Quit closing threads, a.k.a. You're either for Free Speech or you're Not!

[Ras Algethi]

Anyone here support unrestricted free speech? Child porn, slander, death threats, the works?

How the fuck is child porn "free speech"?

But not everyone can afford to both be reasonable and look at themselves in a mirror. Sometimes people trap themselves -- they get up on a high horse and can't get down, so they have to defend kiddie diddlers.

I'm looking to see if we have any of those here.

So calling folks Nazis wasn't enough, now your goal is to call them child molesters too.

[-E.]

Child pornography isn't speech. What sort of game are you trying to play here? A direct and credible threat isn't speech. If I say that you should be tar and feathered because you're a socialist cunt, that isn't a threat. If I say "I'm going to come to your house tonight and cut you with a knife" that is a direct and credible threat.

Stop trying to play this slippery slope game.

1) Yes they are speech
Just because you don't understand your rights doesn't mean they're not speech.

"Speech" has been broadly defined by the courts to include not only verbal expression, but also visual art, music, theater, dance, and other expressive conduct and non-verbal forms of communication

2) Threats and Intimidation are not protected in the US
Again, I don't think you know what you're talking about. While there is not a finally-settled defintion of what a threat is, there are some generally used guidelines.

A majority of those courts require the government to prove only that the defendant knowingly made a statement that "was not the result of mistake, duress, or coercion" and that a "reasonable person" would regard as threatening

The More You Know!
-E.

[-E.]

Yelling Fire in the Crowded theatre is used by anti-speech nitwits.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/


Defending kiddie-diddlers has nothing to do with speech and EVERYTHING to do with rape. If you participate in child pornography you are commit a crime and it has nothing to do with speech. Why would you even think so? If you want to get online and write child pornography fantasy fiction you're a sick fuck but you're not committing a crime.

Making child pornography is rape.

But having it, distributing it is also illegal, even though the people doing it didn't commit the original crime.

The reasoning for this is that allowing that material causes harm across many spectrums. The speech itself is harmful beyond the original crime.

So, let's hear it: do you think distributing child porn you didn't make should be legal? Of course not. That would be disgusting.

Congrats! You support limitations on Free Speech -- Group Hug!
-E.

[-E.]

How the fuck is child porn "free speech"?

So calling folks Nazis wasn't enough, now your goal is to call them child molesters too.

I'm sure no one here will support unrestricted free speech. We're conservatives, not monsters. I think we'll have a rational discussion about how we all agree speech should be restricted and that while we might disagree on where that line is, our differences are a matter of degree, not substance.

Although I've been wrong before. Do you think distributing child porn you didn't make should be a crime?

I mean, I assume you do. I certainly do. But go ahead and say it clear and bold, yo.

Cheers,
-E.

[Ulairi]

Making child pornography is rape.

But having it, distributing it is also illegal, even though the people doing it didn't commit the original crime.

The reasoning for this is that allowing that material causes harm across many spectrums. The speech itself is harmful beyond the original crime.

So, let's hear it: do you think distributing child porn you didn't make should be legal? Of course not. That would be disgusting.

Congrats! You support limitations on Free Speech -- Group Hug!
-E.

Nobody believes that you should be able to do anything or say anything without repercussions. But why don't we focus on the task at hand?

If I murder somebody and I go around blabbing about it and then I get arrested, it wasn't because I was blabbing about it. It was because I murdered somebody.

[Ras Algethi]

I'm sure no one here will support unrestricted free speech. We're conservatives, not monsters. I think we'll have a rational discussion about how we all agree speech should be restricted and that while we might disagree on where that line is, our differences are a matter of degree, not substance.

Although I've been wrong before. Do you think distributing child porn you didn't make should be a crime?

I mean, I assume you do. I certainly do. But go ahead and say it clear and bold, yo.

Your adolescent "debate" tactics didn't work in the Charlottesville thread, why do you think it will work here?

[Ulairi]

Nobody believes that you should be able to do anything or say anything without repercussions. But why don't we focus on the task at hand?

If I murder somebody and I go around blabbing about it and then I get arrested, it wasn't because I was blabbing about it. It was because I murdered somebody.

I think distributing any illegal materials, especially of  THE worst crime that can be committed, should be a crime.

Here is a question for you: Should somebody be able to write creep fantasy fiction of child molestation?

The issue isn't these easy cases. If you take, sell, send, own, whatever kiddie porn that is against the law. The reason is that children are not able to legally participate in their production. That's the difference between Playboy and kiddie porn.

You're trying to do this game where you say: well you admit you support some limits to the freedom of expression! Now let's limit these other cases because you agree with me on kiddie porn!

Nobody is harmed if I dress up as a Nazi or a KKK wizard and walk around town with a tiki torch.

[Ras Algethi]

Nobody believes that you should be able to do anything or say anything without repercussions. But why don't we focus on the task at hand?

If I murder somebody and I go around blabbing about it and then I get arrested, it wasn't because I was blabbing about it. It was because I murdered somebody.

You're wasting your time.

For a more interesting read, I think the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio is worth a look. Simply advocating for violence is not enough to be restricted rather it has to be "incitement to imminent lawless action".

[Ulairi]

You're wasting your time.

For a more interesting read, I think the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio is worth a look. Simply advocating for violence is not enough to be restricted rather it has to be "incitement to imminent lawless action".

