When is it okay to restrict freedom of speech?

Death threats and libel only.

If someone disagrees with you.

when niggers talk

Slander and calls for physical violence should not be allowed publicly.

Hurting someone's feelings should be permitted under freedom of speech. The debate should be open and free, even over controversial issues.

When it doesn't benefit niggers.

literally never

Words are not undefeatable. words can be fought with words.

lmao

Never, get over yourself.

If ideas aren't allowed to be discussed, you might as well admit you love authoritarianism.

>when it hurts a companies stock
NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SAY GOOGLE ANYMORE.
JUST NIGGERS GUYS, NO MORE OF THIS GOOGLE SHIT
IF YOU SAY GOOGLE THEY WILL CLOSE THE SITE

When your speech hurts someone's feelings. Duh.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Niggas can yell, "FIRE" in a movie theatre for all I care. I just want to be free, yo.

You really don't understand Cred Forums apparently.

Never. No debate.

never

WHEN IT HURTS MY FEE FEES

It actually helps the cause for googles to keep saying "nigger" as well "google" to fuck with googles' nigger results.

It does still sound kind of forced in text, but who gives a shit, it is a great cause. And, if it sticks, it will quickly start to sound perfectly natural.

And, the picture memes (Google Wallet, Google Street, etc.) are fucking great.

Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google Nigger Google REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

You know who's to blame for these last few generations of idiots selling out our rights, right?

Read John Taylor Gatto. It's the government schools. HOMESCHOOL YOUR CHILDREN.

>so many facists in this board yet no one says "when they insult the leader"

are you people even trying to be facists?

>No debate.

Fire in a movie theatre.

Goddamn my sides

saved

communists and jews

Perjury

SHALL

LOOOOOOOOOOOOLLL. what are you on dude.

It's okay to insult Muslims, blacks and women but not Trump because then my feelings get hurt

This

We need to repeal the current bullshit laws violating our free speech.

Of course. Everyone has to be nice and anyone who isn't nice gets sent to happy camp until they are nice to everyone!

same fagging this hard

Fighting words, perjury... also shit like yelling fire or bomb in a crowded space... I don't know under what this falls.

Defamation laws make sense. And harassing someone who isn't a public figure shouldn't be legal past a certain point. We have had laws about this for a very long time and they make sense. They are about protecting specific people when they are being targeted and concrete harm is being done. This shouldn't be allowed in a civil society. It shouldn't the rule of bullies. It's easy to destroy someone or his business' reputation if you gang up on him. And anyone can do that.

Problem is that they want to push it farther than that. Just not having the same opinion as someone and offending them should be illegal according to the SJWs now. No common sense. Funny thing is, they usually are the worst bullies. They should all hang desu.

It's okay if
1. defamation/slander
2. un-ironic incitment of violence (BLM)

Never. But might makes right.

>t. communist

Ironic incitement of violence is ok?

>Restrict
>Freedom
When you restrict speech on any level, it is no longer Free speech but Restricted speech.

All ideas must be given equal visibility, so that people can use reason to determine which ideas have the most merit. The only reason for anyone to restrict ideas, is when they fear their own ideas cannot stand up to competition.

FPBP

Never.

Never and always.

Depends on the culture. In islam, don't slander the prophet. In marxism, don't use logic. In the USA, don't burn the flag.

Suppose you are in south korea, and people start chanting the songs best korea spreads on the border. Should they be jailed for sedition or treason? Or should they be allowed to subvert and sabotage the society?

yes
i don't want to get jailed for saying 'gas the kikes race war now'

The cases for limitation of free speech are pretty clearly laid out in US law.

1.1 Incitement
2 False statements of fact
3 Obscenity
4 Child pornography
5 Fighting words and offensive speech
6 Speech owned by others
7 Commercial speech

Fucking pussy.

When the Cultural Marxist Jews poisoned the curriculum of academia and the narrative of the media. When the survival of your nation or race is at stake. In other words: now.

>speech owned
>offensive speech
>commercial speech

You can tell people's political leanings by which of these they find offensive.

