Before I start Freedom of speech != freedom to disturb the peace(screaming stuff at people or forcing them to listen to you), let's make that clear.
>United States
>Companies often fire employees for holding viewpoints that they disagree with
>This kills the C.V.
>without a job you starve to death during the winter
America is nothing special and all our jazz about freedom is bullshit.
>Britain
>people sentenced to ten years + of taxpayer funded jailtime for swearing
LOL
And let's not even get started on other countries where people are probably assassinated if they are suspected to be quartering sentient thought.
You're not allowed to hold politically incorrect views, because if you do, you will be scrutinized and lose all opportunities forever.
>>410895
>>people sentenced to ten years + of taxpayer funded jailtime for swearing
doubt.jpg
>>410909
https://www.google.com/search?q=britain+sentanced+to+jail+for+speech&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>screaming stuff at people or forcing them to listen to you
But that is still speech that should be protected. The responsibility to panic when you hear someone yelling "Fire" is yours and yours alone. Apathy is so sky-high anyway that nobody would give a fuck at anything short of a spree shooting.
>>410912
>ctrl f
>10 years
>0 results
>ten years
>0 results
>11 years
>0 results
>eleven years
>0 results
>12 years
>0 results
>twelve years
>0 results
and so on
>>410925
It generally can result to denial of shit. Denying sleep is literally militant.
People sometimes put up billboards outside of small businesses claiming slanderous lies about that company and that shouldn't be protected. These sort of things should exist as proposals in town meetings with the mayor.
>>410895
So is this a thread to shit on Anglos?
>>410912
He was sentenced for inciting hatred
Freedom of Speech is a principle, but you can be sued for slander for ex
>>410895
Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from being fired, it only protects you from being jailed.
>>410945
>And let's not even get started on other countries where people are probably assassinated if they are suspected to be quartering sentient thought.
>>410950
But we're specifically shitting on Anglos right?
>>410966
It does, but dehumanising some minority could be an early stage of genocide
Preventing genocide can come at the cost of limiting freedom of speech
>>410966
the government protects your 'right' to do those things but social repercussions are independent of the government's control
>>410971
>He
Many cases like this. And there are hundreds of cases of people getting years of extension on sentences because they disrespected the judge in court.
>>410895
Sure, it hasn't existed in it's purely idealistic utopian form.
But that doesn't mean it shouldn't.
>>410966
There's absolute freedom and relative freedom. An organized state can only strive to achieve a higher level of relative freedom of speech as opposed to an absolute level. One could argue an absolute level isn't actually desirable.
>>410986
Yeah, an ultra fucking early stage. The peasants in Britain don't even have weapons, how could it result in genocide?
>>410987
Yeah that's how it is, but the government should be intervening to allow freedom of speech. In the 1960's it even encouraged the alienation of communists and slew many of them abroad.
>>410895
>people sentenced to ten years + of taxpayer funded jailtime for swearing
Okay if you say so
>>410906
This only applies to the socially retarded
>>411006
>It doesn't happen because I don't want to believe it does
>>411018
if it happens link us an article or two pls i cant find anything ;-;
>>411003
>but the government should be intervening to allow freedom of speech.
but that'd be attacking other people's freedom of speech and would make it look like the government is endorsing that opinion
you ain't looking at this long term senpai
>>411036
>intervening to stop their freedom of speech
No it wouldn't. Supposedly twitter shitposters are fired because customers say they will vote with their wallate.
The president could straight up condemn such actions and call people who do this pieces of shit and it'd calm down without any legislative action.
>>411027
I second this
Give me one case in which British courts sentenced someone to 10 years in gaol in the last 30 years
>>411054
No, it wouldn't.
Companies have the right to fire people that make a negative impression on the company, senpai.
>>411070
But firing them would result in a negative impression if the action was condemned.
Companies also have the right to cover themselves in shit and call themselves just senpai.
>>411070
But I shouldn't be held accountable for my opinions and action ;_;
>>411054
So people can't decide to which businesses will they give their money?
>>411076
Yes, they do.
It shouldn't be up to the government to tell them otherwise, it should be up to the consumers.
>>411077
>But I shouldn't be held accountable for my opinions and action ;_;
No, you shouldn't be held accountable for your opinions because there is nothing to be held accountable for. An opinion is not an action which is why you made the distinction in the first place.
>>411102
No, it shouldn't. You're indoctrinated to thinking that consumers are completely intelligent in their decisions.
>>411118
Or he doesn't care if consumers act irrationally.
Like me.
>>411129
Then let's allow the irrational consumers to effectively slay the freedom of speech.
>>411115
An opinion is an action. Like how the owner of Chic-fil-A donated money to some christian group that opposed same sex marriage, and that lead to boycotts of his restaurant chain.
>>411141
I've yet to see a single person jailed for insulting a minority on social media. That might be different in other parts of the world, but so far America is still good.
>>411141
>Then let's allow the irrational consumers to effectively slay the freedom of speech.
As long as the state doesn't put you in jail for saying what you want, I'm fine with individual people refusing to associate with you based on something you say.
You don't own your reputation.
