Speech is an action, and should be regulated according to the severity of the speech

>>harmful speech
>Define without engaging in hypocrisy.
When you hear it, you know it.

Who's responsible for regulating speech?
Who decides on what's harmful speech?
Who defines harmful speech?
Who enforces the law on harmful speech?

Subjective hypocrisy.

>i never said child, i said they will commit that act at one point in their life. could be adult stage
Your not responsible for others, even if they're your child.

Yes it does.

>Who
"Who, Whom"
-Lenin

>you're not responsible for your own child
Yes you are until they're legally an adult.

How many more times are you gonna lie in one thread?

Your willingness to defense oneself gives you rights. Dumb burger

>harmful
depends on the perspective. what's harmful to you might be beneficial to me. just like what's 'good' or 'right'. Fuck off, leaf. you have no idea what freedom is and if you had it, you wouldn't appreciate it.

>>you're not responsible for your own child
>Yes you are until they're legally an adult.
Legally... I'm speaking logically.

>How many more times are you gonna lie in one thread?
Logic is lies...pol is pathetic

>you are not responsible for others
>but you are responsible for the emotions i have due to the way in which you speak
flawless argument leaf

Attached: laughing kagami.png (1010x1080, 1.13M)

>constitution gives us rights
no. the constitution says that there are inalienable rights that the government can not ignore. it does not give us rights. it is a statement of operation limits on the government. the government does not allow rights. the people allow the government.

A
FUCKING
LEAF

Yes, that's exactly what the 2nd amendment clarifies. The right to self-defense.

Any more low-IQ responses?

>logically
Irrelevant.
>Logic is lies
Subjectively, yes.

>Thought crime

Good luck to legislate a definitive list while trying to keep up with all of the different speech varieties as they develop .

Let me guess, you need a committee to regulate speech with lots of (((carefully selected))) moderators?

>Oldfag is a term of endearment you'll never enjoy, faggot.

Your shitposting is sad and subpar. If this is what passes as "trolling dem fash" in your lebbit/resetera/discord hugbox, it's just sad.
You're not even baiting in the slightest. I'm out.

>Gotcha
No.

One knows when they say harmful speech.

Being a leftist is an action. Being is an action. You can choose to not be, by killing yourself, which you should do.

ultimately, we hate NIGGERS

but if we crush niggers at their own stupid game, that just proves niggers are as shit as we think. If not, who cares, they're NIGGERS

>God given rights

Rights are asserted by threat of force

It's always a fucking leaf.

Attached: canada-diversity-in-all-of-us-command.jpg (1850x940, 1.31M)

That's cheating.

Attached: laciGreenBemused.jpg (2000x1000, 158K)

>>logically
>Irrelevant.
Muh God
>>Logic is lies
>Subjectively, yes.
True.

I agree completely. I don’t get why everyone on here (and on most of the “West”) idealizes and jerks themselves over “muh first amendment”/free speech when it is the reason literal and outspoken communists are allowed to exist and function in politics and daily life, as well as many many other cretins and undesirables.

in most of the “West”*

>It will be hard
Don't worry, we don't hire retards, such as those who frequent this forum

"Harmful" speech shouldn't be banned. Speech, that is objectively wrong and designed to undermine knowledge, on the other hand should be prohibited, such as "there are more than two genders" or "there are no difference between human races"

this

>Your shitposting is sad and subpar. If this is what passes as "trolling dem fash" in your lebbit/resetera/discord hugbox, it's just sad.
>You're not even baiting in the slightest. I'm out.
3 replies per minute
Too easy

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's also the reason you can exchange ideas here and not go to prison after being fined 6 million shekels.

Do you really want a government to decide what acceptable speech is?

>15 posts by this ID

that's just so fucking embarrassing. over 1/3 of the posts ITT are just this stupid beaver fucking ass wipe having an unhinged bitch fit about why he hates free speech.

Attached: 1539921957503.jpg (292x236, 17K)

>There is no reason to

Attached: 79deb5d0f06719de3743bb630d314563.jpg (500x764, 92K)

so, first, you say you are not responsible for what others do (in this case speech), and now, you say you are responsible for what others do (reaction towards speech). i dont get it. how could you flop the whole premise behind your OP like that?

Attached: 194465835.jpg (400x400, 23K)

>Free speech allows Communists
America hates public property, but loves public speech. They're not consistent.

You have two options. I can let off steam by calling you a stupid leaf cunt who is wrong right to your face and walking away, or I can decide that i have no recourse to negotiate the tension with you so instead I bury you out in the woods to resolve our differences.

Attached: 9AE7939B-70D7-4AD3-94A4-3D8B1B558AE7.gif (480x270, 2.24M)

>so, first, you say you are not responsible for what others do
I was referring to one's progeny.

your authoritarianism is offensive. in the world you want, you would be censored.

How is that not the same though? People being objectively wrong and spreading that incorrect “knowledge” does harm to society as a whole.
A government of philosopher kings? Absolutely.

Dumb burger, get grilled

Attached: 1532150990968-pol.jpg (259x194, 10K)

In the uprising you will be judged and condemned to be executed by unanimity

Ad hominem or violence
This is truly Americanism at its finest

Low energy. Many such cases. Sad!

