Muh free speech

>people could only live for another being (God)
Talk about slave morality. Sad.

>this peasant actually thinks he has the right to say whatever he wants

Good goy, keep thinking you have freedom!

>because people used a reason to excuse their actions
>said reason is valid
Do you ever attend court hearings? Or listen to politicians?

The left used to like free speech because they needed it, now they don't.

However there is no guarantee that will remain the case, they are being really fucking stupid outlawing it when it could so easily be used against them.

>not hosting conservatards on your platform means you're censoring
That's not what that word means. If it were, then minority men are censoring your prenises from White vaginas.

All interpretations of free speech are gay.
If you express your opinion publicly and you're not a male who owns land and property with a net worth in the top 50% you should have your tongue cut out

Attached: 1512890340698.gif (280x280, 669K)

>50% of the population should be able to speak
Take 2 zeroes off of that. 5/1000, at most.

*some exclusions apply
Namely everything they don't agree with. If you support the Jewish capitalist establishment you get to enjoy free speech. But, for everybody else it's not a thing.

Why is it so hard to just let everybody have free speech and don't selectively apply it to political allies and restrict the speech of political enemies?

Free speech is just permission for normies to regurgitate what Jews taught them to say.

>just let idiots spew their garbage information to other garbage people
>this will work out well for elections

Guess either free speech or everyone votes. Not both.

My rights are God-given and I will kill to protect them. You'll see.

Just because you posted this I'm going to harass some cops in the UK over chat.

When a handful of corporations control the overwhelming majority of the mass communications platforms and there is a coordinated strike by those corporations on political opposition based on claims of violations of TOS that are historically and today unequally applied while the whores in the corporate media cheer it own and those companies all have a long history of leftist leaning positions you start to cross a line that even government can not touch without a major battle.

You leftist are riding high on the corporate media cock but that can change very quickly. Your willingness to side with corporations who are willing to silence your political opposition can and likely will come back to bite you in the ass.

Every one of them should hang.

>no one wants to provide me a platform
>so I must enforce protectionist measures
Or, you could compete- as a platform provider, or having opinions others want to support.
>but truth hurts and is unpopular
How about you try some tact?
>NIGS GONNA NOG!!!!!!
Le sigh

>coordinated attack by monopoly
I thought right-wingers were opposed to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

I agree companies with a monopoly should lose their right to censor free speech
Alex is basically dead now no matter what site he chooses next you can't compete with YouTube.
But then NFL holds monopoly over football players no new company can come in without failing. Does that mean they should be allowed to kneel ? These NFL players can't quit and go somewhere else to play football at this level

>since my chosen platform will not bend to my desires, I'll introduce legislation to make them
More like leftists every day.

Just remember when the tables turn and the media corporations you leftist have become so trusting of begin to silence you because your leftist agenda is no longer in vogue do not bother complaining because your opportunity to stand up for the protection of free speech from corporate censorship even the speech you disagree with was wasted for short term political gain.

The internet was built by the state not corporations. These corporations shouldn't have the power to censor people. All these internet infrastructure corporations and social media platforms should be seized by the state.

These corporations want to engage in political repression. Let the state engage them and show them who actually has power. They have the audacity to exercise political power, lets see if they have an army to back it up.

Not if those exclusions obviously violate the intent of free speech.

So we moved past speaking at corners and printing pamphlets. Obviously social media is way more effective at spreading opinion and information, limiting it to only certain opinions and censoring information does obviously result in a world where free speech IS effectively no longer given.

Football isnt a platform to voice opinions. Alex Jones isnt an employee of youtube.

Rights are not granted by the state. Rights are protected by the state. If your government does not protect your rights, it is not a valid government.
Yes, I'm including the US government in this comment. For the most part, aside from Trump and Rand, our government is invalid.

If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you do it, is it my fucking fault?
Jump off a bridge, would you kindly?

Liberty is an unalienable right.

Attached: george-washington-9524786-1-402.jpg (1200x1200, 192K)

>State protects you from it
Keep licking those boots

Yes it could be considered illegal to tell someone to kill themselves, but you’d have to prove there was premeditated intention (in the case of murder), or direct culpability (in the case of manslaughter). If they do in fact kill themselves.
Happened recently

Attached: IMG_1270.jpg (640x978, 119K)

Kill yourself faggot.

>leaf post
>muh state grant muh rights

Hilarious. Almost forgot to laugh.

The state doesn't give you rights. Rights are natural to all men. Thats why the constitution tells the state it can't shit on those rights instead of saying that you have them. Even if the constitution is burned to ashes, those rights still exist.

