"freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"

Every day.

You don't know what a tyrant is, you've only ever known your republic.
Burgers are overdue for a bit of tyranny. And I'm not talking about libs triggering, jimmies rustling Trump, I'm talking full blown civil war and death squads tyrant.
Should put things in perspective.

It means that your career might go to shit if people find out that you're secretly a Nazi. And that's a good thing.

>like calling it pro-life to believe that women shouldn’t be allowed to murder their babies
Fixed that for the whore who can’t keep her legs shut and doesn’t understand that actions have consequences

That's not even the message of that comic though

>oh my god!!
>people I don't like can use this power too!
>BURN IT ALL

Not it doesn't. Freedom of Speech is an ideal and not a law, the 2nd amendment is a law designed to protect the ideal of Freedom of Speech, but it is not synonymous with it. For instance, I could open a private open debate club claiming to be a space where all opinions could be argued, then kick out people who disagreed with me. I would have violated the ideal but I would have done nothing illegal.

That “saying” is legitimately autistic

based

What a lazy argument and comic. Just tweet this shit. Why present it in pointless comic form.

>be rude and offensive to people and proudly so
>be openly hostile to our way of life, including democracy and democratic principles
>NO NO NO NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO CRITICIZE ME, IT'S AN ATTACK ON FREEZE PEACH AND THE NAP

Attached: 731.jpg (1200x713, 353K)

Why do words hurt you so much Frenchie? :(

"Speech" can also be interpreted as your ideological base for beliefs. You can have freedom of speech indeed, and won't be prosecuted for having any specific ideology; its just that in some cases your ideology might be radical and as all freedoms, they end where they interfere with other freedoms. So in the end, if you want the genocide of a certain ethnicity as part of your main ideology, just keep it to yourself while you are pursuing it. That is literally why nazis denied being nazis after WWII.

>you're an asshole xD

liberal tolerance in the post-racial america

Attached: 1398504839892.gif (142x225, 356K)

Surely there is a legitimate argument for certain restrictions on speech? For instance:
>Calling "Fire" or "bomb" in a crowded area, causing a deadly stampede
>Slander or libel: Claiming that someone is a rapist or a pedophile without evidence, falsely accusing someone of crimes
>Spreading dangerous rumours: False claims that X group of people are poisoning the water supply, or that Y political party is planning a genocide, etc.
>Publishing egregious lies: Printing egregious lies as news
>Calling for crimes: For instance, putting out a hit on someone (saying "I'll pay $100,000 to whoever kills X), or even saying "We should go kill X"
>Starting riots,, demagoguery

can anyone intelligent explain to me why there shouldn't be laws to control the above examples? Clearly unlimited free speech has a ton of problems. It's just a question of where to draw the line, right?

Attached: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of speech.jpg (850x400, 61K)

slippery slope

i can say i hate niggers here btw

Can you elaborate please?
Are you saying that my examples shouldn't be outlawed? I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I honestly can't think of a legitimate reason not to outlaw all the examples I gave.

>inb4 it ain't real
whoever belives that should fuck himself with a cactus and bake the cake bigot and put your kids on hormones

Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Tell that to hebdo

All speech should be legal except being a typical tricks fucking kike. There, I said it. You don't need libel laws or anything else after that.

Attached: 1403503136709.jpg (1004x1340, 206K)

There's so many levels of irony I no longer know who's for real anymore.
Can you read and tell me your thoughts? I'm desperately looking for a cogent counterargument.

That doesn't sound like a sensible law, though. I'm beginning to doubt that you're actually a practicing constitutional lawyer.
How would you actually articulate restrictions on speech, so as to catch "kikery" without catching innocent speech?

Freedom of speech has always ménage freedom from consequence. That’s the abstract intent behind the concept of freedom of speech. The jews don’t like this though so they added that it doesn’t mean freedom from consequence but it doesn’t really matter, they’ll all get gasssed soon enough

The argument against boiled down to a sentence is who gets to decide that? To be honest personally I'm over full on freedom of speech, I'm more concerned with putting the right people in power so the people limiting it are limiting the right people. I still think as a general principle it's a strong guide though.

So, it's really a question of political economy? That you should have restrictions of speech decided by whatever political system you think is optimal ? (presumably democracy or something?).
How about restrictions decided by referendum?
Or would you prefer just 0 restrictions, so you can openly print libel and call for the murder of your neighbour? Curious to hear where you land.

Once you start the decline, it only speeds up from there

Japanon is right, there are obvious and logical limits to free speech, and using free speech as a scapegoat to histrionically characterize your own personal beliefs then you are appealing to "muh feelings". As an example, pedo lovers feel and believe that pedofilia is right, but you are sure as hell they ain't saying that shit out loud in a crowd.