Attached: 3D22DF10-0A6F-4631-B198-FE6F7C238760.jpg (500x375, 59K)

so... you're responsible for actions of those whom you have no immediate relation towards and therefore, by your logic, will be responsible for speech that is harmful. GOTCHA

Attached: b6d94d194bbd051387952bc6ef656117--lucky-star-anime-girls.jpg (474x689, 42K)

American of Scottish blood. You’re more right than you can possibly imagine.

You cannot impose objective logic on subjective construct.

A "child" is a subjective construct for legality. It is arbitrated to what constitutes as a child and an adult. Within the realm of that construct an adult is legally responsible for the child.

Objectively the direct "adult(s)" are still responsible for bringing life into the world. They allowed to happen which otherwise would not. Choosing not to assume responsibility is irrelevant. Its your fault; you simply chose to do nothing about it.

...

You really are a country of peasants. Kind of ironic, considering how well you got played by British nobles like Washington.

Oh no, dry and remote historical anecdotes are my one weakness.

"healthcare is a human right" is harmful speech to tax payers

Whether it’s harmful or not depends on whether it’s true or not.

>You cannot impose objective logic on subjective construct.
That's the point.
Your type willing be the first to go.

ok then the guards should open fire then right user? that's where this line of thinking ends up.

Attached: IMG_3550.jpg (4000x3000, 1.69M)

I do not believe that OP advocated for the death penalty, did he? He compared it it to littering, which certainly doesn’t get the death penalty in any state in the world (to my knowledge).

If you refuse to pay a fine they jail you. If you refuse to go to jail they shoot you. Every crime has the death penalty.

>he doesnt know that some speech is indeed regulated

Attached: FB_IMG_1542167110840.jpg (720x401, 22K)

You are operating under the false pretense that speech can be harmful.

>Only actions can be illegal
How about propagandizing white populations to accept and even partake in actions leading to their collective demise?

I consider birthing retards littering.

>Statism is violence
Lolbertarians can leave any time

The difference between "speech" and other actions is, that the "harmfulness of speech" is both fictive and subjective, while this does generally not hold true for other actions.

Somebody misgenders you? No problem, how about you simply don't care - it's just words, and if you possessed even a shed of self discipline, you would not be "harmed" by words at all. If you feel "harmed" by words, you most certainly _chose_ to feel harmed.

The same cannot be said for other situations; If you get shot, you get harmed regardless of whether you feel like being harmed or not.

>The difference between "speech" and other actions is, that the "harmfulness of speech" is both fictive and subjective

Depends how sensitive ones is. But most of pol are brutes, so they'll agree with you.

>the "greater good" approach
so let's sterilize all blacks, since they inevitably end up murdering innocent people. how can we reduce the crime rate with all these murderers running around? people are dying!

Generally agree except FUCK JANNIES

I agree. Ban Islam, Marixsm, and jews

EAT MY ASSAULT CAPS AND BE HARMED YOU FUCKING LEAF!!!!

SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM-SPAM!

Did that hurt? Are you harmed?

>2018 leaf
>thinking their opinion about being a pussy matters

State power is needed but don't delude yourself into thinking it's pretty. Any opposition to state power gives the state the justification to end your life. Regulating speech even slightly causes people to fear their own thoughts which creates a neutered and easily controlled mind that will never contribute anything of worth. This is true even when only social power is used to control speech, no state intervention is required. People like you are a destructive cancer on the minds of all human beans.

You'll never be anything leaf. All your life revolves around getting 'the man' to do something you can do for yourself.

There is no such thing as harmful speech. Only harmful people.

>If you refuse to go to jail they shoot you.
This is not true unless you are living in the US or you decide to “defend” yourself from the police. That is entirely up to you. They will likely just force you into jail instead in most cases.
Is it not harmful to promote falsehood in a society? Like teaching kids that gender is subjective, or even the parents that then impose it upon their children. How is this not harmful to society as a whole? How is it not harmful to a society if its higher power is questioned or “blasphemed” against, whether this higher power is a God or Gods or even just the state? It leads to discord and a lack of cohesion. Promoting the idea that everyone is completely equal is also very harmful, not to mention false.

>just force you into jail
And how will they do that without threatening violence upon my person?.
If you allow them to handcuff you and put you in jail, you are not truly “refusing” to go to jail.

Of course, but violence doesn’t equal death penalty, which is what we are talking about.

If violence is escalated enough it will result in death.

Attached: rights.png (1023x705, 1.2M)

Yall need to learn how to sage. It cannot be, that this got bumped to the first page.

user. Just no.
pls SAGE

If sex is escalated enough it can cause death too.

"harmful speech" get the fuck out faggot

Attached: Trump_Wall_Pepe.jpg (272x185, 9K)

>harmful speech
you fucking retard kill yourself

Attached: dfksavh.png (1136x640, 1.78M)

See and

Thinking is an action, and should be regulated according to the severity of the thought.

Attached: Momijimad.png (104x104, 2K)

>Speech is an action
Slander and libel are already laws.

Did you start reading at the second amendment and stop reading after the first amendment? How low iq are you actually?

Rights are also defended the same way