I believe that freedom of speech is an absolute human right

Falling for the pretending to be retarded meme, but free speech doesn't cover threats and calls to action.
If someone wants to call me a pussy-ass wog, they've every right. But the moment they say "I will do x", or "y this man", that's when it goes beyond free speech.

>fallacious logic
>I described the legal reality devised by the great men who founded my country

I don't even know what your point is. That I should be an anarchist?

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you want to say that, you have every legal right to do so and shouldn't be charged a crime for it.

But if I take you seriously or think you intend to act on it, be ready for consequences.

>the moment they say "I will do x", or "y this man", that's when it goes beyond free speech.
Why?

Fuck off wog cunt

You aren't imprisoned for the expressing the idea, you are imprisoned for the result of it, which is inciting a murder.

Your speech directly generates an illegal action.

It is not a legal reality to be able to do whatever you want to do on another person's property. Freedom of speech only means that the government cannot shut away different ideas it does not mean that private citizens have to accommodate all actions that involve speech on their property.

>Your speech directly generates an illegal action
No it doesn't. If I say someone should kill a guy, and then someone I don't know goes and does it, how is that my fault? I didn't do nothing, this random dude was the one who pulled the trigger, how is this my responsibility?

Yeah nah, m8

>no argument

It's not your fault if someone kills the guy, the guy can however defend himself when you threaten to kill him.

>what is a Brandenburg Test

LORD KITCHENER CHECKING IN

Yes a person should be allowed to call me and threaten me
And I should be allowed to have a firearm or even small grenades to protect myself from him, and be able to track that person down to administer justice myself
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, something liberals love to say

If someone is harassing me I just block them
And I couldn't care less if someone threatened me, I own guns

But if I threaten him repeatedly leaving him in a constant state of stress and don't actually do anything it's a-okay?

I don't recieve phone calls because i have no friends. Checkmate terrorist

Witnessed

I believe that you are looking for "fighting words", which I believe are articulated in the 1st Amendment. Creating a dangerous events... and so forth.

If you don't know this then you are the foundation reason we have Political Correctness.

US Constitution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

He can take action against you if you promise to use force. If someone is pulling a gun to shoot you, you can shoot them if someone is telling you that they will harm you, you can take action, simple as that.

I believe that freedom of speech is an absolute human right, and I actually don't have a problem with threats, libel, etc., being legal as a part of freedom of expression, so long as they're only conveyed through mediums which the target can choose to ignore. Like the internet. Calling someone's phone, verbally harassing someone in public, etc., can then be prosecuted on the grounds that it's the action being taken that's the problem, not the ideas being expressed. The same way you might prosecute someone for shining a bright light into someone else's house.

If he did it at your urging than you ultimately initiated the action. His action was the completion of your will.

I don't know your laws but generally in the US if you significantly encourage someone to break the law there's a good chance you could be held partially responsible.

>if you promise to use force
What if I break my promise? Is this a legally binding contract which you plan to use the power of the state to glue me to? I won't stand for it.

trips of truth

I've been threatened before. I don't report it to the police because I'm not a little bitch and I own guns and a big ass dog. Stop being such a cuck and take responsibility for yourself.

That's the way it is.

It is not legally binding, it is enough ground to assume that you are a threat and to take action against you.

A threat isn't freedom of speech.

A call to action isn't freedom of speech.

Holy shit please provide at least one argument.

I didn't initiate shit. How do you know it was my will? I could be lying for all you know.

>Speech I dislike isn't freedom of speech
>Hate speech isn't free speech
Sound familiar?

You could be lying, but you could be not, we can still assume you are a threat based on what you said and take action.

So it's okay for Brits to be jailed over tweets because "That's the way it is"? Alright, fine argument.

The fact you think your statements somehow correlate with mine shows me you're too fucking stupid to be talking about this mate.

>I'm so smart I don't have to provide an argument
>My smartness is an argument in itself

If a tweet is a credible threat, yes.

it's freedom of speech
not
Freedom from consquence
fuck of CTR, SJW, BLM, JEW BETA KEK NIGGER SPIC SLANT MULATTO
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I provided an argument that you failed to address, I then called you an idiot.

Provide an actual argument and I will respond in kind.

