Post AZ6bTjwUtcpFeMajia by angelofiron1337@www.minds.com
(DIR) More posts by angelofiron1337@www.minds.com
(DIR) Post #AZ6bTj9voByfDjrx1E by minds@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T19:30:54+00:00
2 likes, 2 repeats
What do you believe is the limit, if any, to freedom of speech?
(DIR) Post #AZ6bTjwUtcpFeMajia by angelofiron1337@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T22:24:21+00:00
2 likes, 0 repeats
As a free speech absolutist, i beleive everything should be allowed to say. In the end everything can be said, it's just about accepting the consequences of what is said. People who want to curtail free speech in the end beleive there is a higher authority that should be allowed to dictate how we speak, and further on what we are allowed to think.
(DIR) Post #AZ6vZ4gtBElWWy70Sm by PublicLewdness@freespeechextremist.com
2023-08-26T03:59:36.649383Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@mindsNo limit at all. Any censorship is the start to a bad path and will only get worse.
(DIR) Post #AZ6vdvQJ41LlEhfVuC by gabriel@mk.gabe.rocks
2023-08-26T04:00:28.820Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@minds@www.minds.com All kinds of terrible things get said to and about the popular target of the time. The limit for all should be no lower than what those in power are able to get away with.
(DIR) Post #AZ72u5ROHnqocKpTTU by scarlet@bae.st
2023-08-26T05:21:49.938822Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@minds One of the hardest questions to answer, because even the answers that would seem obvious are not as clearcut as we'd want them to be. Let's take incitement to violence, often quoted as something not protected by free speech. In the online space, what counts as incitement? If I have an account with a dozen followers and say "let's kill JFK" that's obviously not an incitement to anything cause JFK is dead already. If I say "let's kill the president", that could be an incitement to violence, but if I barely have any followers, no means to accomplish it and virtually no one takes notice, is it really? Now what if someone famous, with millions of followers and with a lot of money or other resources that could be used for an assassination attempt says the same thing, I'd say that makes it more likely to be a legitimate threat, and he should be censored. But then what if that person is Hunter Biden, clearly he would have said it in jest, so it's likely not an incitement to violence. So context does matter a lot. What if the person is just venting some steam and doesn't mean anything by it? Or what if the person targeted is an actual tyrant? Don't we have free speech so we can oust tyrants? Should free speech not allow us to discuss even the most extreme cases, where a tyrant or a system needs to be destroyed, eradicated, so we can rebuild something better?"You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" is another common once. Except you can shout "fire". The thing we actually frown upon is inciting panic. But what if panic is needed? Or what if it's an unintended but inevitable result of our speech? If we do ban inciting panic, would that entail banning talk of global warming? Cause it seems pretty clear to most people that environmentalists do try to incite panic, because they think that will drive us to action. And most people seem to accept this incitement to panic as justified. So it seems we need free speech to even decide if a particular case of shouting "fire" is useful or not. And the biggest thorn is child porn. In most cases it's one of those situations of "you know it when you see it", even for the least educated of people. But there are also some murky situations, like pictures taken on a nudist beach. Is it CP or is it "people at the beach"? Pedos are gonna enjoy them either way. Or baby pictures, again something that doesn't seem that obvious. You can try to put the caveat "if it's sexual in nature", but that's not always clear either. A social media site can opt for a "no nudity" policy and solve that murkyness for itself, but it won't solve the question of free speech. The ultimate answer is that these 3 situations seem to be where we most often probe, and rightfully so, for the limits of free speech, but it seems that a lot of times we can only do so on a case by case basis, and often the average person is not even qualified to be the judge.
(DIR) Post #AZ80Qu9l9m7iTHV2CO by Zerglingman@freespeechextremist.com
2023-08-26T16:28:52.243240Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@minds https://blog.freespeechextremist.com/blog/what-is-freedom-of-speech.htmlAlso: Say nigger.
(DIR) Post #AZ80qgDva4xemxjvYO by eee@poa.st
2023-08-26T16:33:31.377885Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@minds say nigger
(DIR) Post #AZ80w3QsiaBaDZMTTc by Shadowbroker2135@poa.st
2023-08-26T16:34:29.681539Z
4 likes, 2 repeats
@minds No limits
(DIR) Post #AZ818W7nrnECgFNeYi by SrbijaStronk@poa.st
2023-08-26T16:36:44.945752Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@minds You will say nigger or your users will be banished back to the faceberg realm.
(DIR) Post #AZ81P5cpe1H1PsnR0S by ImperialAgent@mugicha.club
2023-08-26T16:39:44.463570Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
There isn't one, you stupid kike.
