How would Jow Forums respond?

Another one 1 reply from the fucking OP

What’s up with this shit

>those tattoos

Attached: 1534604264563.png (480x406, 55K)

It's true to an extent. People may privately choose to not associate with you or private business may choose not to serve you. There should be not legal consequences or fear of violence, and that is generally how the Left responds to speech it doesn't like.

That form of consequence would be easily manipulated and abused, by peer pressure and social ostracization

It's objectively true.
That's why you need laws to protect you when it comes to bank accounts, public spaces, etc.

Thread is young and OP wants our views

it means dont left yourself get manhandled like the fucking coward who trump hugged at speech

I'd fetch my VHS of Eraser head by David Lynch and if we can enjoy it together then we are compatible and we can consider anime

Or--bear with me on this thought--96% of mainstream media.

Attached: 1548486480927.jpg (640x797, 370K)

if you are constrained by the consequences in ways that are a threat to your well-being, then it isn't exactly "free" speech and they should consider the "consequences" they support because they might be victim-blaming you because of their own overreaction which created extreme or unnecessary consequences

the only response is "be careful what you wish for"

Attached: cffd82a1357d4f43a940265ebf0a3dd5.jpg (524x604, 101K)

Respond to shitty XKCD programming thusly:

1)

Attached: npc_speech_2x.jpg (1132x1173, 364K)

You wanna bet on that top page is full of these who are these people?

2)

Attached: roseanne_first.png (930x780, 792K)

That is implied by what i wrote.

It’s just a threat. Treat these people as enemies.

I Wouldn't know i mainly visit his and tv

irrelevant, nothing to stop it from happening

police dont prevent me from assaulting someone, they just pursue me afterwards right, theres actually nothing stopping anyone from doing anything. if you want to punch a random person who you think is a nazi, the law states you can't, but as we have seen the reality is that it is physically possible

both forms are, really

Pretty much this.

You have the right to be an insufferable priapism. I, in turn, have the right not to tolerate your presence.

How is this a difficult concept?
Why do you look down on private citizens gathering so they can express themselves without judgement, then demand that nobody judge you expressing yourself?
Do private organizations not have the ability to manage who they invite to speak, based upon their customers' demands?

Society is making you uncomfortable to change your opinion through quiet persuasion. Either stop bitching or yield.

Attached: 2d060066728510fa138aec0ef9ce9685124264b97c3b642939d1d34b56df96dc.gif (520x293, 682K)

3) Censorship isn't done through government, but through governance.

Governance is done by any entity in power, including corporations.

Freedom of speech gives me the right to offend you. You have that same right

The statement misses purpose of free speech. Free speech is there so if your society, country or company is going down the dumpster, you can have people with solution in mind voicing their disagreement and able to change the course.

It’s true. I think there should be mutual combat laws for marches that should coincide with freedom of speech, actually.

the very definition of trying too hard

True but they also are quite useful

That's a pretty naive statement.
Free speech exists so Jewish propagandists can undermine you and eventually make cutting off your penis and balls seem normal.

Freedom of Speech protects you from the government
You can say "i hate niggers" on live tv as long as you arent trying to incite violence.
However a company is within their rights to fire you in order to maintain their public relations.
You won't be arrested but you can face social consequences

Look at the things the Hollywood elite get away with saying. They were outright encouraging assassinations after the Fappening. Not very long ago with the smiling MAGA kid, they encouraged and incentivized people to assault him. So your statement should be changed to.

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences if you speak out against the central ideology of liberal elite."

Just turn 360 and walk away.
Why are you getting into spats with retards?

Only because you're going to get blacklisted for saying that they're jewish.

you just made the best case for carrying a gun at all times I have ever seen, talk about stopping power lol

The freedom of speech IS freedom of consequences, not in the interpersonal individual sense as to discriminate is the foundation of all human liberty but from the powers of organized coercion of the state or any other institution for that matter.

If one company owns the gas lines and doesn't like the way a particular city tipped an election they can't just shut off the gas in the middle of winter and let everyone freeze to death because dependence creates power and power enables coercion, all organizations of sufficient size and utility carry with them disproportionate power such to enable them to endanger human liberty and enforcing consequences in regards to speech becomes an illegitimate abuse of power as with any number of leftist bullshit demands they have in regards to restricting the powers of corporations when they don't do what they want.

that is a good answer my nz buddy

That's exactly what it means. If you're granted freedom of speech by law then you're free from legal consequences. If someone holds the value as a principle then they will allow you to say what you intend to say without consequence. If they support consequences for speech, they don't support freedom of speech. Pretty simple.

You tell her it does. and that "consequences" are illegal and violent oppressive behaviors perpetrated by those that dont want the truth spoken about them

Correct.
Feel free to go around saying that niggers are subhumans, don't expect people to take you seriously or like you.
Shouldn't have any legal consequence though.

Attached: be20b230826b5708324a33f01fb5afba.jpg (672x840, 55K)

That ruling has never been successfully applied to subsequent cases involving freedom of speech on the internet. A mall doesn't even meet the criteria of being "public" as far as that ruling is concerned.

I punch the tyrant in his fucking face.