That's what I said above that he tried to disagree with. He came back with this:

2) Threats and Intimidation are not protected in the US
 Again, I don't think you know what you're talking about. While there is not a finally-settled defintion of what a threat is, there are some generally used guidelines.

And then he quoted the Heritage Foundation when we already have Supreme Court precedence.

He tries to play this game and it's really trying. The smugness is off the charts.

[-E.]

I think distributing any illegal materials, especially of  THE worst crime that can be committed, should be a crime.

Here is a question for you: Should somebody be able to write creep fantasy fiction of child molestation?

The issue isn't these easy cases. If you take, sell, send, own, whatever kiddie porn that is against the law. The reason is that children are not able to legally participate in their production. That's the difference between Playboy and kiddie porn.

You're trying to do this game where you say: well you admit you support some limits to the freedom of expression! Now let's limit these other cases because you agree with me on kiddie porn!

Nobody is harmed if I dress up as a Nazi or a KKK wizard and walk around town with a tiki torch.

Okay, now we're talking.

Look: All I was asking was if we agreed that some speech -- any speech -- should be illegal. Truly vile, indefensible stuff like child porn is a good example to use because almost no one thinks it should be legal.

The harm is immeasurable. The evil is self-evident.

So what next?
You've raised the right questions -- what about cases where the harm is less clear? What about disgusting fiction? What about Nazi speech?

Let me be clear: I support the right of Nazis to have their speech. Like you, I draw a line that doesn't allow all speech, but is much broader than some other countries have.

I support and cherish the First Amendment to our Constitution, and I think that allows speech that I find personally reprehensible (Nazis).

However: I'm not up on my high horse about the purity of my position. Your question about imaginary child porn is a good one and it's one that gives me pause.

I don't know what the right answer is. I'm inclined to make it illegal, but I think that has more to do with my visceral disgust and my concern about the type of person who might have it.

That's not a very strong case for making speech illegal, and if it were up to me, I'd probably let it go.

Reasonable positions v. Extremeism
The Internet tends to create rhetorical extremists. For people who are wrapped up in an extreme defense of free speech, the clear cases where it shouldn't be allowed present a problem.

My thinking is that it's easier to have a discussion after everyone acknowledges that free speech has its limits, and we're talking about where they are, whether than if those limits should exist at all.

Cheers,
-E.

[-E.]

Your adolescent "debate" tactics didn't work in the Charlottesville thread, why do you think it will work here?

They worked fine! I had an enjoyable and thoughtful discussion with a number of my fellow posters here. And you posted that gif with the hippo shitting -- that always cracks me up!

It was a good threat and a good time!
-E.

[Ras Algethi]

That's what I said above that he tried to disagree with. He came back with this:



And then he quoted the Heritage Foundation when we already have Supreme Court precedence.

He tries to play this game and it's really trying. The smugness is off the charts.

I think he desperately wants to be the smartest person in the room... I mean forum.

Your right in that there are plenty of Supreme Court precedence but it's weird he avoids them (or is it?). If you assume his goal is to limit political speech he doesn't like (which based on the other thread he certainly does) then I support there is some method to the madness. He is the same guy who was positing the idea of preemptive state action on "bad" political speech to prevent some imagined slide into Nazi Germany revolution.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Nobody is harmed if I dress up as a Nazi or a KKK wizard and walk around town with a tiki torch.

I wouldn't say it is harmless though. There is a reason people are afraid of the KKK and its because they used to murder black people to keep them in line. They terrorized the south and that is why people react to the uniform the way they do. There has long been an implication of violence in Neo-nazi and KKK activities. That doesn't mean their speech isn't protected. I do think we have to protect speech we don't like. I do get weirded out by people though who seem to think marching alongside these guys is just fine, or who think that burning crosses and holding white supremacy rallies should be viewed like it is on the same level as a breast cancer march or something. And when you throw guns in the mix, and have armed marchers....that gets so close up to the line. We shouldn't play this game where we act dumb about what these groups are and why people might get outraged over them. And I think it is wise to keep a close eye on these kinds of groups because they have a long history of matching their words with violent actions. JHKIM is always saying that the reason its important to protect speech isn't because it has no power, but because it has power. I think he is correct on that point.

[Bedrockbrendan]

He is the same guy who was positing the idea of preemptive state action on "bad" political speech to prevent some imagined slide into Nazi Germany revolution.

I think we should always be mindful of the possibility Nazi Germany presents. Where people kid themselves is thinking their side can't go down that road too. That includes the right (which I mention because the forum tilts that way). Replace "Immigrant" with "Jew" in a lot of the rhetoric and to me a lot of it has a dark enough similarity to make me concerned where things can go. Especially when we are talking about mass deportations. You veery rarely have history repeating itself exactly as it has before. But there are still lessons to take from Nazi Germany that should give us caution when anger or prejudice fuel our policies.

[Ras Algethi]

I think we should always be mindful of the possibility Nazi Germany presents. Where people kid themselves is thinking their side can't go down that road too. That includes the right (which I mention because the forum tilts that way). Replace "Immigrant" with "Jew" in a lot of the rhetoric and to me a lot of it has a dark enough similarity to make me concerned where things can go. Especially when we are talking about mass deportations. You veery rarely have history repeating itself exactly as it has before. But there are still lessons to take from Nazi Germany that should give us caution when anger or prejudice fuel our policies.

Nazi Germany was dealt with and isn't coming back. There is no danger of the USA going fascist and supremacist like Germany did in the '30s.

And did you just really link deporting of illegals to Nazi Germany? For fuck's sake.