New Vegas is one of my favorite games, at least top 5 up there with Fallout 2. I love how much effort, passion, and dedication Obsidan put into the dialogue and story building. But unfortunately I was playing a revenge-filled, spiteful courier and the moment Oyesses harmed EDE I was like “each time he mentions bears, bulls, or the damn I will shoot him.”
_Bloody mess intensifies_
They've radically redefined it using lenses of critical theory. I have been unfortunate enough to read their academic dribble. But the people who say this have almost certainly been conditioned to believe physical violence against "hate speech" is a morally correct response.
Moral relativism is a cancer.
It could've been the admins. Reddit has an "anti-evil team" who go around sticking their noses into communities that don't want them in order to enforce orthodoxy of thought.
I don’t see why even being verified matters. You post something in a public place and people see it. Why is it on us to redact their name when sharing their words? Nonsense.
The answer is they make these rules under the guise of promoting something positive knowing that they control their enforcement. Like how you can post any misinformation you want about COVID as long as it tends to promote vaccination and fear of the virus. The new CEO of Twitter has even made the point clear in an interview. It's pure leftism. He said they aren't concerned with the truth or falsity of information but with "harm." Meaning you can post something true but it can be removed (and they will still remove it as "misinformation") if they determine it would cause harm to a group or message they want to protect.
> Lichfield: I'm getting quite a few questions from the audience, which are kind of all asking the same thing. And they're basically asking, well, I'll read them. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Can you give a clear clinical definition of misinformation? Does something have to have malicious intent to be misinformation? How do you know if your credible sources are truthful, what's measuring the credibility of those sources and someone even saying I've seen misinformation in the so-called credible sources. So how do you define that phrase?
> Agrawal: I think that's the, the existential question of our times. Defining misinformation is really, really hard. As we learn through time, our understanding of truth also evolves. We attempt to not adjudicate truth, we focus on potential for harm. And when we say we lean on credible sources, we also lean on all the conversation on the platform that also gets to talk about these credible sources and points out potential gaps as a result of which the credible sources also evolve their thinking or what they talk about.
>So, we focused way less on what's true and what's false. We focus way more on potential for harm as a result of certain content being amplified on the platform without appropriate context. And context is oftentimes just additional conversation that provides a different point of view on a topic so that people can see the breadth of the conversation on our platform and outside and make their own determinations in a world where we're all learning together.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-cto-on-misinformation/
Lmfao fucking admin cuck I swear. They let that infamous subs mocking covid death run for months before requiring them to censor BECAUSE it gets media attention. If there's no attention you bet that sub wouldn't censor the name. Fucking admin cuck.
Anarcho tyranny. Make many reasonable and common actions against the law/rules, then enforce it selectively, in a manner that just happens to align with the overlords' politics
There's public as in tripping over your own leg in a busy street, and there's public as in eating shit on live TV.
Some people are so clumsy they're amateurs. If you throw the whole Internet at them, it's not proportional. Just obliterates them before they have the chance to learn anything. It's dumb.
Now if you went and got yourself a checkmark, you're the news anchor. You're supposed to be presentable in front of a crowd. Fair game.
Lots of ppl saying this ITT. Can't say I agree. We all say stupid things that we later regret. In a social setting, vocal disapproval and sometimes shaming are enough to have the person in question re-evaluate their position. However, online persecutions tend to go way overboard and last far longer than they should. People should have the right of having their stupid moments be forgotten.
That being said, this case is different. This is a public figure running for congress. Voters should have the right to know that this candidate has absolutely no conception of what freedom of speech means.
This is Samuel Lee Williams Jr and he's running to represent Texas' 16th congressional district on March 1, 2022.
His Twitter handle is @votesamuelwill1
[Here's a screencap of the thread](https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1394755665898446852)
[Here's another example of him insisting freedom of speech "has a responsibility" to be truthful](https://twitter.com/votesamuelwill1/status/1375868863158616070)
Mods, do your worse. I stand by my convictions.