Until it resembles a bowl of salsa.

youtube.com/watch?v=vZa0Yh6e7dw

Attached: 253-2538368_104-kb-png-apu-apustaja-thumbs-up.jpg (300x239, 33K)

>Which is why you're responsible robbed and killed

>"Freedom of speach does not mean freedom from consequences."

Freedom of speech is a meme and was never real. Every community runs around certain axioms. If you argue against these axioms the power structure that is dependent upon people accepting them turns against you and shuts you down.

Its always former revolutionaries turned establishment that talk about how free you are to argue against people who are no longer in power. But dont you dare to argue against them.

Catholic prieses would tell you how they freed people from pagan Roman oppression, when you couldnt profess Jesus but dont you dare to criticize the Church
Protestants will be all about how you are now free to criticize the catholics but dont you dare to criticize Luther or Calvin or some other preacher
Secularists will tell you how criticizing Christianity is "freethinking" but watch them get mad when you criticize the enlightenment
Communists would tell you how the proletaryat is now freeto criticize the bourgeoise but dont you dare to criticize the party.
And now liberal democrats tell you they won you "freedom of speech" because you can criticize the corpses of communist and fascist "authoritarianism" against which the libdems fought and won but criticizing liberal democracy is "hate speech"

freedom of speech is a lie, its against human nature
There are always conseuences to attacking beliefs legitimizing the current power structure

Attached: DUCK.jpg (1489x1101, 193K)

A mall is a union of shopping centers, not a public plaza or roadway. Their purpose is not the be a popular hang-out spot for teenagers, it is to sell clothing and accessories. They have clear open and closing hours, and none of its roadways or walkways are truly public. It is a completely different issue than something like facebook or twitter that advertises itself as an open and public communication medium.

The actual issue is related to the idea that the company is seeking to own a private monopoly on communication through a certain medium. Simply put, this is false. Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google, etc, cannot prevent you from going on a web IRC or your livelournal and having whatever conversation you want. They do not monopolize the internet, they merely have a 'monopoly' over their own website that you want to use despite their wishes.

I’m here (in SF) with you.

That would be fine, but we no longer have freedom of association, and we have a welfare state. There are now classes of people who are in fact free of consequence, and the rest of us pay for it. People's livelihoods should be protected from political retaliation for activities outside work. Stop propping up the system maaaan.

You first: Go limp. Die.

Freedom is an abstract negation. What am I to be free of? All that matters is capability or power; what you own and what defense you use to enforce the claim of ownership is just that.
I'm glad that you're starting to see things my way. We'll rid this world of pointless wars, Jack.

Attached: 1550437877634.png (557x605, 309K)

>tattoos
For a second i though she was perfect.

Attached: 1422290317212.jpg (203x125, 8K)

If somebody tells you that, just say the consequence of saying exactly that is death! So do you still like this principle if you know a mob will kill you just outside this room?
Argument won

By that logic, I am free to do whatever I want. People who say that haven't read the first amendment.

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Define abridging.

Ok..? What point are you trying to make and how does it pertain to freedom of speech? I can kick your head in at any time for any reason, is this now a universal argument?

Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can't kick you in the head. Although I admit it would be more difficult.
Right to a speedy trial doesn't mean I can't kick you in the head before you get one.

You're saying nothing.

They're right but often they use that to justify harassment and assault which is against the law anyway so it's a moot point.

I'm left wing but hate cringey sjws. freedom of speech has to be just that. people need to toughen up.

I'm waiting for the day that some guy, fired from his job for saying something politically incorrect, goes on a shooting spree with that phrase scrawled across his shirt.

>Talk shit
>Get hit
Don't see a problem

What they are saying is true, don't dispute it. Move the conversation forward. They're likely to listen to you if you agree on the first point. Put out a couple hypotheticals. Then say, "does that sound like a society you want to live in?" You have to come up with real good hypotheticals that they could see themselves in. You'll never get them to change their opinions right there, but you can get them to start thinking beyond an automated response. That should be the goal. End with:
"I am 100% on board with you about being polite and respectful to people, but if we have nowhere in society where we can't explore unpopular opinions, don't you think that's not a great solution? If we self censor our speech, we self censor our thinking as well. Do you have any opinions that perhaps you don't hold firm to, but would enjoy discussing as a way to figure out what you really believe? If you do, you can count on me to never publicly shame you for that. I appreciate talking with people I may disagree with. At the very least, I'll be more confident in my own views."

when you tell a man that you will kill him and fuck his wife and daughter do you think there won't be consequences?

Attached: 2018-05-11-thanusxx-super-soyan.jpg (1000x1243, 836K)

*can explore

"What consequences?"
That's a good response, because what consequences should someone suffer for saying bad words?
He's not wrong, but the phrase is delibaretely vague to justify punishment for saying things that hurt people's fee fees.

