretense.
I mean they did seem to protest...in his office. To play devil's advocate how would you feel if the NRA staged a protest inside your house?
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Maybe not. ARE you legally allowed to protest in a senator's office, though? Has anybody been allowed to do this in the past?
That's a good question but the articles I've found online indicate the protesters weren't actually /in/ the office, rather in the hallway outside of it. I would assume since it's a building open to the public this would be legal.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/419748001/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wash...ters-block-hallway-outside-mcconnells-office/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-mcconnell-office-health-care-bill/index.html

not gonna link cause I don't want to give them traffic but even brietbart described them as blocking the hallway outside the office. Sorry if any of these links are bad, but I'm on my phone.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
That's a good question but the articles I've found online indicate the protesters weren't actually /in/ the office, rather in the hallway outside of it. I would assume since it's a building open to the public this would be legal.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/419748001/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wash...ters-block-hallway-outside-mcconnells-office/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-mcconnell-office-health-care-bill/index.html

not gonna link cause I don't want to give them traffic but even brietbart described them as blocking the hallway outside the office. Sorry if any of these links are bad, but I'm on my phone.
Steel with it's original article says:

Approximately 60 protesters – many of them in wheelchairs – flooded Mr McConnell’s office around 11 am on Thursday. Some made their way inside the office, lifting themselves out of their chairs to lie across the Senator’s floor.
Capitol Police said forty-three protestors were arrested and charged with crowding, obstructing, or incommoding.
DC law: https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1307.html

It shall not be lawful for any person or persons within the District of Columbia to congregate and assemble in any street, avenue, alley, road, or highway, or in or around any public building or inclosure, or any park or reservation, or at the entrance of any private building or inclosure, and engage in loud and boisterous talking or other disorderly conduct ....or in their hearing, or to crowd, obstruct, or incommode, the free use of any such street, avenue...or any of the foot pavements thereof, or the free entrance into any public or private building or inclosure......”

Interesting that DC police have the discretion to judge (pretty tame) political protests as "boisterous or disorderly conduct". That extends a pretty hefty precedent to like...literally anything, such as picketing on the capitol steps seems to be blocked by this. Guess that's why protests need permits [First time I've looked this up either, I'm genuinely surprised there's this much code on protesting]
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
What do you guys think about the #CNNBlackmail? obviously it isn't about legal boundaries of free speech, but do you think it is morally right to dox people you disagree with, or blackmail them with the threat of doxing? I think it should be illegal to doxx, anonymity is key to free speech so people can express controversial views
 
I think that last sentence is off. Free speech is about the government not restricting your right to speak, not about protecting you from the accountability of what you say in a public forum.

That said CNN doxing this guy wouldn't be much better than any if the times trump uses his twitter account to get his supporters to sling death threats at someone. I don't think it would be ethical at a glance.
 
What do you guys think about the #CNNBlackmail?

Well, I think that it's a lie, for starters. Because it is a lie. They didn't doxx him and didn't threaten to doxx him; they only released his Reddit username (which, as you may or may not realise, is not his real name, address or phone number) and the "Threats! Blackmail!" are pure #Pizzagate-level conspiracy theory.

... Please tell me you don't believe in #Pizzagate too. ಠ_ಠ
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Well, I think that it's a lie, for starters. Because it is a lie. They didn't doxx him and didn't threaten to doxx him; they only released his Reddit username (which, as you may or may not realise, is not his real name, address or phone number) and the "Threats! Blackmail!" are pure #Pizzagate-level conspiracy theory.

... Please tell me you don't believe in #Pizzagate too. ಠ_ಠ
except not.

they really did put their billion dollar investigative apparatus into tracking down the IRL identity of the maker of the meme. They scared him (or her, but its likely him given the_donald crowd) shitless into making an apology, and are straight up holding the guy hostage. That's not a spin it's regrettably fact. Don't take it from Brietbart, read CNN's own statement:

(relevant excerpt)

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. (emphasis mine)
Debate the ethicality of it but let's keep the facts straight.
 
Last edited:

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Yes the people that need to be defended right now are the fucking Nazis. Great post. Well done.
once you're done blowing your knee-jerk self-righteous wad all over the forum, please press 6, then proceed to actually read.

lol.

dark humour aside, that is a very telling picture about the commitment to civil liberties, especially in a time where there is a growing, legitimate argument for reworking what certain fundamental rights mean.

Notwithstanding the standard argument that allowing these actions help legitimise and propagate hateful, exclusionary views; there is a legitimate discussion to be had whether holding on to objective legal standards is better for defending minorities, even if it means defending speech and liberties that assault them, and unfairly burden them.

I understand that blind objectivity and civil order are central tenets of liberalism, which is - for reasons legitimate, if still unclear - going out of vogue, however as of this moment the US is facing a rather existential paradox: one where standard civil liberties are invoked and argued for minority rights (the definitions of the universality of rights), but then punching Spencer is cheered. The inconsistency grates, however just.

