What should be the limits of free speech? Even the founding fathers of the U.S. believed in limits. In the U.S. causing immediate danger to others like shouting fire in a theater. Nations throughout time have censored various different topics for a variety of reasons ranging from maintaining social harmony to protecting a corrupt elite. So, /mlpol/ what should be the limits of freedom of speech, if any?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
>>394755
>implied anarcho capitalism
Anon, if you want to rape children you can just tell us you know.
>implied anarcho capitalism
Anon, if you want to rape children you can just tell us you know.
>>394755
>What should be the limits of free speech?
Only things pertaining to imminent and literal violence, such as direct threats, coercion, and spreading child abuse material.
>Nations throughout time have censored various different topics for a variety of reasons ranging from maintaining social harmony to protecting a corrupt elite.
Yeah. They do it to protect the statue quo. People who fear freedom of thought only do so because they know their ideals wouldn't hold water in the free market of opinion.
>So, /mlpol/ what should be the limits of freedom of speech, if any?
The ones we have are already more than enough. If anything we need more free speech.
>What should be the limits of free speech?
Only things pertaining to imminent and literal violence, such as direct threats, coercion, and spreading child abuse material.
>Nations throughout time have censored various different topics for a variety of reasons ranging from maintaining social harmony to protecting a corrupt elite.
Yeah. They do it to protect the statue quo. People who fear freedom of thought only do so because they know their ideals wouldn't hold water in the free market of opinion.
>So, /mlpol/ what should be the limits of freedom of speech, if any?
The ones we have are already more than enough. If anything we need more free speech.
>>394768
>When your speech has direct, identifiable harm to another person, much in the same way that your freedom ends the moment you violate someone else's.
What would you say of info hazards? Like directions on how to build a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon?
>Anon, if you want to rape children you can just tell us you know.
Kind of an interesting point here. Should bad faith bullshit be allowed on a debate site dedicated to free speech?
>Yeah. They do it to protect the statue quo. People who fear freedom of thought only do so because they know their ideals wouldn't hold water in the free market of opinion.
I'll play devil's advocate here. Fake news often spreads faster than real news and roughly 40% of Americans are young earth creationists. The free-market place of ideas does not necessarily select for truth. On top of that psychological warfare is very effective against enemies who do not know how to spot it. Should subversive speech be allowed?
>When your speech has direct, identifiable harm to another person, much in the same way that your freedom ends the moment you violate someone else's.
What would you say of info hazards? Like directions on how to build a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon?
>Anon, if you want to rape children you can just tell us you know.
Kind of an interesting point here. Should bad faith bullshit be allowed on a debate site dedicated to free speech?
>Yeah. They do it to protect the statue quo. People who fear freedom of thought only do so because they know their ideals wouldn't hold water in the free market of opinion.
I'll play devil's advocate here. Fake news often spreads faster than real news and roughly 40% of Americans are young earth creationists. The free-market place of ideas does not necessarily select for truth. On top of that psychological warfare is very effective against enemies who do not know how to spot it. Should subversive speech be allowed?
>>394808
>What would you say of info hazards? Like directions on how to build a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon?
We have laws against spreading classified information.
That being said, I think "classified" info is often contrary to freedom of information and allows freaks like Epstein to evade justice. I would rather random retards have nukes.
>Kind of an interesting point here. Should bad faith bullshit be allowed on a debate site dedicated to free speech?
It's annoying, but it hardly does any real harm unless other retards take the bait.
>roughly 40% of Americans are young earth creationists
There's nothing really wrong with that.
>On top of that psychological warfare is very effective against enemies who do not know how to spot it. Should subversive speech be allowed?
See there's the real point of debate. Jews in the media have been waging mass psychological warfare on our people for over a century now, and our tolerance of them has enabled them to spread poisonous rhetoric that threatens our way of life, including our freedom of expression.
It's a real dilemma.
>What would you say of info hazards? Like directions on how to build a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon?
We have laws against spreading classified information.
That being said, I think "classified" info is often contrary to freedom of information and allows freaks like Epstein to evade justice. I would rather random retards have nukes.
>Kind of an interesting point here. Should bad faith bullshit be allowed on a debate site dedicated to free speech?
