naruball said:
Oh really? Do tell. |
Your idea of freedom of speech is being able to express yourself without the government taking action against you. Actual freedom of speech is being able to express your opinions without government or society taking actions against you. If you say water is wet and an organisation takes measures to affect your livelihood, then you don't have freedom of speech.
VGPolyglot said:
I wouldn't really view free-market capitalism as a way to attempt to compromise between leftists and right-wingers. Colin's seems to have uploaded a video about the political compass, I haven't seen it yet, but maybe it'll help me understand his views better. |
Sorry, he's not a centrist but a libertarian.
Lawlight said:
Your idea of freedom of speech is being able to express yourself without the government taking action against you. Actual freedom of speech is being able to express your opinions without government or society taking actions against you. If you say water is wet and an organisation takes measures to affect your livelihood, then you don't have freedom of speech. |
So, if a Nazi promotes black genocide, and people make a counter-protest, that would be considered as a restriction fo freedom of speech to you, because they're taking actions against him? But then wouldn't it be restricting freedom of speech by not allowing people to freely speak against certains types of speech?
Lawlight said:
Your idea of freedom of speech is being able to express yourself without the government taking action against you. Actual freedom of speech is being able to express your opinions without government or society taking actions against you. If you say water is wet and an organisation takes measures to affect your livelihood, then you don't have freedom of speech. |
you mean people shouldn't be free to speak to your employer and/or your customers about your views?
Lawlight said:
Your idea of freedom of speech is being able to express yourself without the government taking action against you. Actual freedom of speech is being able to express your opinions without government or society taking actions against you. If you say water is wet and an organisation takes measures to affect your livelihood, then you don't have freedom of speech. |
Actual freedom of speech? Actual according to whom?
Sounds like alternative facts to me.
VGPolyglot said:
So, if a Nazi promotes black genocide, and people make a counter-protest, that would be considered as a restriction fo freedom of speech to you, because they're taking actions against him? But then wouldn't it be restricting freedom of speech by not allowing people to freely speak against certains types of speech? |
Nazis promoting black genocide is hate speech and it's not protected speech. No one is defending nazis. Your point is mute with using nazis as a example. He's talking about, if someone said "Black LIves Matter doesn't care about actual black lives and here's why" and antifa or BLM tries to close his business down by interrupting with it's operation or slandering him. It's a way to censor dissenting opinions. It interfers with freedom of speech.
VGPolyglot said:
So, if a Nazi promotes black genocide, and people make a counter-protest, that would be considered as a restriction fo freedom of speech to you, because they're taking actions against him? But then wouldn't it be restricting freedom of speech by not allowing people to freely speak against certains types of speech? |
There is a difference between encouraging harm to others vs., for example, making a joke like Colin Moriarty did. You know something is wrong when someone gets fired for making a joke on Twitter. That's not freedom of speech. Another example is Canada which passed a law restricting criticising of Islam. Which reminds me of this:
https://i.redd.it/afiwot3c4jny.jpg
Lawlight said:
There is a difference between encouraging harm to others vs., for example, making a joke like Colin Moriarty did. You know something is wrong when someone gets fired for making a joke on Twitter. That's not freedom of speech. Another example is Canada which passed a law restricting criticising of Islam. Which reminds me of this: |
Canada did not pass a law restricting criticism of Islam. Read it again:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016
It says right in there that it's non-binding, which means that it has no legal worth. So, in other words, it's meaningless.
VGPolyglot said:
Canada did not pass a law restricting criticism of Islam. Read it again: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016 It says right in there that it's non-binding, which means that it has no legal worth. So, in other words, it's meaningless. |
So, what's the point of wasting time with this vote?
Lawlight said:
So, what's the point of wasting time with this vote? |
It's a way to make it seem like they're looking out for the Muslim community without actually doing anything.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