FPBP TAX THIS DICK BITCH

>False statements of fact
>not seeing the subjectivity here
They can turn any fact they want into a false statement if they have the necessary capabilities. Do you even paranoia?

>When is it okay to restrict freedom of speech?
Whenever it hurts my fee fees.

>pretty clearly laid out
>all listed laws violate the plain English of the first amendment

Fuck off commie

when it incites violation to the free speech of someone else

as you can't possibly restrict someone's free speech by word alone

I mean, you can black mail someone with words, but who ever connects free speech and blackmail anyway

(((Freedom of speech))) is code word for foreign subversion. Non patriotic behaviours and speeches have to be condemned. If you don't like your country, vote with your feet and GTFO

"Bomb" is to planes is and "Fire" is to Theatres.

You don't say those things and hide behind "Free speech".

This

So i should be allowed to broadcast "The case for child sex slaves" on the radio?

What is this lolbertarian faggotry?

Daily reminder that Jews were responsible for close to 200 million deaths in the 20th century. From marxist revolutions and their regimes to the incitement of world wars with atrocity propaganda and subterfuge in order to gain the state of Israel, all Middle Eastern wars which ultimately revolve around Israel's existence.

Yes

>I have never heard of "A modest proposal"

I know Brazilmonkeys have no real literature but you could at least pretend

When you are in power and you want to keep your power, you restrict speech. When you are not in power and you want to get in power, you don't restrict speech. Free speech is revolutionary and against the status quo. If you like the status quo, you want to restrict speech. If you don't like the status quo, you want to free speech.

>he says, on one of the freest places on the internet

>he doesn't agree with me, he must be an uneducated idiot

Hmm... Where have i seen that behavior before...

When you have disarmed your people
Then it doesn't matter either way

The highest court in the land disagrees.

I don't know. I don't know what it is about.
I bet that there are laws to punish this kind of thing, if it's detrimental to someone or immoral.

If it's indecent or incentives abuse they should have the law enforced on them.

Sure
But you're likely to get your ass beat or be forever scorned by good company, no need for big brother to intervene

I ironically said something like that in my philosophy class and my classmates actually fucking agreed with me. I said "free speech is acceptable until it hurts someone's feelings"
It was intended as a joke but they actually believe in that 'philosophy' so they assumed I was serious.

Are you advocating mob justice as public policy?

I must ask again, what is this lolbertarian faggotry?

>immoral

>Well if it's offensive to someone
I just decide that what you said there is offensive to me
Please say nicer things next time bro
I am shaking right now

Tridimensional shitposting

try not to get triggered or if you do please don't notify me of that, thanks.

when the subject's iq

Philosophy isn't about one truth.

But nowadays if you want a good grade on a philosophy class, go with the "humanity! love! peace! understanding!" narrative.

Unless you're a genious at debating, that's your best course of action. If you have the charisma of a god and debating skills to match it, feel free to redpill an entire class. This isn't an option to the vast majority of people.

Don't put words in my mouth you favela monkey, I'm sure you know all about mob violence.
I can say what I want when I want with the risk of losing friends and upsetting others to the point they chimpout on me, and that is how it should be. The latter being why the second amendment is so important outside of the context of fighting off tyrants

Defamation/libel should be an offence. Incitement to commit a crime should be a crime, as should (viable) threats against others

Otherwise everything else would be fine

>muh infallible bunch of old kikes that totally aren't biased and subverting our liberty

Good fucking goy

Google their justification for child pornography criminalization. Anyone who believes that bullshit is a fucking slave.

Simply because you asked this, you should be shot.

When it's in the people's best interests

You mean the states best interest.

Basic rule.
Might is right, if you have the might you should restrict anyones speaches that harms you or your loved ones.
Best example was Hitler who restricted kikes newspapers.

When it's spoken against volk, reich, or führer, duh.

When memes become real.

FPBP

FPWP

But a death threat is not really speech, it's just a threat, an anouncement of intentions, and as such can receive a reaction, which in most cases is a denounce or a hit on your face. On the other hand insulting someone IS free speech and must be allowed, but not necessarily respected.

The only thing i would restrict is defamation made by journalists