Freedom of Speech is Evil!

I am not joking. Free Speech brings archaic Racism, anti-Semitism, vilest profanity, insults, etc.

But pervasive censorship of political views that are not Hate Speech is Much Greater Evil.

 

Your post says differently, clearly less of a concern to you then you think

 

?? Plz explain what you mean?

 

Free speech doesn't *BRING* any of those things. They already exist in someone's mind. Free speech ALLOWS them to say it, but it doesn't cause them to think it or believe it.

Where are you seeing or experiencing *pervasive censorship of non-hateful political views being expressed*?

That last question is most likely what @ButterBalls is speaking to (I am not speaking for @ButterBalls though). Do you not see the contradiction your post?

 

Most Social Media censors those who disagree with Progressive POV even if they are not guilty of any Hate Speech.

 

Their house. Their rules.

Don't like it? Create your own and make your house rules.

What else?

 

In the politically correct, nobody can be offended, world of safe spaces created by the left? We're seeing it everywhere.

People lose their jobs for expressing their opinions. Doctors and medical professions are threatened with losing their licenses if their opinions don't follow the established narrative. Censorship by social media and government working with them. People being harassed and rights trampled on because people disagree with their perspectives, hell even flying an American flag.

In just a couple short decades, we as a society have completely lost acceptance and tolerance of opposing viewpoint. They are no longer allowed. You are not aloud to offend anybody. People's feelings and emotions trump others rights to expression.

If you can't see this, your missing out intentionally. This is a very dangerous path.

 

OK. I think Conservatives should

1) Boycott Progressives where practical.

2) Not help Progressives any more then Laws explicitly require.

3) Use their Jury Nullification Rights against the best interest of Progressives.

 

OK. How does posting that here help you get your ideas out there to see if you can make them happen?

 

Many Conservatives on this forum may be interested in my ideas.

Hopefully someone more influential then me will reach these ideas on their own.

I have very little influence. Hopefully, these ideas will become popular on their own.

 

Ideas don't become popular without human interaction.

 

I can only hope that someone more influential then me comes up with these ideas.

My ideas are really simple -- to answer Cancel Culture in kind.

 

Good luck.

 

Best cure for that problem is to terminate your own posting.

 

I don’t think hate speech should be censored either. If it’s so bad then it should be easily rebutted. Let them make themselves look foolish

 

Time for all the Democrats to guess? Read Thomas Paine and common sense. Also the Rights of man.

 

Sometimes offensive ideas can be art. In 2000, they still could not censor Eminem. Now, much milder speech gets people cancelled and deplatformed.

 

It sounds like you might me looking at this from the wrong angle. Censorship, in some form, has always existed. People held book burnings and secretly "canceled" others all the time. That's not new. It's just that it gets more momentum now (and more media attention) because of the ease of access to just about everyone in the world (I think North Korea is the only country that doesn't allow their citizens to use the internet). It's easy to find people who think they way you do. Before, we had to try to make nice with our neighbors and classmates. Conspiracy theories took forever to make the rounds. Think there is metal in vaccines? Come join out "There's metal in the COVID vaccines that make you magnetized" group!

My point is that it's really not a fair comparison to look at historical events (like your example of Eminem's music) from today's looking glass. It's important to remember its place in history (and it would have had a different impact if he was up and coming during another generation) but today, decades later, it's an apple-orange comparison.

For example, back in the early and mid 1900s many Hollywood executives required their stars to sign morality clauses. It was basically a contract stating that they would always project a certain image to the public. The studio wanted to protect their "brand" (the big stars). People had to buy trashy tabloids for celebrity gossip and scandals could completely flatline someone's career.

Comparatively, Kim Kardashian made herself *famous* by leaking her own sex tape. Decades ago, it was a HUGE scandal that John F. Kennedy was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Our last president has been married three times, with his current wife being a nude lesbian porn model, cheated on all of them and the current one with a hooker he had his lawyer give hush money (she had to pay it back because she obviously didn't hush), cheats on his taxes and lies the way the rest of us breathe. That's outrageous!

So, do you see why it's not equivalent to use one generational standard to repaint historical events or wax nostalgia?

 

I agree. I hate the term "politically correct". All it does is make bigoted people more angry they can't say something and that leads to all kinds of drama. Just say what you want to say, let the chips fall and let's all move on. I'm tired of people walking around three seconds off completely snapping.

 

I won't lie when I say, I hate how the US set up free speech laws. I would prefer we did something different.

 

What do you have in mind?

 

Something akin to a "European" model, where they're more willing to engage in prior restraint. I'm okay with that and I wish other people were as well.

 

OK. I just did a quick read on how that works. What do you like about that and how do you envision seeing this working in the US if our Constitution leans in the other direction?

 

Like make certain political speech illegal; ie speech that is explictly designed to dehumanize another group of people, or undermine certain ideas about how we should talk about vulnerable populations. In terms of specific policy? I'm way too drunk to articulate that but like that trial in the UK with the Holocaust denier. Do more stuff like that, cuz the state will justify the treatment of certain groups of people via the courts, and can indirectly force the government to do something about it. Just make the courts free from outside political influence or something like that.

 

Why? Does speech scare you?