Should free speech be illegal?

we just had this thread and discord trannies for btfo

I'm convinced that the ideal form of government is a democracy where an impartial AI algorithm determines how many votes you get to cast, based on intelligence, political knowledge, problem solving, professional success, etc.

Attached: Twizzlers.png (1291x1073, 1.18M)

Niggers should be illegal.

Well, we can all learn from North Korea and China.

of course it doesnt stop that. when did it ever? no wonder half the US wants to tear it up the constitution, you dont even understand it.

...yes

Attached: lil jew.jpg (288x288, 29K)

Nigger tier democracy, since 1965 its no wonder.

Attached: Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg_NYWTS.jpg (2139x1947, 436K)

I think niggers should be illegal

Attached: 1555608566955.jpg (225x225, 13K)

Free speech is great, but it has always been a limited right (yes, even in America)

it has never meant that you can just say whatever you want whenever you want, there have always been exceptions

It already is

>Should free speech be illegal?
Yes. All the greatest governments in history didn't have free speech.

the ideal form of government depends on the population being governed.
for a small group of niggers a patriarchal or matriarchal family group based tribal society is best, for a large group of niggers you would need some kind of super authoritive mafia to keep the chaos from getting out of control. for a group of whites a local sheriff and a monthly town hall meeting is enough

and thats why commies want to burn the 1st amendment, because it clearly defines the boundaries. its going to be more and more important than it ever was into the future as governments tame and quarantine the internet and communications.

>Should free speech be illegal?
no! but compelled speech should be! I don’t want to say “African American”, I want to say “nigger”! Political correctness kills free speech and kills progress too

Free speech is the core of the west but if your only intent is to slander and hurt people without proof then you can be be prosecuted.

would be smarter to ban the actual thing instead of the word calling it out

Attached: whew.webm (800x800, 2.46M)

>only intent is to slander and hurt
that’s the fun part of free speech

its being constantly challenged by trannies and commies in general, like when that bakery refused to make a gay wedding cake, that but it still exists for the most part as stated in the 1st amendment.

Seems to be working out in europe... daughter gets raped by a muslim and you say anything, jail. You leftists are disgusting filth.

Attached: 1557784996500.jpg (646x492, 88K)

Putin pls go

kek

>charge them by nostril width
Cool it with the anti-semitic remarks

Attached: 1557532667347.gif (250x250, 993K)

You sure are right about that, and it's unfortunate bullshit that the rulers of the country should, but never will take responsibility of.

youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

>That's right goy, kikes should make everyone's decisions instead

Attached: (((You))).jpg (600x600, 55K)

It will be answered that many self-prop systems-governments, corporations, labor unions, etc.-do take care of numerous individuals who are utterly useless to them: old people, people with severe mental or physical disabilities, even criminals serving life sentences. But this is only because the systems in question still need the services of the majority of people in order to function. Humans have been endowed by evolution with feelings of compassion, because hunting-and-gathering bands thrive best when their members show consideration for one another and help one another. As long as self-prop systems still need people, it would be to the systems' disadvantage to offend the compassionate feelings of the useful majority through ruthless treatment of the useless minority. More important than compassion, however, is the self-interest of human individuals: People would bitterly resent any system to which they belonged if they believed that when they grew old, or if they became disabled, they would be thrown on the trash-heap.

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

Attached: anti tech revolution.jpg (1000x1500, 1.51M)

Even though the technological world-system still needs large numbers of people for the present, there are now more superfluous humans than there have been in the past because technology has replaced people in many jobs and is making inroads even into occupations formerly thought to require human intelligence. Consequently, under the pressure of economic competition, the world's dominant self-prop systems are already allowing a certain degree of callousness to creep into their treatment of superfluous individuals. In the United States and Europe, pensions and other benefits for retired, disabled, unemployed, and other unproductive persons are being substantially reduced; at least in the U. S., poverty is increasing; and these facts may well indicate the general trend of the future, though there will doubtless be ups and downs.

It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

Attached: ted how bad things really are.png (352x390, 359K)

Basically what you got anyhow, isn't it?

Nigger kike fag

It's not absurd when 90% of men are their own business owners who make critical decisions every day.

The Constitution wasn't meant for a centralized global economy where everyone is a cog.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Try to do that when people are fat and happy, and don't want to lose their gadgets and toys. Getting an uprising against tyrants when the population is willfully ignorant won't be an easy task. They will probably realize things are not going so well when it's too late to act, like with most empires in human history.