Is using free speech to advocate ideas that threaten freedom taking freedom too far?

It's neither left or right. Or, rather, both. It's just authoritarianism.

Ideologues will argue to take away your freedoms. Freedoms need to be protected every day and fought for.

But why not just ban ideas that go against freedom?

nope.
I actually believe that even yelling fire in a theater should still be considered free speech

How do you ban ideas?

>Leftists use this as an excuse to censor,
>implying extreme rightists don't censor when they come to power

>that's why hate crime classification exists.
Certainly, the idea of hate crimes came into prominence after Popper (who was a centrist lib btw) was writing about this.

>Leftists don't realize they cannot use this as an excuse to censor ideas and opinions.
Yeah, slander, sedition, and incitement to violence (aka "fighting words") have never been considering free speech under the US constitution. So, it goes without saying that much of the rhetoric your typical neo-nazi spews online is actually not protected speech.

The idea that one can advocate whatever you want be free from consequences pretty much died during the hanging of Julius Streicher.

Ban them when they are expressed, at least. Like if someone says that segregation should be brought back.

How do you ban expression?

like this waddling sack of orange shit

Attached: blog16-trumptweetflagburning-580w.jpg (580x350, 25K)

In general no, but in specific circumstances yes.

Free speech means that the government cannot impede on your right to speak freely. It does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

I don't think this necessarily covers threatening speech. If I were to threaten murdering a person then obviously that's not protected but that situation should also be decided by a court and a jury of my peers.

If I were to hold meetings with several co conspirators with the intent to overthrow the government or some other crime and spoke openly about doing such things then obviously that is evidence of intent to commit a crime and is an area where law enforcement and the courts could step in to determine the nature of the situation. There are many factors that go into this such as what was actually said, if plans were in place, etc.

By arresting people?

"Rightists" aren't the one that parrot the retard Popper when it comes to censorship.

Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with Popper. The idea of hate crimes as a separate entity were around long before he was born.

Slander, sedition and incitement to violence is what a typical leftist does in a typical rally against "hate" or whatever newspeak term they're fighting against. Publicly. They do not get arrested.

You don't know what fightings words are. Saying fuck niggers online is not fighting words. Saying let's round up all the jews online are not fighting words.

How do you arrest millions of people with only a couple thousand cops?

well i mean karl marx was openly discussing it in a pub apparently
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/karl-marx-friedrich-engels-communist-manifesto-salford-manchester-history-pub-marxism-a7882736.html

>Karl Marx
>the least authoritarian guy alive
>loved democracy so much he considered a violent uprising of the people as a valid form of it

you're a politically illiterate shithead from Jow Forums aren't you?

>>the least authoritarian guy alive
i meant in history

>The idea of hate crimes as a separate entity were around long before he was born.
Prove it

>Saying fuck niggers online is not fighting words. Saying let's round up all the jews online are not fighting words.
The last one is advocacy of genocide and even though its unlikely that anyone will drag you out of your house for saying, the case against Streicher created the legal precedent for punishing supporters and advocates of aggressive war and other crimes against humanity.

And you preface all this by saying that you said it online makes it better. But you forget that people actually do go out and take this stuff out into the real world. So if some Jow Forumstard goes out on the street and calls a black man a nigger those are fighting words. If something as mild as saying "your mother is a whore" counts as fighting words then certainly that also counts.

The same would also apply if you went out and screamed "kill all kikes" in front of a Synagogue.

Letting democracy fall to democracy is a statute of democracy. All political systems eventually corrupt into their degenerate form, democracy's is anarchy.

No, because speech is speech.

Free speech is not an idea that speaking freely is right or wrong, but that speaking freely is the best way to arrive at truth. The use of taboo to bar discussion of certain topics doesn't protect anyone, it simply enables ignorance in one way or the other; either the speech is right and we don't get to correct our errors, or the speech is wrong and we don't know why because we can't discuss it. And anything we don't discuss is something we eventually fight and kill over.

If you can't even face an idea, how well are you going to face a gun?

"Free speech" is not gonna exist in the US for much longer. Gen Z is increasingly anti-free speech and pro-censorship. They think this is a good thing. This country's going to shit.

Attached: 7485854845.png (1064x563, 95K)

>Gen Z supports the right of militarists to have free-speech more tan any previous generation

>Gen Z hates racist filth even more than millenials

fucking based

The only people who don't get freedom of speech are those who advocate against it.

>Prove it

You want me to prove that there were separate punishments for criminals that specifically targeted classes of people, before WW2? How about Pax Mongolica that considered it a declaration of war to kill an emissary as opposed to a regular person? Greek law that had special distinctions for child murderers?

>The last one is advocacy of genocide

No it isn't. It's not even a declaration of hostile intent, it's just saying let's put all jews in a single area, by itself. You're imagining the rest.

>he case against Streicher created the legal precedent for punishing supporters and advocates of aggressive war and other crimes against humanity.

The constitution overrides the Nuremberg trials.

> So if some Jow Forumstard goes out on the street and calls a black man a nigger those are fighting words.

No it's not.

>If something as mild as saying "your mother is a whore" counts as fighting words

'Fighting words' hasn't been enforced since then. It's outdated.

>The same would also apply if you went out and screamed "kill all kikes" in front of a Synagogue.

You can legally do this, but if you say "_I will_ kill all kikes" that's a threat.

I'm glad people like you never get anywhere near politics or law.

i know that kind of weirded me out too desu

Attached: 1541814946705.gif (200x200, 409K)

they also hate communists and love militarists so i wouldn't get too excited fag lol

Not too sure. The only thing that should really be barred from Free Speech are calls to violence.

Anything left of social democracy should be banned from political discussion and Marxists should be tried and exiled to some 3rd world country. I don't believe in killing political opponents but to let commies take over your country is dumb. Also if commies are already in control or the people in control sympathize with them then killing can become justified
>communists only going up since the boomers only to be taken down by the chad zoomers
based as fuck

Attached: anti commie.jpg (1024x757, 488K)

>democracy is so weak that merely discussing it leads to its destruction
Hmmm
What a great system you have there