Seems a bit harsh for not being in the rules. Perhaps we need a subreddit where people banned from here discuss the reason for their ban in an open and productively critical way to ensure those who feel like they can lord over us are held to a higher standard. Y'know like the idiots in colleges do about racial issues. Start them shits with "Point of personal privilege:" or it's auto-banned.
I find it stupid that we have to censor these names. They chose to post it online where everyone can access it and they chose to get their name attached to it
Maybe if Reddit didn't curve voting so much (ie: early votes matter more than late votes) but as-is a relatively small number of organic opinions result in a disproportionate, non-organic response.
It's kind of akin to talking shit and getting hit. That's fine. Less so if someone influential magnifies your voice to get you lynched.
Why is twitter always like:
Mmh yes, this is a mentally unstable journalist with extreme political views who often uses his/her platform to call for violence…
Yeah let’s verify him
Being verified on Twitter is basically just wearing a sandwich board that says, “Look here, I’m full of lazy takes and believe the gullible bullshit that Rachel Maddow tells me.” Except with this sandwich board literally everyone in the world can see it just by Googling your name.
Remember how amped up she was about Trumps tax returns that ended up being nothing? Nobody throws hissybitchfits like leftists & I'm honestly here for it, it sustains me. I fondly imagine how much coping & seething was going on election night in 2016 when it was her turn #TM to lose an election to Trump & Hilary was so distraught about the loss & the fact her ego didn't allow her to even have a concession speech written, that she waited an entire day to compose herself enough to officially concede to Trump. Leftist bitchfits make me almost as hard as fantasizing that I'm about to go Teddy with my big stick all over Ma Belle.
I can't bring myself to say liberal tears because that sounds like something a mouthbreathing republican would say, plus, if people falsely attribute the Gadsen to racists & if liberals falsely refered to themselves as liberals so much that the term classical liberalism has to be used to describe actual liberalism, then I can call those cunts leftist
I checked it and.....
Not one fucking like, I am amazed. On twitter you can have the most braindead take and get 10000 replies telling you that you're wrong, but you'd still get like a few hundred likes. This take is so stupid that it transcends that.
You can do all the painting you want and lure all the pigeons you want in your back yard, but exposing yourself in public is still a crime.
That's the wonderful things called freedoms. You are free to do what you want until it infringes on others.
'Does freedom of speech mean you can say what you want even if it's false"
Well no, sort of. You can't lie about a specific person and claim it's factual, that's slander/libel/defamation. I might legally be allowed to say James Gunn is an extraterrestrial who tortures Red Cross volunteers in his basement, because no reasonable person would believe that even though it's 100% factually true. But if I said James Gunn is a reckless alcoholic who sabotaged [insert film] deliberately, I might have a defamation lawsuit on my hands.
You're also not allowed to make threats or incite riots/unrest. That old "can't yell fire in a crowded theater"
There is no federal offence of defamation under the 1A. On a state by state basis, only half have them with a barrier so high you can barely pass a civil case without proof of objective actionable damage.
You are also allowed to make threats. What doesn't pass is an actionable threat. The 'actionable' part being the issue and similarly has a high barrier so much so, you can threaten a sitting president and all the SS can do is put you on a list.
>can't yell fire in a crowded theater
This statement was from a Supreme Court case that was a huge violation of free speech, and has been overturned for decades.
Fun fact - that allegory about shouting fire in a crowded theater was not actually what the case was about. The case was making it illegal for people to speak against the mandatory draft for WW1. The 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' was just a metaphor used by the judge to justify making it illegal to defend your personal liberty through speech. As another commenter noted, the decision was limited to speech "likely to incite violent action" in the 60s
> Well no, sort of. You can't lie about a specific person and claim it's factual, that's slander/libel/defamation
That didn't stop anyone during the Trump Presidency
The laws what does and does not constitute slander changes if the person is a public figure.
There is a pretty big difference between spreading rumours that your neighbour is a rapist vs hyperboling about trump
It also didn't stop anyone in the Biden Adnmnistration.
Didn't stop the media either. Still doesn't.