Attached: TheSage.png (477x387, 23K)

What you're saying is that freedom of speech is mistake, we need liberty of speech.

It took two fucking people to write that comic?

>You don't know what a tyrant is
Large and small, they come in all shapes and sizes. The blood never stops flowing.

>itt countries with no guaranteed freedom of speech try to understand it
there's a thing called a functioning society, society can do some things that a law can not do. a healthy society can shame people into not doing things like pedophilia and murder. unfortunately with our society decaying I'm afraid that mere morals won't work as well

Attached: ornstein coffee.jpg (599x544, 100K)

>Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
>Help!! Muh Free Speech!! Nazis are stalking my social media and sending me nasty responses!!

Absolutely pathetic

I suppose my starting point is to think of a society with full freedom of speech would be like. Only really libertarianism is compatible with it and I think a libertarian society would almost necessarily be subverted and replaced by another system which would not advocate for full unbridled freedom of speech. So I think about my own speech and the speech of my group and think about the kind of society that would protect that, which brings a lot more potential systems into play. At this moment though as a political radical obviously supporting completely unrestricted freedom of speech not just in laws but also as a social/cultural norm is in my interest. Saying my exact position on it is x or y is impossible because as political realities change my position will change.

And no democracy is retarded. I feel outclassed and lost all the time when thinking about this stuff. The idea that the average person should have a political say beyond the violence they can perpetrate if they're treated badly enough is retarded.

Well the speech that needs protection are the controversial ones. Inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

Ask Thomas Jefferson

Attached: quote-the-tree-of-liberty-must-be-refreshed-from-time-to-time-with-the-blood-of-patriots-and-tyrants (850x400, 45K)

Whatever you say, French faggot

you raise a good point english teacher
i think the line is pretty blurry, and it depends on how direct the threat is (regarding threats, hits, or false alarms that can cause injuries or deaths)
something else that is illegal is "fighting words" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words for example if someone feels threatened by your words, they may be illegal (in the US) "i'm going to kill you" is illegal, calling someone (black only) a "nigger" to their face might also be illegal these days, by invoking the racial violence that used to accompany the word

the things you said are already illegal and for good reasons, i wouldn't agree with decriminalizing them

Trips gets it.
I'd categorise the actual restrictions on speech as follows:
1) Legal. Laws passed that restrict speech. Even in the USA, there are libel laws and so on, so let's not pretend otherwise - probably every nation on earth has legal restrictions on speech.
2) Social. These are restrictions that aren't formal laws, but carry the weight of laws because no-one actually violates them. For instance, openly stating that you're attracted to children or to your sister. It's not a crime, but nobody does it.
3) Chilling effect. Knowledge that non-state actors will kill you if you make certain statements. It's the reason newspapers don't carry cartoons of Mohammed - they're worried of getting Charlie Hebdo'd.
4) Institutional. Basically, if you say X, you'll lose your job/get kicked out of university/ lose your chance at politics/ whatever it is. For instance, you can't say "Mauschwitz" or "Duckau" and expect to keep your job at Disneyland.

I think that's the main essence of Free Speech. Ultimately people are often arguing past each other - for instance, the OP's cartoon seems to muddle legal and social controls on speech.

Anyone want to add/correct anything?
BTW I love that there are fora where anything goes (eg., Jow Forums) and I think they're vitally important.

Attached: 1526110985843.jpg (575x987, 237K)

interesting terminology, I quite like it.

I address a couple of these thoughts here, btw:

in france you can't claim that the holocaust didn't happen, if i did that in this very message i would probably go to jail
what do you think about that

Attached: 1530217150588.jpg (1200x926, 154K)

I'll know it when I see it.

Attached: stewart-potter.jpg (360x400, 53K)

No, no and no, do you want a third nuke?
Free Speech should be to say whatever you want without getting killed or losing your job

Attached: We gotta make sure it's clean.gif (800x450, 2.29M)

I can't speak for Japan but I know what I think about it.

Attached: NO STEP ON SNEK.gif (500x375, 249K)

In Costa Rica we absolutely have freedom of speech user, can fucking say whatever the hell I want to say and there will be no other consequences than the ones that have to do with violating the law or third party personal freedoms. Again, I don't know why it is so hard for Americans to admit that free speech obviously has certain restrictions on the figurative meaning of the term, and that cannot be used as a scapegoat for radical views that pretend to surpass the law.

Lel have fun being raped by trucks of peace. Can’t even complain without being thrown into jail where you will get peacefully raped by peaceful Muslims.