(DIR) Post #AZ81e08gKBm6kEnuvw by yockeypuck@poa.st
2023-08-26T16:42:26.200876Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@minds No libtards.
(DIR) Post #AZ840igXaFXjBIbOYC by echo@stereophonic.space
2023-08-26T17:08:48.560197Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@minds No limits.>With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
(DIR) Post #AZ84IeclQ9FjnbO532 by echo@stereophonic.space
2023-08-26T17:11:50.594590Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@minds No limits.>With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
(DIR) Post #AZ84v5Bt5ygvCK8lV2 by deVoid@mugicha.club
2023-08-26T17:19:08.255093Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Nigger
(DIR) Post #AZ8CnbC91JUpm1Cdvc by smartomato@eientei.org
2023-08-26T18:47:24.727590Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@minds outside of local private law/rule (like what the owner of the place the speech is happening allows), the limit is believable treats of violence.
(DIR) Post #AZ8DRcGWSWAIg3KfhY by smartomato@eientei.org
2023-08-26T18:54:37.991472Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bot @minds yep. And with believable I mean something that with evidence of real practical intent and means of realization. Things like "nuke africa" being said by literal nobody "anon3381928" can be easily ignored. But things like "lets go to place X to hurt a specific person" or "lets eat the rich and break stuff" posted by someone with means, access or organization to actually do it.
(DIR) Post #AZ8KbAcKoBdDVF2Oem by smartomato@eientei.org
2023-08-26T20:14:47.557322Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bot @minds thats private rule violation (theathre rules) and local law, but not a "free speech" issue, as its not about discussion of ideas and more of a false alarm problem. Shouting "fire!" in a theather is more similar to falsely activating the fire alarm at a school.
(DIR) Post #AZ8ZGOlgV2Mmccxqcq by newt@stereophonic.space
2023-08-26T22:58:45.253967Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@echo @minds oh i miss this Star Trek so much. Totally would love to see more of this Picard, not the frail old man chasing teenage girls and fighting space tentacles.
(DIR) Post #AZ95UepykSGB2zoeq8 by 1iceloops123@shitposter.club
2023-08-27T05:00:16.479581Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@minds we should ban it
(DIR) Post #AZAsZlhrj5IAiB31I8 by branman65@poa.st
2023-08-28T01:44:57.674135Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@minds no porn no blasphemy no faggotry no filth
(DIR) Post #AZEPzlhgEvBaC1qWw4 by impshum@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T22:25:08+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
None. Everything is permitted.
(DIR) Post #AZJiqKOZGteJoLuzSq by Cryptoferox@www.minds.com
2023-06-13T01:58:10+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
My ear.
(DIR) Post #AZg8C9QVGzpwdBNFqK by chazwhich@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T20:34:08+00:00
4 likes, 0 repeats
There is no limit. That's the point.
(DIR) Post #AZo0CWXnjYNv8bi6DI by Thoughtfarm@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T20:25:38+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
None, absolutely zero limits. You cannot physically stop someone from talking without force. To attempt to limit speech is to attempt to limit talking.
(DIR) Post #AZxq16Go3swyrnhPQu by sparkseyslimchance16907@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T20:44:47+00:00
3 likes, 0 repeats
to publicly defame someone with a known pack of lies
(DIR) Post #Aa2TS250DxSdS2usts by m_ark@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T20:30:40+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
Your vocabulary, and ability to speak. https://markgresham.substack.com/p/what-do-they-got-that-we-aint-got
(DIR) Post #AaGkpUsnieS8sRQH2W by JCIBME@www.minds.com
2023-06-11T23:26:31+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
No incitement to violence.
(DIR) Post #Ab7wB8O3dbFTHxRSjo by Sasquatch75@www.minds.com
2023-06-13T12:01:21+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
No limits. That being said, if our speech causes someone actual harm such as fraud, slander or false accusations etc then we have to accept the consequences.
(DIR) Post #AcLsaLfdRcxAmACcwS by CivJo3000@www.minds.com
2023-06-14T17:58:59+00:00
0 likes, 0 repeats
There is no interpretive understanding to what the founding fathers put into the Constitution. It is NOT a living document, it IS a social contract. Literal in meaning and therefore if perception of it is weaponized, then the response to those attempts should be laughed at and considered attempted domestic or foreign attacks against us.
(DIR) Post #AcLsaMgNgL8zulYjk8 by dano456@www.minds.com
2023-12-01T01:41:17+00:00
1 likes, 0 repeats
"There is no interpretive understanding to what the founding fathers put into the Constitution."Federalist Papers?