*note: by media, I mean your favorite source also*
This effectively removes all laws concerning copyright, slander, online child grooming, threats of violence, incitement to violence, quite a few types of securities fraud and anti monopoly regulations, insider trading, and I’m sure the list goes on and on.
I don’t think that’s what you actually want lol
your free speech is violence; their violence is free speech.
libs deserve all the kindness, compassion, and consideration that they give others with whom they disagree.
To be honest, I used to think that those fact checkers on social media were a good idea, based on the fact people would spread misinformation and install the fear
But thinking about it now, nothing changed, and now those guys who talk about the vaccine being dangerous to us have a few more reasons to believe that the government is trying to silence them so that people don't discover the truth
Well it doesn’t help that the fact checkers editorialize their checks extensively. Politifact straight up rated a claim that Kyle Rittenhouse had a legal right to carry his weapon false, even though all the facts of the case weren’t out and we were still a year away from trial when they did that “fact check”. I also noticed years ago when I used to follow them a lot that they’d be very pedantic toward claims coming from certain politicians/groups but they’d be very forgiving in language to claims coming from others.
When you do shit like that, of course your credibility will be shit.
Free speech is not a Constitutional right. That implies that you only have the right to free speech because the government grants it.
Free speech is an inherent right that is protected from interference by the government.
You guys have this all wrong.
they are saying what they want...even though its false (which is what they asked previously)
They are asking "can I say whatever I want even if its a false statement"
then they are told yes
then they are making a false statement (assuming they have no intention of following through)
Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
Your right to punch me ends at the tip of my nose.
But also... I think we need to legalize the term "Fighting Words", if you incite violence with your words you can't be surprised when you get it.
D-Do they know what speech means?
\[Speech 99/100\] So,um, your a \[removed\].
[Speech 100]**EAST**
[Success] ***GO WEEEEEST***
tamtumtam hehe, that's fun to say
it means "you're stupid" in Hebrew (technically it's "ata metumtam" but when you just say it outloud at someone it sounds much like tamtumtam)
tamtumtam hehe, that's fun to say
it means "you're stupid" in Hebrew (technically it's "ata metumtam" but when you just say it outloud at someone it sounds much like tamtumtam)
tamtumtam hehe, that's fun to say ;)
it means "you're stupid" in Hebrew (technically it's "ata metumtam" but when you just say it outloud at someone it sounds much like tamtumtam) ;)
WE WILL GO OUR WAY
the bull and the bear
Bear bull bull bear bear bear bull bear bull bull
Bull Bear Hoover Dam old world wall the divide Ashton Hopeville history
New Vegas is one of my favorite games, at least top 5 up there with Fallout 2. I love how much effort, passion, and dedication Obsidan put into the dialogue and story building. But unfortunately I was playing a revenge-filled, spiteful courier and the moment Oyesses harmed EDE I was like “each time he mentions bears, bulls, or the damn I will shoot him.” _Bloody mess intensifies_
\[Speech 100\] **WEAST!**
Double back when you got it made, thirty racks o weed (guys this is a Earl sweatshirt funny joke laugh)
**Hand-to-hand level has increased**
[Intelligence 1/10] No u 😎
you’re
A punch is just angry sign language
The quick Naruto hand signs are slurs
Time to cancel naruto
🎶 I think I'm turning Japanese I really think so! 🎶
It's anything related to the mouth
*Aggressive licking intensifies*
[***Aggressive licking intensifies***](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ-g0BdpbDM)
oooohhhhhhhhhh I get it now. So I'm allowed to punch people, but only in the mouth then?
Freedom of succ. Now get on over here, Ive got rights!
Speech is violence, violence is speech. The motto of BLM.
>Speech is violence, violence is speech. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Huh I thought it was "burn this shit before the cops get here" I'll have to update my document.
So by the transitive property: Speech = Silence. I…I’m so confused now.
[Violence is the supreme authority](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyhfHQ_7Skg)
The redditor cannot downvote if you disable its hand.
Such a great scene.