Freedom of speech has been stated as a right bestowed on men by his creator because those with fringe opinions need the protection to express them because they are ideas that can be uncomfortable.

Because here in the states if anyone did carry out their radical plans we would shoot them down with our guns.

>he doesnt know that i can be persecuted for saying the holocaust didnt happen
Lmao

That seems totally insane to me.
I can see a reasonable case for outlawing direct calls to the murder of jews - or the murder of anyone, for that matter - but I can't see how one can justify that outlawing a statement about history could possibly be in the public interest.
The argument that holocaust denial === calling for jew murder is very weak; you're outlawing aesthetics rather than crimes. It's like saying wearing leather trenchcoats or gold rings should be banned because of the associations. Ridiculous.
Also there's already a soft social ban on holocaust denial, so there's really no need for laws against it - it's a huge overstep of the government. Not to mention that it complicates real historical research, and provides a strong argument for 'jewish control of government". Plus it's unjust, as you can claim that Armenians or Chinese or Japanese or Russians weren't massacred - that's just fucking weird. All in all, an absurd and shit law.

This. People that make the claim in the OP don't know anything about our enlightenment era roots. Forcing consequences for speech run counter to the entire philosophy. Voltaire certainly never envisioned a time when some jagoff I never met could get me fired because of something I said to myself in my bedroom.

???
Did you read my comment? I'm describing the actual restrictions that can exist on speech. I didn't make a normative statement of any sort (except for my love for Jow Forums).
I'm just describing what possible pressures can exist on speech. I'm not saying it should be that way; it's a descriptive, not prescriptive statement. Does that make sense?
You will get killed if you print mohammed cartoons. It's not a good thing, but it likely will happen. That's not a normative statement: it's a description of planet Earth. you dig?

Attached: 違うでしょ.jpg (540x540, 50K)

This is why you don't want Jews in your country

Attached: shinji with some coffee.jpg (335x378, 17K)

i agree, i have no doubts it happened yet i find it highly disturbing that i need to say that here because ambiguity could lead to me being prosecuted for words on an anonymous board
this is not freedom

>Calling "Fire" or "bomb" in a crowded area, causing a deadly stampede
The only thing causing the stampede are the retards stampeding. Just because someone yelled a thing, doesn't make him responsible for the idiocy of the people actually carrying out the act.

>slander or libel, dangerous rumors, egregious lies
Not illegal to lie. Whether someone else believes it and acts on that information is up to them, not the speaker. If I tell you that you can fly if you flap your arms really hard, and you decide to jump off a cliff to try it out, how am I suddenly responsible for the actions you freely chose to do?

>putting out a hit on someone
Not speech. You are actually contracting with a killer in order to murder someone, thereby becoming a participatory party to the murder.
>We should go kill X
Speech, and therefore the responsibility for the killing lies purely with the man who chose to do the killing, not the man merely talking to him.

I was born without restrictions to free speech, and I will die without restrictions either, you can't have both, thats why this PC culture we have is so cancerous.

Being commie is illegal some places and was illegal many many places years ago, so thx for your critical support comrade.

I like all of these responses. Cheers for taking the time. It's a pretty hardcore libertarian stance, but it's big on personal responsibility for action, and I like it.

this. individuals make their own decisions which have consequences

So you're not a social human? You say whatever you want to everyone you meet? You never measure your words for fear of the social ramifications?
Do you also go to West Oakland and shout 'nigger' at people?
Are you not subject to libel laws?
Your speech is restricted in literally millions of ways, from social (not wanting to fuck things up with that cute girl you like) to industrial (not wanting to piss off your boss) to legal, to existential.
Am I wrong?

You don't have a right to a job. You don't have the right for the government to protect you from losing your job. If your employer doesn't want to associate with you because of your actions then they can fire you.

>Jow Forums btfo

no, euros btfo

land of the free we can say what we want

What if the sound waves coming from your mouth end up being heard in a private property, thus violating the NAP? Then it's prosecutable, right?

>you're an asshole

>DURRR

fuck you too, dumbshit

My 2nd amendment means I'm free from consequences fag.

Are you joking, or serious?
If you say to your boss: "I think you're a cunt", do you believe that the 2A will protect you from consequences?

See:What do you think of that?

It's the only stance that is consistent with the concept of individual agency. Which is why leftists dislike it so much; they believe a man is wholly a product of his environment, so when he does an act, it is the environment that is responsible for his behavior. The man himself, they say, dindu nuffin. It was always someone else's fault.

More accurately, the libertarian position would be to solve the problem the easy way by privatizing everything. There is no free speech on private property, only in the commons. If there are no commons, the problem ceases to exist.