>>411154
>An opinion is an action
>Like how the owner of Chic-fil-A donated money to some christian group that opposed same sex marriage, and that lead to boycotts of his restaurant chain.
That's not an opinion moron, the donation was an act. The opinion was opposition to gay marriage. If you define an opinion as an action, the opinion that someone should be dead means you're no better than a murder. Stop playing fucking retarded word games with your feelings.
>>410895
The problem is that pure libertarian freedom is not practical and would not work out.
>>411156
food banks still exist.
>implying winter
>>410895
>>United States
>>Companies often fire employees for holding viewpoints that they disagree with
You can't be serious. I'm sacrificing a paralegal as we speak, hopeful it will be enough to summon a proper lawfag to this thread because I'm curious what kind of mental gymnastics someone would have to do to think this is true.
>>411018
>It happens but I cant prove it but believe me anyway
1. The Constitution only limits the power of the state, not of civil society.
2. Britain has never had something properly like the 1st amendment.
Our sociology is so ass backwards its retarded.
>>411070
That's a problem with companies. US labor law is a pathetic joke, and as a result "free speech" only exists for the super-rich.
You're allowed to say anything you can get away with.
>>410906
Poor baby, go cry some more to Glenn beck
>>411228
>southern states
>>411257
Are you retarded? It happens all the time.
Make any controversial post on twitter or some other asswipe site and you can get fired from your job.
>>410895
You have a right to yell stupid bullshit, but people have a right to react how they want to it.
>>412605
>I think employers should be able to determine what political views their employees can express, and it's ok because I think it helps my political party
May I never become as unprincipled as an American liberal.
>>411005
Funny how people can justify things in thier heads without realizing how goddamn big brother it can sound.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>>410895
Being fired for your opinion by a private company is not an assault on your freedom of speech, dumbass. Freedom of speech means that the government has no power to regulate what you say, outside of a few special cases (direct threats, shouting fire in a theatre, etc). Just because the government allows you to say what you want doesn't mean private citizens of the country can't suppress your opinion.
>>412708
Even CEOs aren't immune like that asshole who harassed a Chickfilet employee about gays and posted it online.
>>410895
this is like the idiot communist's argument that working a job is slavery because you'd starve without money.
>>410895
>Nazi flag banned
>Holocaust denial banned
>Confederate flag banned
Freedom of speech my ass
>>413926
>Holocaust denial banned
never happened
>>413935
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
Freedom of speech is a protection from your government. It is not (necessarily) a protection from private entities like a business or corporation.
And yes, it is real. You my face social ostracization or employment troubles but there is nobody in prison in the US for saying the President is a big dumb stupid head.
If it weren't real, you'd have been hauled off by the internet police by now.
>>413926
non of those things are banned
The confederate flag was removed as a state flag but it's still perfectly legal to fly it on your pickup truck.
>>413940
Those countries have a different tradition of law from someplace like the United States. Most of them do not have the protection of speech enshrined in their highest law. If freedom of speech does not exist it is because they have not as a polity made it exist, not because it cannot exist.
>>413940
Which countries with a constitution that guarantee freedom of speech is on that list?
>>413984
No it's not. You gotta follow the news or something anon.
>>414051
>peer pressure is the law
>>414051
I don't want to start a whole thing here because I honestly don't have an opinion on the flag.
but source please
>>414051
The government cannot protect you from social pressure. It can only resolve not to imprison you for being impolite. I can fly a Confederate flag if I like, and I will never be put in prison.
The opinions of my neighbors, on the other hand, is another matter entirely.
>>411154
>anti gay-marriage : opinion
>donating money to an organisation: action
actions CAN be caused by opinion , but they dont necessarily need to
i mean , when did your hatred for a person alone ever caused its death?
>>414155
Yes, that is how peer pressure works, especially if its a private college, you are not entitled to their goods and services if they do not think you will use them appropriately, so you are forced to you own devices instead of benefiting from their privilege.
>>410895
In addition, freedom of speech is to protect people from rightwingers, not the opposite.
>without a job you starve to death during the winter
that is your freedom, yes.
I would argue that freedom of speech absolutism is basically shit.
You only need to look at boards with little to no moderation to see what free speech absolutism turns into, everyone just shouting at eachother, misinformation, psuedo science and shitposting everywhere and the majority harassing and trying to silence the minority.
moderate restrictions of speech generally lead to better discussion. Again using 4chan as an example, the most heavily moderated boards are generally the ones that stay on topic and have the best discussion, while the least moderated boards (/b/, /r9k/, /pol/, /v/) are just complete and utter shit.
Free speech absolutism also ignores power relations and demographics.
>>415466
Free speech restrictions entrench power relations - they empower wealthy and powerful individuals (because that's what we mean when we're talking about business owners and web corporations) to determine what others say!
>>413876
And here we see the limitations of bourgeois "freedom". Businesses, under this system, have the right to determine what people can say.
You have the "right" to dissent, but if you try to exercise it prepare to wind up homeless and blacklisted - but it's not a literal prison, so this constitutes "freedom" in the bourgeois mind. The idea of opening up freedom of speech, in a meaningful sense, to the poor and middle class is simply an absurdity - they must not understand the constitution!