Just wanted to know what others think of this, especially since ACLU is a darling of US progressives, and has also been the forefront of the legal movement fighting against the travel ban, for refugee rights, LGBTQIA issues, bathroom bills and a whole host of other stuff.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that certain ideas are indeed toxic and should be rein in I find that in practice people tend to confuse fringe with toxic

like for example; we're currently certain that vaccines are indeed necessary and that the anti-vaccination camp is spreading ideas which not only has been disproven but that by preventing children from been vaccinated they create safe havens for bacteria to incubate and not only risk the unvaccinated children lives but the population as a whole so you could easily come to the conclusion that they ideas are toxic
but (and this is me playing devil's advocate) imagine that say 50 years down the line we found out that vaccines where causing autism somehow and that by inoculating children we where actually harming them, yes it's a ridiculous scenario but remember we once awarded a Nobel prize to the inventor of lobotomies

and yes I-m aware this tread is mostly about Nazis taking over the USA but while that particular case is obvious something that should be abolished it's also clearly hate speach and the fact that nazi manifesters haven't been prersecuted is more indicative of a highly aberrant government that has been infiltrated by racists but the point is that for the most part (i.e. not the most recent Nazi resurgence) even ideas that sound crazy and even immoral at one time can be later accepted as correct, remember that not too long ago (150 years is actually very, very recently as far as humanity's history is concerned) women being equal to men was not only considered radical but unnatural and yes, even unscientific

also the "punch up to power" idea is flawed because not only oppressor and oppressed are not permanent positions, in transitional periods it can justify acts of oppression by the new dominant group towards others, the Reign of Terror not only happened it-s not an isolated incident
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
While I agree that certain ideas are indeed toxic and should be reign in I find that in practice people tend to confuse fringe with toxic

like for example; we're currently certain that vaccines are indeed necessary and that the anti-vaccination camp is spreading ideas which not only has been disproven but that by preventing children from been vaccinated they create safe havens for bacteria to incubate and not only risk the unvaccinated children lives but the population as a whole so you could easily come to the conclusion that they ideas are toxic
but (and this is me playing devil-s advocate) imagine that say 50 years down the line we found out that vaccines where causing autism somehow and that by inoculating children we where actually harming them, yes it's a ridiculous scenario but remember we once awarded a Nobel prize to the inventor of lobotomies
Can you explain what vaccines and lobotomies have anything to do with free speech tho?
 
Can you explain what vaccines and lobotomies have anything to do with free speech tho?
The point of free speech is to protect radical ideas i.e. anti-vaxxers from backlash from others because while those ideas can be perceived as disruptive or even evil to our current understanding, i.e. the scientific community in the 1950s having a consensus on lobotomies being helpful to patients; our understanding of how things work may be later be proven very, very wrong

now I should clarify, I do not actually object to certain ideas being classified as harmful and thus yes, censored (pro-paedophilia, pro-anorexia groups for example and yes also white supremacy groups), but I do think that certain groups whose ideas can be classified as toxic could potentially have a point and shouldn't be censored and that identifying which group is which is not just hard but that it may be vital and yet we may never know which group is which without the benefit of hindsight

so yeah, we should censor Neo-Nazis since we know those ideas have lead to horrible tragedy; but other groups like let's say Pro-Life guys? I dunno, maybe we can't know until it's too late
 
Last edited:
The point of free speech is to protect radical ideas i.e. anti-vaxxers from backlash from others because while those ideas can be perceived as disruptive or even evil to our current understanding, i.e. the scientific community in the 1950s having a consensus on lobotomies being helpful to patients; our understanding of how things work may be later be proven very, very wrong

now I should clarify, I do not actually object to certain ideas being classified as harmful and thus yes censored (pro-paedophilia, pro-anorexia groups for example and yes also white supremacy groups), but I do think that certain groups whose ideas can be classified as toxic could potentially have a point and shouldn't be censored and that identifying which group is which is not just hard but that it may be vital and yet we may never know which group is which without the benefit of hindsight

so yeah, we should censor Neo-Nazis since we know those ideas have lead to horrible tragedy; but other groups like let's say Pro-Life guys? I dunno, maybe we can't know until it's too late
The point of free speech is not to protect you from backlash. Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Our right to free speech means we are protected under the constitution from being arrested and shit for things we say. It doesn't protect us from disagreeing with others or being told our opinion is shit / fired from our job for being a pos / etc.
 