It's annoying, but it hardly does any real harm unless other retards take the bait.
>roughly 40% of Americans are young earth creationists
There's nothing really wrong with that.
>On top of that psychological warfare is very effective against enemies who do not know how to spot it. Should subversive speech be allowed?
See there's the real point of debate. Jews in the media have been waging mass psychological warfare on our people for over a century now, and our tolerance of them has enabled them to spread poisonous rhetoric that threatens our way of life, including our freedom of expression.
It's a real dilemma.
>>394811
>I would rather random retards have nukes.
With AI and DIYbio tech available to everyone a random retard could have access to something even worse than a nule with zero oversight. A random retard should not be able to end humanity on a whim.
>It's annoying, but it hardly does any real harm unless other retards take the bait.
If retards drown on discussion, as they have done in the past, then there will eventually be no more discussion.
>There's nothing really wrong with that.
These people can vote and they are operating on bullshit. That can be damaging to a society. Then factor in the not insignificant amount of morons who think giving pills to 6 year olds is a good idea. Are you seeing the problem yet?
>Jews in the media have been waging mass psychological warfare on our people for over a century now, and our tolerance of them has enabled them to spread poisonous rhetoric that threatens our way of life, including our freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression really only works if the society has the same goal. The kikes do not care about the fate of the host society.
>I would rather random retards have nukes.
With AI and DIYbio tech available to everyone a random retard could have access to something even worse than a nule with zero oversight. A random retard should not be able to end humanity on a whim.
>It's annoying, but it hardly does any real harm unless other retards take the bait.
If retards drown on discussion, as they have done in the past, then there will eventually be no more discussion.
>There's nothing really wrong with that.
These people can vote and they are operating on bullshit. That can be damaging to a society. Then factor in the not insignificant amount of morons who think giving pills to 6 year olds is a good idea. Are you seeing the problem yet?
>Jews in the media have been waging mass psychological warfare on our people for over a century now, and our tolerance of them has enabled them to spread poisonous rhetoric that threatens our way of life, including our freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression really only works if the society has the same goal. The kikes do not care about the fate of the host society.
>>394826
>With AI and DIYbio tech available to everyone a random retard could have access to something even worse than a nule with zero oversight. A random retard should not be able to end humanity on a whim.
Well, you can still jail people for BUILDING the nukes. Building a bomb isn't speech.
>If retards drown on discussion, as they have done in the past, then there will eventually be no more discussion.
Yeah...
Idk if there's any legal way to combat this though. Putting rules on speech will not make retards stop being retards.
>Are you seeing the problem yet?
I see it, yes, but that's more of a problem of the retards being retards than their ability to express their retardedness.
The question of whether retards should be allowed to vote is another discussion.
>Freedom of expression really only works if the society has the same goal. The kikes do not care about the fate of the host society.
Yeah. If we gulag'd the kikes, had strong sense of civics, and kept shitskins out, we could have open debates and other nice things without concern for subversives.
>With AI and DIYbio tech available to everyone a random retard could have access to something even worse than a nule with zero oversight. A random retard should not be able to end humanity on a whim.
Well, you can still jail people for BUILDING the nukes. Building a bomb isn't speech.
>If retards drown on discussion, as they have done in the past, then there will eventually be no more discussion.
Yeah...
Idk if there's any legal way to combat this though. Putting rules on speech will not make retards stop being retards.
>Are you seeing the problem yet?
I see it, yes, but that's more of a problem of the retards being retards than their ability to express their retardedness.
The question of whether retards should be allowed to vote is another discussion.
>Freedom of expression really only works if the society has the same goal. The kikes do not care about the fate of the host society.
Yeah. If we gulag'd the kikes, had strong sense of civics, and kept shitskins out, we could have open debates and other nice things without concern for subversives.
>>394755
if you mean on /mlpol/
i think people shitting/trolling on natzi ideology or fuhrer
should not be allowed
and talking shit against ponies as well (optional)
if you mean on /mlpol/
i think people shitting/trolling on natzi ideology or fuhrer
should not be allowed
and talking shit against ponies as well (optional)
>>394834
>Yeah. If we gulag'd the kikes, had strong sense of civics, and kept shitskins out, we could have open debates and other nice things without concern for subversives.