And who is to say what is credible or not? You? Sounds a little subjective to me. Kinda like those hate speech laws wherein objectionable speech is decided by whoever is the recipient. It's almost as if freedom of speech isn't actually all that important to you guys, and you and SJWs are just two sides of the same coin.

Ever hear the phrase "Your freedom ends where mine begins."?

Because he wasn't talking about speech he didn't like, he was naming the different categories of speech.

An assertion is not an argument. You don't know what an argument is. Methinks it is YOU who is the real fool herein.

You right now mate.

Just go back.

>people who say that there is no pay gap should be jailed
>people who say they will kill me and my family should be jailed

same coin, clearly

>conflating harassment with freedom of speech
This is why we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court, to settle such minor trivialities.

[Citation Needed]

Identical justifications.

>OP responds to every post but mine
Guess that makes me the winner

Yes, the thing is that hating women or gays is no reason to get jailed, but using force is a reason to get jailed, the difference is p clear.

generally, if its foreseeable to a reasonable person that your speech would incite a crime, you would be partially liable

>using force
But you haven't actually used force yet, you've simply threatened and harassed someone.

Dumb fascist, you see mentally disturbed people dont count in freedom of speech. Stop Sucking hitlers cock commie scum

This man just btfo of OP.
Please attempt to refute this nigger

actually the standard will probably be higher then that.
it's

government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action

that's a pretty high standard to hit

This guy knows

That is not freedom of speech, snow nigger. That is a threat. If side retard do this, then he is breaking the law. You have free speech as long as it doesn't cause harm to other. Saying you'll kill X is a crime, unless you prove you're pranking.
Call to action=/= freedom of speech.
Going to a bar and saying you dumb niggers is not illegal. Going to a bar and saying that dumb nigger raped your sister, is illegal.

...you still threatened to use force, it's only self defence

>=Going to a bar and saying that dumb nigger raped your sister, is illegal.

that could go either way depending on the judge. but i would say prob not

does this qualify as:directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action

He is free to say whatever the fuck. However there is legal consequence for conveying to me a credible threat.

ITT OP ignores all the good arguments to argue against low hanging fruit. Please move along and ignore his bait.

>current year
>not yet realizing all rights are contingent upon property rights

That was badly phrased. The legal consequence is for threatening a person's safety, not for delivering the threat.

Actually its freedom of speech, except for the type which will immediately waste police resources if reacted to appropriately by any reasonable member of society.

Theres a stark difference. This is not a matter of subjective opinion. You're a retard for not realizing the differences.

>thinks threatening someone's life is freedom of speech

OP is this retarded

If a person approaches you on the street and tells you directly they're going to murder you, it's legal in many states to shoot them.

There's consequences for actions, and making credible threats carry consequences.

There's a big difference between speech for a political ideology and speech that directly involves threatening to murder someone in clear and concise words.

Almost nobody is for absolute free speech, you are correct in that. however
>You're just as much for censorship as the rest of us.
Is incorrect as most of us are clearly less as much for censorship as the rest of you.
So you like murders too if you believe in the right to defend your self up to and including the use of deadly force if necessary? It's just a matter of taste which murders you like more? Your logic is retarded.

must be a slow news day in Denmark

>You aren't imprisoned for the expressing the idea, you are imprisoned for the result of it,
That's a stupid distinction. If speech didn't have results the freedom of expression would be pointless. It's important because speech has consequences.

>Then you're not for absolutely freedom of speech, you're for restricting speech. Someone keeps harassing you with his opinions and you want him to shut up

>>Run into theater
>>Yell "FIRE FIRE FIRE"
>>"ACTIVE SHOOTER RUN RUN RUN"
>>Police show up
>>"Haha dude was just using my freedom of speech m8 fuck off"

These are not Freedom of Speech. These are examples of INTENT. You cannot use freedom of speech to INTEND to harm someone. You can say "We should kill niggers/Jews" but you cannot say "I'm going to kill niggers/Jews in the parking lot today after school."

One is freedom of speech the other is intent to harm someone. The difference is that your own freedom of speech is EVIDENCE of intent to harm. The speech itself is not wrong it is what the speech exposes that is.