The point of free speech is not to protect you from backlash. Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Our right to free speech means we are protected under the constitution from being arrested and shit for things we say. It doesn't protect us from disagreeing with others or being told our opinion is shit / fired from our job for being a pos / etc.
I meant backlash from the official authorities like being arrested for saying something radical, sorry if that didn't came out clear
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I'm afraid I don't get the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that we should censor harmful opinions (pro-pedophilia, pro-nazism), but not toxic ones that could "potentially have a point"? (anti-vaccinations, pro-life?) Who decides what makes something potentially harmful? As faint said the point of free speech is to protect any idea from arrest, but what does that have to do with 1950's psychosurgery? Humanity 60 years from now might flip on what's ok to talk about? Are you saying that psychosurgery is evil under our current moral standards, but it should be protected under free speech laws? I don't get what your central argument is
 
What I'm trying to say is: even opinions that may seem harmful at the moment may in fact turn out to be correct so that we shouldn't censor (and by "we" I mean "our government") ideas that seem harmful or insane
unless
we know by prior experience of those ideas put into action that they lead to tragedy and then we should censor them

also I want to convey that even if we do this we might screw up horribly because some of untested ideas may very well lead to tragedy, worse yet some other untested ideas might lead to tragedy if we don't listen to them and it may be impossible for any human to know which is which so we're kinda screwed whether we censor seemingly toxic ideas or whether we don't censor seemingly toxic ideas
thus the only ideas I'm certain we should censor are those that have been proven wrong because when they were put in practice they lead to disaster

and yes climate change deniers should be allowed (by the government) to spread their message under this premise even tough I'm certain that not combating climate change will lead our whole species to extinction very soon


In short I believe that when it comes to free speech any stance we take will only lead to losing, so the only moral choice is to take the on in which we lose (slightly) less, free speech needs to be objective and consistent except when the ideas espoused have already been put in practice and already lead to tragedy

disaster is inevitable but we might at least not repeat disasters
 
Last edited:
What I'm trying to say is: even opinions that may seem harmful at the moment may in fact turn out to be correct so that we shouldn't censor (and by "we" I mean "our government") ideas that seem harmful or insane
unless
we know by prior experience of those ideas put into action that they lead to tragedy and then we should censor them

also I want to convey that even if we do this we might screw up horribly because some of untested ideas may very well lead to tragedy, worse yet some other untested ideas might lead to tragedy if we don't listen to them and it may be impossible for any human to know which is which so we're kinda screwed whether we censor seemingly toxic ideas or whether we don't censor seemingly toxic ideas
thus the only ideas I'm certain we should censor are those that have been proven wrong because when they were put in practice they lead to disaster

and yes climate change deniers should be allowed (by the government) to spread their message under this premise even tough I'm certain that not combating climate change will lead our whole species to extinction very soon


In short I believe that when it comes to free speech any stance we take will only lead to losing, so the only moral choice is to take the on in which we lose (slightly) less, free speech needs to be objective and consistent except when the ideas espoused have already been put in practice and already lead to tragedy

disaster is inevitable but we might at least not repeat disasters
that's a pretty subjective power for the gov to wield, as what constitutes a disaster might be disagreed on from one administration to the next. at the moment, you'd have guys like trump, pence, mcconnell, bannon, etc. determining what would be "disastrous", "tragic", or "wrong" for us to discuss.

and that seems like a legitimate disaster...
 
that's a pretty subjective power for the gov to wield, as what constitutes a disaster might be disagreed on from one administration to the next. at the moment, you'd have guys like trump, pence, mcconnell, bannon, etc. determining what would be "disastrous", "tragic", or "wrong" for us to discuss.

and that seems like a legitimate disaster...
Fair enough, although I was more referring how a non-aberrant government should act, but if say, the Obama administration would have taken a harder stance towards the KKK or Trump's racist comments during the campaign the USA would have had a different president right now

still yeah any government has the potential to mess things up, I just think Nazis are such a clear treat it'd be hard for even the Reagan administration to mess that up
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Fair enough, although I was more referring how a non-aberrant government should act, but if say, the Obama administration would have taken a harder stance towards the KKK or Trump's racist comments during the campaign the USA would have had a different president right now

still yeah any government has the potential to mess things up, I just think Nazis are such a clear treat it'd be hard for even the Reagan administration to mess that up
What exactly do you mean by "non-aberrant government"? A normal government? What makes a government normal?

And what harder stance on the KKK would prevent a Trump presidency?
 
Fair enough, although I was more referring how a non-aberrant government should act, but if say, the Obama administration would have taken a harder stance towards the KKK or Trump's racist comments during the campaign the USA would have had a different president right now

still yeah any government has the potential to mess things up, I just think Nazis are such a clear treat it'd be hard for even the Reagan administration to mess that up
aberrant is also subjective. let's roll back a few years and replace those names with bush, cheney, delay, rove... this still doesn't feel any better. and frankly, no, i'd rather not have seen the obama administration with that kind of control over conversations. even if i did wind up liking what he did with it, i'd still be uneasy that the ability exists in the first place, as leaders change pretty often in america.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top