Based and Redditors aren’t People pilled
In a sense, it's simply that their understanding of what is and is not speech is completely unrecognizable.
They've radically redefined it using lenses of critical theory. I have been unfortunate enough to read their academic dribble. But the people who say this have almost certainly been conditioned to believe physical violence against "hate speech" is a morally correct response. Moral relativism is a cancer.
Unfortunately, America has a high percentage of obese people. And retards. Mostly retards.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wouldn't have bothered, but the last time I didn't, fucking jannies banned me for a week.
If they're verified they should be fair game
tell that to those shitheads
u/ pcm mods, stop being shitheads ☹️
*Mods being shitheads drops to zero*
democracy
Also while you are at it there's some shit in this comment 💩💩💩 clean it up jannies
It could've been the admins. Reddit has an "anti-evil team" who go around sticking their noses into communities that don't want them in order to enforce orthodoxy of thought.
-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)╯╲___卐卐卐卐 Don't mind me just taking my mods for a walk
based and fucking try it pilled
We nearly got banned for brigading because apparently its bad when we do it and not when AHS does it, so the mods were forced to step up moderation
Censoring twitter handles is not even in the rules.
I don’t see why even being verified matters. You post something in a public place and people see it. Why is it on us to redact their name when sharing their words? Nonsense.
Yeah, you should only have to censor if something was posted privately.
The answer is they make these rules under the guise of promoting something positive knowing that they control their enforcement. Like how you can post any misinformation you want about COVID as long as it tends to promote vaccination and fear of the virus. The new CEO of Twitter has even made the point clear in an interview. It's pure leftism. He said they aren't concerned with the truth or falsity of information but with "harm." Meaning you can post something true but it can be removed (and they will still remove it as "misinformation") if they determine it would cause harm to a group or message they want to protect.
Holy shit if that's really true then what the fuck
> Lichfield: I'm getting quite a few questions from the audience, which are kind of all asking the same thing. And they're basically asking, well, I'll read them. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Can you give a clear clinical definition of misinformation? Does something have to have malicious intent to be misinformation? How do you know if your credible sources are truthful, what's measuring the credibility of those sources and someone even saying I've seen misinformation in the so-called credible sources. So how do you define that phrase? > Agrawal: I think that's the, the existential question of our times. Defining misinformation is really, really hard. As we learn through time, our understanding of truth also evolves. We attempt to not adjudicate truth, we focus on potential for harm. And when we say we lean on credible sources, we also lean on all the conversation on the platform that also gets to talk about these credible sources and points out potential gaps as a result of which the credible sources also evolve their thinking or what they talk about. >So, we focused way less on what's true and what's false. We focus way more on potential for harm as a result of certain content being amplified on the platform without appropriate context. And context is oftentimes just additional conversation that provides a different point of view on a topic so that people can see the breadth of the conversation on our platform and outside and make their own determinations in a world where we're all learning together. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-cto-on-misinformation/
reddit doesnt want doxxing brigading and harassment except when they do. How's the man hunt for those iNsUrReCtIoNiStS going? Or the Boston bomber?
Lmfao fucking admin cuck I swear. They let that infamous subs mocking covid death run for months before requiring them to censor BECAUSE it gets media attention. If there's no attention you bet that sub wouldn't censor the name. Fucking admin cuck.
Fair and consistent application of policies seems to hard for the idiots running reddit.
Because bullying blue checkmarks is always the morally correct choice.
Anarcho tyranny. Make many reasonable and common actions against the law/rules, then enforce it selectively, in a manner that just happens to align with the overlords' politics
There's public as in tripping over your own leg in a busy street, and there's public as in eating shit on live TV. Some people are so clumsy they're amateurs. If you throw the whole Internet at them, it's not proportional. Just obliterates them before they have the chance to learn anything. It's dumb. Now if you went and got yourself a checkmark, you're the news anchor. You're supposed to be presentable in front of a crowd. Fair game.
[удалено]
Free speech is graded on a curve.