I agree. Freedoom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Attached: Auschwitz-Birkenau-Poland-1129x752.jpg.optimal.jpg (1129x752, 206K)

That's the slogan of every 105 IQ NPC middle class or upper working class normie that you went to public high school with. (Or possibly the 105-110 IQ upper middle class suburban kids that you fags went to school with, my hometown was a shithole so I wouldn't know)

I just smile and say that Wrath is a sin. Why don't you just be the bigger person user? Because clearly you are so morally superior to me right? Considering that you are punishing me due to a lack of morals, that would imply that your worldview includes objective morals. What axiom do you base your objective morals off of user? Mine are based off of the Bible, which is among the oldest documents in existence, backed up by millennia of tradition, scholarship, and rigorous research. In my objective system of morals, wrath is a sin, so assuming that you were to enact wrath on me, that would make you a sinner. You have enacted wrath upon me, as you have just proclaimed, therefor, you are (as according to the objective system of morals laid out by god in the Bible) a sinner.

Attached: jimreact.png (667x670, 648K)

Great fucking post. And checcked.

Punch them and then say "There is your consequence, bitch!"

those conservatives are just asking for it.

The problem, my dear unevolved friend, is that "shit" is subjective. Those with power can define anything that goes against them as "shit" and then work to silence you. Giving them significant control over you and anybody else that doesn't fall in line. If we don't value freedom speech on both a legal AND personal level then we leave ourselves open to tyranny.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

That would be such ideal wife if not shitty tattoos and piercing, disgusting subhuman

who is she

Attached: 1487609592275.gif (300x186, 446K)

>"I can say whatever I want but nobody can be mean to me"
Why are nazis so weak-willed and thin-skinned?

Just punch them in the fucking face and say yeah I agree and that that was the consequence of saying that to me. Problem solved.

Carry a gun, say whatever the fuck you want. When gamma faggot liberal men try to attack you, shoot them (dont kill them shoot them in the leg or arm), watch them become real men again. Theyll look like they just got out of a 10 year adderall and weed induced coma, might even thank you for it. Shoot to maim, youll convert them to our side.

/thread

Attached: 1547514436260.jpg (600x532, 42K)

Talk about the chilling effect

this, its literally victim blaming

1 post by this ID and faggot OP never states his own thoughts on the matter :3 hmmm smells like a shkick/thread.

Attached: 76.jpg (629x960, 69K)

There's always going to be people who don't like what other people say. Freedom of speech means the state uses violence to protect you from consequences. So if you suffer any sort of consequence that's beyond butthurt on the other part, the state must step in and punish the wrongdoer. That means if you're threatened, is assaulted, is fired, suffer financial loss and so on. Pretty simple concept so I don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping it, beyond many being contrary because they hate free speech of course.

Attached: abacus.jpg (320x240, 24K)

it's obvious that no one's allowed to make fun of jews

Why don't you tell us? You're the closest any country will ever get to being them

we should be as free to do anything we like as long as it doesn't hurt others. i get the impression you don't really care about that though.

>all that shit anime
so fucking cringe

I would ask who has a vhs anymore?

>360
How hard is it to retain basic primary level education?

Newfag

"Yes it does Speech should never come with censorship in any form" That's my response

Attached: ed_edd_n_eddy_anti_sjw_meme_2__by_wcher999-dawyuvl.jpg (312x350, 25K)

>"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."

In the United States, that is exactly what it means. The weak, manlet Jews protected behind the titles of CEO are still just that and feel entitled to use the white man's monopoly of violence for themselves by silencing their betters though them manipulation of your job, reputation and income, but they are no better than the filthy homogaylesbodyke that metal faces their way to the platform where you are speaking and shouting you down or blowing their communist airhorn.

It means that their better, the European descendant, can say whatever the fuck he wants and the niggers and jews must deal. They can do the same and we will deal.

But you may not silence, cause to be silence, or give me negative consequences especially with my own tax funded monopoly of violence you dirty fucking communist jews so often run to to use,whether in homogaylesbodyketrans form or CEO form because of me calling you a dirty kike commie faggot. But I repeat myself.

This is easily winnable in any court of law, except in the filthy, dirty ninth or where any Kike judge and Kike DA conspire during their ritual of the gay buttsex at synagogue. Because of the Khazar milkers and tiny, kike manlets of no US value always conspire against us.

In my day, the nursery rhyme "Sticks and Stones may break your bones, but words may never hurt you." was used to describe the 2nd to the children and the low IQ retards on the homogay nigger Kike left. It still applies. If they feel my words deserve consequences, fcuk their feeling, fight me or take me to court. Those are your options.

Attached: bq-5c6c209235d25.jpg (960x802, 132K)

>It’s true. I think there should be mutual combat laws for marches that should coincide with freedom of speech, actually.

A US based Takanakuy must be demanded and all kikes must be called into the circle, to expose them as cowards and weak. This would prevent their access to their milkers lowering their birth rate to whatever births occur from their ritual father and brother on daughter/first cousins that happen. Taking the Jew gold from their neck should be forbidden as that is theft, unless he dies in combat and has no relatives to claim the neck gold. After fight rape is not allowed unless its girl on girl lipstick action because the other is gay.

>Freedom of speech is a meme and was never real.

Kike detected

My 40 cal glock might stop it
Or even my katana. Nothin personal kid

this ...

Technically, it is not wrong w.r.t. your dealings with non government entities as long as they arent in contravention to any laws by enacting such 'consequences'

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[