So then why you would get triggered by a group of SJW's calling out for the extermination of whites, fueled by the fact that whites are calling out for the extermination of minorities. See the irony? In a well functioning society anyone can desire and fight for the extermination of any ethnicity, but has to be cryptic about it because there is something called law hierarchy, and human right s are above any type of freedom of speech. I don't make the rules user, maybe (((human rights))) were a mistake after all? they always mess with "muh freeze peach"

Attached: lebowskiabide.jpg (958x1400, 140K)

Here's the thing, FREE WILL
I should always have the option to do what I want, my boss, for example, shouldn't fucking fire me if he/she can't control his/her temper over some bullshit, or asking him/her "risky" questions such as schedule and raises. It doesn't mean I should insult him/her, but I have every right to say whats on my mind as I please.
I get that Japan has different social attitudes when it comes to the workplace, but a boss here in america has no right to act like a tyrant and silence the opinions of the workplace.
Also if muslims chimp out over a fucking parody of muhammad, they need to be put down and killed

Attached: u bebop M8.gif (220x158, 155K)

>France
Somehow I'm not surprised you said that

somebody should modify OP's cartoon for just that purpose, with the guy saying "fortunately, I'm still free to die for Allah" strapped with a suicide vest, walking into a newspaper.

>"freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
Actually it does. You don't have freedom of speech if your mantra is "You can say what you want but I'll fucking kill you for saying it."
If speaking something political s guaranteed ramifications, then there is no free speech, and therefore there is no political conversation as much as there is a culture of fear.

Also all the dumb retards on twitter who parrot this would sail America down the river for a box of crayons. Literally the most simple and uneducated who can't take ten seconds to consider thoughts more complex than how many likes their thumbs can get if they say something monumentally stupid.

It would be bullshit regardless. Free speech is a cultural facet that isn't tied to any specific legal code.

What a bullshit sandwich. Free speech is the province of white nationalism because they're the only ones defending it.

based

The trick here is that none of those need a limitation on speech as such.
>Calling fire
Causing a panic is a felony. Speech («fire») is just your tool and is not itself what’s the crime here. No laws against this need a formulation that mentions speech, as inciting a panic using speech is implicitly just as illegal as inciting it using a firecracker or shooting blanks etc.
>false accusations
This goes undering framing someone for a crime. Slander is again just a tool, and is implicitly just as illegal as planting evidence.
>Dangerous rumors
>Egregious lies
These two are the same thing and are solved same as above. Could also count as sabotage.
>Calling for crimes
This one is tougher.
Some incitements are not themselves crimes at all but are a reasonable basis for added protection and investigation for any real intent.
Paying someone to kill someone is just murder by proxy and if the hire was done through speech then it’s not the speech that is the criminal complent at all but hiring a killer.

calling someone an asshole is not an argument

Would the person claiming to be the injured party be able to go before an impartial arbitrator and demonstrate the damages incurred from hearing some sound waves? I doubt it. You might get the odd asshole who claims your speech violated his rights, but he will be McNuked to oblivion by the local security agencies, thanks to the fact that there are more normal people who will pay for protection from these faggots, than there are faggots who want to claim an NAP violation over frivolous bullshit.

You didn't answer my question, though. I'm not talking about asking for a raise.
I asked: If you say to your boss: "I think you're a cunt", do you sincerely believe that there exist, or should exist, laws to protect you from the consequences?
And if not, then do you agree that in fact you are, as a social creature, "not free from the consequences", even if these aren't legal?
Please don't answer a similar question of your fancy: try to answer the specific case of calling your boss a cunt.

Fuck off nigger thats actually a violation of freedom of speech, my personal life and views should have no effect on my job

If he is being a cunt, I would tell him as I fucking quit

Because there's a thing called the media, democrats, antifa, and universities that support this shit

Attached: YOU BETTER FUCKING LISTEN TO ME YOU LITTLE SHIT.jpg (750x1116, 403K)

IF you walk into work and call your boss "a stinking piece of shit", do you think that the 2A protects you from consequences?

>again
>itt countries with no guaranteed freedom of speech nor any history of it try to understand how it works

>the founding fathers who codified free speech were racist slave owning nazis!
>white nationalists are taking good concepts and poisoning them!
i'm sick of these retards

Attached: 1523127053909.gif (500x382, 167K)

>If he is being a cunt, I would tell him as I fucking quit

But that's not my question. Do all Americans have low reading comprehension or what?
I'm addressing OP's cartoon. Obviously, if you call your boss a cunt, even though it's technically legal, you WILL face consequences. Do you agree?

You meen 1st amendment.
2nd is GUNS

thanks sorry I mean 1A

Maybe I would, but I would say it if was justified