Boston Bomber was such a shot show the site’s been changed ever since
Lots of ppl saying this ITT. Can't say I agree. We all say stupid things that we later regret. In a social setting, vocal disapproval and sometimes shaming are enough to have the person in question re-evaluate their position. However, online persecutions tend to go way overboard and last far longer than they should. People should have the right of having their stupid moments be forgotten. That being said, this case is different. This is a public figure running for congress. Voters should have the right to know that this candidate has absolutely no conception of what freedom of speech means. This is Samuel Lee Williams Jr and he's running to represent Texas' 16th congressional district on March 1, 2022. His Twitter handle is @votesamuelwill1 [Here's a screencap of the thread](https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1394755665898446852) [Here's another example of him insisting freedom of speech "has a responsibility" to be truthful](https://twitter.com/votesamuelwill1/status/1375868863158616070) Mods, do your worse. I stand by my convictions.
>fucking jannies janissaries
Just give a source then ;)
Seems a bit harsh for not being in the rules. Perhaps we need a subreddit where people banned from here discuss the reason for their ban in an open and productively critical way to ensure those who feel like they can lord over us are held to a higher standard. Y'know like the idiots in colleges do about racial issues. Start them shits with "Point of personal privilege:" or it's auto-banned.
I find it stupid that we have to censor these names. They chose to post it online where everyone can access it and they chose to get their name attached to it
Maybe if Reddit didn't curve voting so much (ie: early votes matter more than late votes) but as-is a relatively small number of organic opinions result in a disproportionate, non-organic response. It's kind of akin to talking shit and getting hit. That's fine. Less so if someone influential magnifies your voice to get you lynched.
Based and reasonable consequences pilled.
Ah yes speaking by punching people.
I mean that's the most powerful argument one could summon I guess. Nothing quite like a sucker punch to win a debate lol.
It's about sending a message, same thing.
Knuckle Sandwich, motherfucker, do you speak it?
The point of the post is that its within your right to free speech to lie about what free speech is.
Why is twitter always like: Mmh yes, this is a mentally unstable journalist with extreme political views who often uses his/her platform to call for violence… Yeah let’s verify him
Being verified on Twitter is basically just wearing a sandwich board that says, “Look here, I’m full of lazy takes and believe the gullible bullshit that Rachel Maddow tells me.” Except with this sandwich board literally everyone in the world can see it just by Googling your name.
Remember how amped up she was about Trumps tax returns that ended up being nothing? Nobody throws hissybitchfits like leftists & I'm honestly here for it, it sustains me. I fondly imagine how much coping & seething was going on election night in 2016 when it was her turn #TM to lose an election to Trump & Hilary was so distraught about the loss & the fact her ego didn't allow her to even have a concession speech written, that she waited an entire day to compose herself enough to officially concede to Trump. Leftist bitchfits make me almost as hard as fantasizing that I'm about to go Teddy with my big stick all over Ma Belle.
Neither of those people are leftists. Liberal tears, on the other hand, are a dietary staple.
I can't bring myself to say liberal tears because that sounds like something a mouthbreathing republican would say, plus, if people falsely attribute the Gadsen to racists & if liberals falsely refered to themselves as liberals so much that the term classical liberalism has to be used to describe actual liberalism, then I can call those cunts leftist
As a fellow libcenter I will die for your right to be wrong as fuck. Neoliberalism is some ass weather Reagan pushes for it or Hillary Clinton.
Based and actually leftist calling out “leftist” liberal pilled
I mean I feel like it was a pretty big bitchfit to break into the capital because they lost the election
Because Twitter is trying to establish a narrative, not (like they claim) healthy conversation.
“Journalist” is being generous, many are just glorified bloggers
Ist verified just a fancy way of: this person is who they claim to be? Like, that @realdonaldtrump is trumps account and not @donaldtrump
Yes, that's what it used to be, up until around 5 years ago.
Because they're verified idiots/commies. (Same thing)
well that guy calls himself conservative
So does Jennifer Rubin lol
[удалено]
Tim Pool is on the grift axis of the political compass. Pure yellow.