>The fact you think your statements somehow correlate with mine shows me you're too fucking stupid to be talking about this mate.
Not an argument. Hate speech, threats and calls to action are all restrictions of free speech.

why do you guys spout nonsense? i've posted the analysis of what is freedom of speech constitutionally. you are literally saying rubish

"intention" is a low standard, it's higher then that

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

>In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [88]

> thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence

> thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence

> thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence

Here is what's happening, liberals are trying to change the definition of free speech to equal incitement of violence. They do this so the idea of regulating speech itself is acceptable to the public. Free speech never protected incitement to violence in America's history.

Hate speech is also a category of speech. As is defamation.

>Hate speech, threats and calls to action are all restrictions of free speech.
according to whom? are we talking American definition? what qualifies as "hate speech" is so vague that it renders the phrase "freedom of speech" not applicable

This guy did the work for me but the principle is the same. Freedom of Speech is not the same as intent. You can march down to city hall in most places that allow open-carry with your assault rifle strapped on you but you can be arrested for declaring of going down to city hall right now to kill people.

>according to whom?
Logic
>are we talking American definition?
We are talking abstract concepts and what distinguishes them.
>what qualifies as "hate speech" is so vague that it renders the phrase "freedom of speech" not applicable
What does vagueness have to do with anything.

well, you are saying hate speech is not freedom of speech. you're saying as if hate speech has a clear definition. what's hate speech? you're not allowed to say anything mean?

>"hate speech" is so vague
So is "incitement" and "calls to action". In fact, "incitement" is precisely the justification used for hate speech laws. See? You're not so different after all.

OP din fucking neger. Du er sku da for træls. Du må da forhelvede ku indse at der er forskel på ytringsfrihed og fks hatespeech.

Hvad er forskellen?

Vi har ikke ytringsfrihed forresten. Racismeparagraffen siger at,
>Den, der offentligt eller med forsæt til udbredelse i en videre kreds fremsætter udtalelse eller anden meddelelse, ved hvilken en gruppe af personer trues, forhånes eller nedværdiges på grund af sin race, hudfarve, nationale eller etniske oprindelse, tro eller seksuelle orientering, straffes med bode eller fængsel indtil 2 år.
>Ved straffens udmåling skal det betragtes som en særligt skærpende omstændighed, at forholdet har karakter af propagandavirksomhed.

this whole thread is full of retards.
freedom != freedom from the consiquences of your actions. if someone tells you they are going to kill you thats thier right, but its your right to tell the cops about it, and its everyone responsiblity to use some fucking common sense and handle the situation.

Ytringsfrihed bliver aldrig en absolut frihed, fordi det ville være tåbeligt. Frihed i sig selv er jo også en tåbelig ting, fordi det jo hentyder til at du ikke er fri fra starten af.

Precist, så der er jo ikke noget galt med censur.

During the meme war I hid in the shadows, beaten and broken by the opposition who told everyone continuously not to hire people like me for jobs, least of all in STEM. I gave atheists and political autists my soul, creativity and my ideas so they could use it as mere content to appease their hordes of fans.

I then waited and bled, pleading with the world to make it stop.

And OP, your argument was so bad you basically abused the middle ground between free speech and threats of violence, or literally violent speech. You're as bad as a leftist who believes being disagreed with is online violence. Congratulations, you're wrong.

I don't have a problem with a person sending me threats. What I do have a problem with is when someone purposely uses their free speech to restrict mine. Such as in
>Getting me fired or something just as bad for having opinions
>Ruining my property, which I can say is my free expression, by using graffiti
>Making people not watch a movie I might have made by shooting up the movie theater
We really should have 2 types of Free Speech.
Anarcho-free speech: Do what you want to express yourself
Libertarian-free speech: Where you don't have a little shit ruin your free speech

Hold nu op med den madding man. Du er alt for standhaftig i dit synspunkt. Det er for langt ude at mene at censur er ok. Det er for langt ude at mene at opfordring til vold osv er helt ok. Du opfordrer jo via din ytring til vold eller lign, det har jo ikke noget med ytringsfrihed at gore men mere med vold. Synes du det er ok at opfordre folk til vold osv? HVa med at du offentliggor dine personlige data og så kan du se hvor sjovt det er at blive truet eller fucked med?

>Should he be allowed to do that?
inciting violence isn't protected by the 1A

>Someone keeps harassing you with his opinions and you want him to shut up
>other people's opinions count as harassment
kek that's SJW tier user

>Are you gonna use the power of the state to stop him from harassing you?
No because I'm not an authoritarian retard, like Germans and Swedes are.