I don't see any way to do this without placing limits on freespeech that would likely last for over a generation.
>Yeah. If we gulag'd the kikes, had strong sense of civics, and kept shitskins out, we could have open debates and other nice things without concern for subversives.
I don't see any way to do this without placing limits on freespeech that would likely last for over a generation.
>>394808
>What would you say of info hazards? Like directions on how to build a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon?
You didn't understand what you quoted. Read it again, with your questions in mind.
>What would you say of info hazards? Like directions on how to build a nuclear bomb or a bioweapon?
You didn't understand what you quoted. Read it again, with your questions in mind.
>>394865
Any limits on free speech without those conditions would be used by kikes and other subversives to stifle opposition.
I don't trust the government to regulate speech.
Any limits on free speech without those conditions would be used by kikes and other subversives to stifle opposition.
I don't trust the government to regulate speech.
>>394877
To play devils advocate, wouldn't any collective impose limitations on free speech without fundamentals?
To play devils advocate, wouldn't any collective impose limitations on free speech without fundamentals?
>>394866
I am asking you if info hazards would fall under your definition of putting others in direct harm. It could be argued either way. You might say that yes because the information on how to build a bioweapon is dangerous and easy enough to access the components such information should be restricted or you might say its not directly harmful so it should be free speech. Was trying to get your take.
I am asking you if info hazards would fall under your definition of putting others in direct harm. It could be argued either way. You might say that yes because the information on how to build a bioweapon is dangerous and easy enough to access the components such information should be restricted or you might say its not directly harmful so it should be free speech. Was trying to get your take.
>>394877
If we got rid of kikes we would still have people who have been twisted by their influence. I don't know how you would maintain order without censorship after victory.
If we got rid of kikes we would still have people who have been twisted by their influence. I don't know how you would maintain order without censorship after victory.
>>394899
No need to be passive aggressive. Trying to have a good faith discussion here and see if anons can explain what they believe and why.
No need to be passive aggressive. Trying to have a good faith discussion here and see if anons can explain what they believe and why.
>>394891
I disagree with the government suppressing nuclear proliferation anyway.
Bioweapons aren't as complicated as you think. Anyone with comprehension of virology could produce them, so the knowledge to create them is already public domain.
Building nukes and bioweapons can be illegal, but the knowledge shouldn't be.
I disagree with the government suppressing nuclear proliferation anyway.
Bioweapons aren't as complicated as you think. Anyone with comprehension of virology could produce them, so the knowledge to create them is already public domain.
Building nukes and bioweapons can be illegal, but the knowledge shouldn't be.
>>394974
As of now it is at least pretty difficult to cultivate viruses at home. New tools like CRISPR-CAS9 and clover could make it possible to make bioweapons using bacteria or yeast. Things that can be very easily cultivated at home.
As of now it is at least pretty difficult to cultivate viruses at home. New tools like CRISPR-CAS9 and clover could make it possible to make bioweapons using bacteria or yeast. Things that can be very easily cultivated at home.
>>394974
>Building nukes and bioweapons can be illegal, but the knowledge shouldn't be.
That knowledge can change the lines on a map. If you want your people to be secured it would be a good idea to prevent that knowledge from becoming widespread.
>Building nukes and bioweapons can be illegal, but the knowledge shouldn't be.
That knowledge can change the lines on a map. If you want your people to be secured it would be a good idea to prevent that knowledge from becoming widespread.
>>394979
>security through obscurity
False security. And you won't know you've been had until the bomb goes off.
Better to publish the documents then license and zone the construction. Especially for something small, which I understand the current efforts at fusion generators are only a few feet on a side, plus all the paraphernalia to keep them running of course. Still only two large rooms worth, I bet.
>security through obscurity
False security. And you won't know you've been had until the bomb goes off.
Better to publish the documents then license and zone the construction. Especially for something small, which I understand the current efforts at fusion generators are only a few feet on a side, plus all the paraphernalia to keep them running of course. Still only two large rooms worth, I bet.
22 replies | 1 files | 11 UUIDs | Archived