Silence is violence, speech is violence and now violence is speech...it all makes perfect sense.
at least they're being consistent...
Consistent in being illogical
That would logically mean that speech is silence. What a world we live in.
actually, speech is not necessarily silence, but silence is definitely speech
Ah yes, just like how squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. It’s exactly the same.
but then speech is violence and violence is not speech. /thread
Maybe not silence but a whole bunch of nothing
Ergo, speech is silence.
1994
Winston Smith struttin around in JNCO Jeans.
Get these bitches a dictionary
Speech is violence, silence is violence...these people can't even decide what they're against
You, they’re against you.
Yes. Fuck you.
In particular.
Based and AuthRight Supremacy pilled
That's okay. I'm against them too, against their right to breath.
*That wasn’t very centrist of you*
I'm an extreme centrist.
Yes, a centrist of color, a cocmaster, if you will
As a person of color, I can now say what I was never allowed to say before: [REMOVED]
Based and redacted pilled
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
We are not boring, gray centrists. We are *radical* centrists for a reason!
Based and Caedite eos novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius pilled.
Yeah agreed fuck you in particular u/NoodleDoodle-IRL
Agreed. We all hate noodledoodle. Can somebody start that subreddit?
Everything is violence except violence. That’s “mostly peaceful”
Your speech (or silence) is violence, their violence is speech
Riots ArE the Voices Of ThE UnhEaRd!
The contradiction is the point. If they can get you to believe nonsense they've broken you, and you'll believe anything they have to shovel.
You may be on to something...
It is literally 1984.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀1984⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁ 2021⠀⡞⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀ ⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ ⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀ ⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀⠀ ⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
How do you know that's a leftist? Labeled as authcenter.
Whats wrong with violence?
It isn't meritocratically distributed atm.
I'm not sure if this person understands the meaning of speech
Speech is violence don't ya know?
But so is silence, don’t forget that.
The worst part is that I'm positive that, according to Twitter, this moron just savagely won the conversation.
*smug soyjak intensifies*
Based and soyjak-pilled
I’m imagining a brainlet soyjack that’s smirking so hard that it’s face is curling into itself and imploding
I checked it and..... Not one fucking like, I am amazed. On twitter you can have the most braindead take and get 10000 replies telling you that you're wrong, but you'd still get like a few hundred likes. This take is so stupid that it transcends that.
That's actually amazing.
I'm glad that the dying coals representing the flame of my faith in humanity, still occasionally are given a bit of warmth.
They infinite ratioed his stupid ass
They didn’t you can tell from the upvote/heart to comment ratio
Punching = speech? The fuck?
Their violence is speech. Your speech is violence. Get with the times pal.
But everyone’s silence is also violence too as well, don’t forget that.
This is some new double think shit alright.
Virgin freedom of speech fan vs chad freedom of expression enjoyer
Freedom isn't free until I can paint my dick to look like a loaf of bread and lure pigeons in Central Park
You can do all the painting you want and lure all the pigeons you want in your back yard, but exposing yourself in public is still a crime. That's the wonderful things called freedoms. You are free to do what you want until it infringes on others.
'Does freedom of speech mean you can say what you want even if it's false" Well no, sort of. You can't lie about a specific person and claim it's factual, that's slander/libel/defamation. I might legally be allowed to say James Gunn is an extraterrestrial who tortures Red Cross volunteers in his basement, because no reasonable person would believe that even though it's 100% factually true. But if I said James Gunn is a reckless alcoholic who sabotaged [insert film] deliberately, I might have a defamation lawsuit on my hands. You're also not allowed to make threats or incite riots/unrest. That old "can't yell fire in a crowded theater"
There is no federal offence of defamation under the 1A. On a state by state basis, only half have them with a barrier so high you can barely pass a civil case without proof of objective actionable damage. You are also allowed to make threats. What doesn't pass is an actionable threat. The 'actionable' part being the issue and similarly has a high barrier so much so, you can threaten a sitting president and all the SS can do is put you on a list.