>You're just as much for censorship as the rest of us.
No, apparently not. I don't believe any speech should be censored unless it meets some objective violence criteria.

Ikke et argument.

Cred Forums threads like this are essentially focus groups that left-wing social media experts can study to develop techniques for consensus-cracking America's traditional support for free speech so that hate speech laws (which are already on the books, eg, "hate crime" enhancements) like those in Canada and Britain can be introduced and enforced.

not an argument.

You know what I hate? Fence sitters who think they're above us else just because they can't pick a side or make their own side. They have no validity and are cowards of the greatest order.

HVa med at du kommer med dine argumenter for, hvorfor censur er ok? Det er ikke noget argument at sige at fordi alt ytring ikke er frit, så er det ok med censur.

Du har allerede gået med til at censurere trudsler og andet. Bliv ikke sur på mig bare fordi disse princip-undtagelser bliver taget til deres logiske konklusion.

You should read some Kant.
Sounds like your discovering a tangent-like idea to his categorical imperative.

t. George W. Bush

>hate speech laws/political censorship
>logical conclusion of censoring threats of violence
By which principle? The principle that anything that gives you cognitive dissonance at all should be banned?

The principle that justifies the punishment of threats of violent is that there is an objective, imminent threat to break the law. Hurting your fee-fees or saying "nigger" isn't imminent danger to anyone.

t. Stefan Löfven

Either you're for freedom of speech, or you aren't. All you're arguing here is that your restrictions on free speech are better than their restrictions on free speech.

Jeg går ud fra at du går ind for total ytringsfrihed? Hvorfor?

Jeg har ingen meninger. Jeg peger bare på jeres hykleri.

1A: I'll kill you
2A: (bang)
problem solved

1A: I'll kill you (in sarcastic tone)
2A: (bang)
Oh fuck, you just murdered a man for no reason.

It's fucking sad that it takes a non US citizen to break down the actual meaning of the 1A. Thanks for not being a fucking pleb.

HAHAHAHAAH

>false dichotomy
>false equivalence between my restrictions and yours
user, you're just repeating yourself and ignoring my points now. If you want to be taken seriously, try to actually respond to the points being made.

for the record you were BTFO here >hypocrisy
>because we don't accept your ridiculous dichotomy of "you're either for Stalinist Russia's speech codes, or you're a fucking anarchist"
kek

Fence sitters are scum who complain when they get trod upon when one side finally wins, despite never having put up a fight. They are the sort who watch others get sent to the gulags, laughing at the idiots until they're the ones getting hanged. Things might be grey, but sometimes it's obvious when one side benefits you more.

>2A: (bang)
>Oh fuck, you just murdered a man for no reason.

How about murder being a universally acknowledged crime? Get the fuck out of here with that weak shit. Defense is also entirely different than murder you weak fuck. Don't even try that bullshit.

>killing someone for making a joke is self-defense

>Someone calls your phone and tells you he's gonna kill you or harm your family
I think he should be able to say it so long as I'm able to put a bullet in his ass for inciting violence against my family.

>Someone keeps harassing you with his opinions and you want him to shut up
If it's on your own private property, you can shoot his ass. If it's in public, tough shit. Deal with it, buttercup.

So you admit that you don't support free speech as an absolute human right then?

Makes sense. Quality post

>I can read minds therefore I know that threat was actually a joke and not actual intent

Magic mystic fucking mind reader over here.

Keep telling yourself that as his murder haunts your dreams every night.

You have to understand that there is no good in any absolute. basically read up on yin and yang.

I want free speech because in general it helps me. Only a fool argues against it. When you lose free speech, you get a government who can throw you in jail for anything you can say. The loss of free speech as mandated by the government is the first step to authoritarianism. With it at least I won't get thrown in jail for saying something stupid.

Gå tilbage til Kina.

>clear and present danger
>threats
>free speech

Retarded argument.

You you already oppose free speech and support taking measures to restrict it.

You've been BTFO at every turn. I'll sleep happy knowing that if/when I pull the trigger that I'll survive the googles and skittles that were killed when they said that while advancing on me. 1A doesn't give you the license to make threats just like 2A doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily kill anyone.