That wasn't my question, and that case is a bit more complex than someone just telling another person to kill themselves. If I told a "normal" sane person and they did it. would it be my fault? A normal person should be able to make their own decisions.
It's the same mentality as the teachers who banned something in school because one of the dumb kids couldn't control its impulses and hurt itself.

Honestly you shouldn't be able to vote unless you own land. Now that I'm buying a house it totally understand that now.

Lel might is right

>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state.
No, rights are guaranteed by the violence inflicted by the people who will fight for them.

Are you lacking reading comprehension? The purpose of establishing a government is to protect your rights. When your rights are no longer protected, your government is invalid and should be abolished. Literally the reason behind the Declaration of Independence.
I should really learn to expect this idiocy from Canadians.

you have no rights you have privileges.

With this happening and the bike lock nigger getting off Scott free, it's a wonder why there isn't a larger, serious right wing like movement taking justice into their own hands.

I know it sounds stupid today, but dudes used to get pissed off, congregate, and fix shit with rifles. Why do you think they want Americans disarmed and mentally controlled? There is a reason debt and credit exists. It's to make sure you are locked into your current situation forever. That way you fall out of line they cut you off forever and you lose everything.

I'd be out public speaking until I got a group together, organize properly and start doing shit. However, it's not possible anymore.

>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state.
A FUCKING LEAF.

Look up “designated public forum” and come back to me.

>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state.
Wrong

Attached: tenor[1].gif (498x451, 3M)

We already are ruled by Jews who are about that.

If you get an airbnb, and the contract doesn't explicitly prohibit speech in any way, can the "property owner" (in this case, the airbnb service provider) kick you out for speech they don't like?

When the burden of proof is on you, ask for proof. Typical leaf faggot.

>who will fight for them
By creating a state
kek

Should I post the study where more than half of republicans think the president should be able to shut down media outlets he doesn’t like? Stop pretending you give a shit about free speech, you’re just butthurt that no one wants to listen to your retarded bullshit.

>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state.
yikes

the bill of rights is an imposition on the federal government to prevent them from stomping on the people (not that it has really stopped them). the right to free speech is a binary stipulation that the government must abide by when addressing legal matters since they have a monopoly on force.

1 post by this ID

Attached: Slide Thread Alert.jpg (1024x1024, 361K)

Good job bumping it, newfag

Also this comic is against the left and censorship, not for it, you lazy shill.

>Leaf
>Thinks rights are granted
If rights were granted by the state, they would be called privileges.

Attached: 1518222990437.jpg (600x469, 52K)

RIght's are inherent in being. If something's being granted to you, it's not a right. The reality is, the only way to truly stop me from speaking or expressing myself is if you cut out my tongue and my hands. Until then, I'll always be able to convey some form of information.

>The reality is, the only way to truly stop me from speaking or expressing myself is if you cut out my tongue and my hands. Until then, I'll always be able to convey some form of information.
In other words there's no such thing as rights, just power and the ability to do things unimpeded

Attached: 1526704543706.jpg (720x720, 66K)

I've got you, bud.
Maybe the Right needs to file some class action suits.

Attached: 1533734171985.jpg (888x470, 120K)

It's called the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights for a reason, you fucking leaf.

Attached: 15432453.png (841x401, 24K)

Not on someone else's property? How does that work? I can't have a frank discussion about something at a friends house, or in a bar? Frankly, that is an unworkable position to hold. You could say freedom of protest is not applicable on private property for certain reasons, but you can't deny freedom of speech on private property.

>There is no free speech on another's property.
>buys all the printing presses
>buys the web hosting services
>buys the major media outlets
heh nothing personell kiddo

>rights are granted by the state
LOL. Never thought I'd see the left supporting the public square being owned by a handful of billionaires. Remember that video of all the news outlets parroting each other? This is going to be 10x worse. Speech critical of your overlords will be heavily censored. But it's cool, that's their right, they bought it fair and square, right?

Um sorry sweetie but if the left has the right to shove subversive SJW identity politics down my throat 24/7 then certainly i have the right to tell them to fuck off

The posts you make and the videos you upload on youtube are actually your own property so they're covered by the first amendment.

That is, unless youtube wants to start being legally culpable for every video that's uploaded.

Attached: 1512003395588.png (451x326, 36K)

>when the 500 pound, 75 year old american boomer enters the thread

Attached: 1118424283568.png (273x283, 182K)