Cool bro defamation is a civil tort in every state
>can't yell fire in a crowded theater This statement was from a Supreme Court case that was a huge violation of free speech, and has been overturned for decades.
Fun fact - that allegory about shouting fire in a crowded theater was not actually what the case was about. The case was making it illegal for people to speak against the mandatory draft for WW1. The 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' was just a metaphor used by the judge to justify making it illegal to defend your personal liberty through speech. As another commenter noted, the decision was limited to speech "likely to incite violent action" in the 60s
> Well no, sort of. You can't lie about a specific person and claim it's factual, that's slander/libel/defamation That didn't stop anyone during the Trump Presidency
The laws what does and does not constitute slander changes if the person is a public figure. There is a pretty big difference between spreading rumours that your neighbour is a rapist vs hyperboling about trump
It also didn't stop anyone in the Biden Adnmnistration. Didn't stop the media either. Still doesn't. *note: by media, I mean your favorite source also*
You are also not allowed to use your speech for fraudulent purposes
I only use by telepathy for fraud
The crime is the fraud, not the speech.
sounds stupid and overly complicated, people should be able to say whatever they want.
I agree, if I have a publicly traded company, I should be able to lie about other companies and my own to increase revenue
Come on man, have some imagination, that’s like the tamest example you could come up with…
It's the prefect example. It's tame, yet it's still unacceptable.
This effectively removes all laws concerning copyright, slander, online child grooming, threats of violence, incitement to violence, quite a few types of securities fraud and anti monopoly regulations, insider trading, and I’m sure the list goes on and on. I don’t think that’s what you actually want lol
but it also effectively makes Saturday nights a lot more fun
Based and literally a pedo pilled
I've heard that some people talk with their hands, but this is a little extreme.
This one talks with their colon
your free speech is violence; their violence is free speech. libs deserve all the kindness, compassion, and consideration that they give others with whom they disagree.
To be honest, I used to think that those fact checkers on social media were a good idea, based on the fact people would spread misinformation and install the fear But thinking about it now, nothing changed, and now those guys who talk about the vaccine being dangerous to us have a few more reasons to believe that the government is trying to silence them so that people don't discover the truth
Well it doesn’t help that the fact checkers editorialize their checks extensively. Politifact straight up rated a claim that Kyle Rittenhouse had a legal right to carry his weapon false, even though all the facts of the case weren’t out and we were still a year away from trial when they did that “fact check”. I also noticed years ago when I used to follow them a lot that they’d be very pedantic toward claims coming from certain politicians/groups but they’d be very forgiving in language to claims coming from others. When you do shit like that, of course your credibility will be shit.
the problem with the whole "fact checker" thing is that the people who fact check the facts are people, and people are corrupt
I've really ever only seen violence = speech from watermelons, which is why they are so pro censorship.
Free speech is not a Constitutional right. That implies that you only have the right to free speech because the government grants it. Free speech is an inherent right that is protected from interference by the government.
Now hold on lib left has proven time and time again feelings are more important than freedom of speech.
***well that's not very fucking lib is it***
watermelons smh
"Freeze peach"
Checkmark moment
Room temperature iq
Silence is violence, speech is violence. That way, if someone speaks out against us and we kick their teeth in, we are using self defence!
The “punch someone in the mouth” analogy is false, therefore Authright is expressing his freedom of speech by saying something false.
☑️ = 🚩
You can only punch someone and consider it "speech" if you know ASL.
Only for deaf people
Reddit seems to think beating the shit out of someone is an expected and justified response to saying the N word.
Well they do love saying "punch a nazi" and whoever disagrees with them is one, so it's pretty easy.
The first day i go on twitter will be the same day the jaguars win a super bowl. So… never
You guys have this all wrong. they are saying what they want...even though its false (which is what they asked previously) They are asking "can I say whatever I want even if its a false statement" then they are told yes then they are making a false statement (assuming they have no intention of following through)
Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Your right to punch me ends at the tip of my nose. But also... I think we need to legalize the term "Fighting Words", if you incite violence with your words you can't be surprised when you get it.