HILLARY'S PARKINSON'S TREMORS CAUGHT ON CAMERA

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

>youtube.com/watch?v=925ihXI1lkE

This is a profoundly stupid argument that betrays a total lack of understanding of what free speech is and why it is important.

Freedom of speech is a figure of speech. It does not merely refer to speech, for example, but also to sign language, print, etc.

Likewise it is not simply the right to say anything in any context: it is the right hold and express opinions, even if they are controversial. This is why it is also called freedom of expression.

There is no legitimate argument for silencing ideas and opinions.

>ignores the content of my post
>expects me to reply to his
fuck off shill

Seems to be the theme for this entire shit posty thread. OP is a retarded fuck that heard something about an idea and in his teenage wisdom figures he understands it all.

Er du så fucking åndsvag at du ikke engang kan forstå et simpelt koncept visualiseret igennem et billede? Hvilken absolut finders der, der ikke har noget ondt/dårligt i sig?

So are 1's and 0's included in this? Should certain illegal digital material be made legal as it falls under your definition of free speech?

OP is beyond reasoning with. Please sage this thread, it actively lowers the standard of discourse.

The hell are you talking about? You don't restrict ideas or expressions. That's what freedom of speech is about, being about to ridicule the tyrant. Freedom of speech is what keeps the government in check, and now at this point, the media. However, if someone says they're going to kill someone or threatens the lives of others, you take it as it is, a threat. So you can do something about it since it implies intent.

This post basically, everyone else can fuck off

actually their shitspeak backfired on them

Are you one of those people who think taxes aren't theft?

Bro, we've beaten the hell out of that horse. OP is being a petulant ass or willfully ignorant. Can't tell which.

haha taxes are theft, that is such a fucking meme.

you better be sageing and not shitting up the catalog with this shill thread

...

My friend, the original "freedom of speech" clause said, I quote: no individual shall be imprisoned by the state for expressing his ideas in public. It's your your problem that you reduced it's name to "freedom of speech" and make wrong inferences based off of that.

Someone saying they're are going to kill you is a threat.

You're really stupid

Jesus Christ Scandinavians are retarded.

Saging? wtf does that mean

>rights

If your government gives you an option to not pay taxes, you damn well shouldn't pay taxes. That's just common sense.

it's called culture. culture is social values, norms, customs, and so on. the question is if you can then why don't you threaten people and yell fire in a theater?

Comes from an American, the irony

nigger.

I'm not for freedom of speech. If I were dictator I'd take control of the internet the day I took power.

>being this much of a newfag

I guess this place deserves to go to shit. Self-regulation can never work with a population of BSRs

ITT: Orwelling doublethink and doublespeak at its finest.

6pbp

>No you don't.

Wrong, I support it completely.

Saged and hidden b8.

The most annoying thing on Cred Forums is this newfag hating bullshit. Like really? You hate having more people here? Why, because they dont know all the memes instantaneously ? "nah its because they are ruining Cred Forums" fuck off man. You want the "good old days" ? Are you literally retarded? Everything changes, especially human cultures, else they grow stale. They evolve cause you always want to find new jokes and memes.

Fucking american shithead.

hahahaa I really pushed your buttons didn't I? grinded your gears? got your goat, etc?

well if you don't want to be called a newfag maybe you should read the FAQ, rules, or simply google "sage Cred Forums terminology"

You dont know what it means, do you?

fatburgerfuck

everybody is a newfag at some point and not every idiot is CTR.

>you better be sageing and not shitting up the catalog
discussing where free speech ends and free speech begins isn't really shitting up the catalog tho. Sure, he's being a bit of a dishonest dumbass but still there's a lot worse shit posts around here.

Maybe there should be a sticky explaining "free speech"? that is if jappy moot doesn't shut the place down first.

you really should lurk moar.

He's welcome to do that and I'm welcome to laugh at him and call him a niggerloving faggot.

lmgtfy.com/?q=what does sage mean

I am not op, but I guess its hard to understand for people that drink autism pisspop and sharts in marts. :(

gg ez no re

>everybody is a newfag at some point and not every idiot is CTR.
yeah but if a board can't self regulate it is beyond saving anyway.

>discussing where free speech ends and free speech begins isn't really shitting up the catalog tho
I think it is. Shill threads like these don't advance the board, they hold us back from having productive exchange.

There are obviously limitations on freedom of speech.

Holy fuck some of you are frighteningly stupid.