How deeply do you believe in free speech?
After the attacks in Paris, if you were in charge, would you be willing to imprison/deport/execute anyone who expressed radical Islamic views that seem to support/condone terrorist acts?
I think you've misunderstood what free speech means.
It doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and never be punished for it.
It means you can say whatever you want, without being censored, but you can subsequently be punished for what you've said.
So it's possible to believe deeply in free speech, while simultaneously calling for those who express radical beliefs to be imprisoned/deported/executed.
>>55792177
you don't get free speech either, its freedom from the government going after you for saying things, but in the real world this doesnt work because the current unwanted elements will always be persecuted one way or another.
Propaganda for the enemy never fell under "free speech".
>>55792177
That's not what free speech is either.
>>55790119
No I wouldn't imprison people who supported terrorist acts, those who commit or contribute to the organisation are free game though.
I imagine shit skins hate me as much as I distrust organised religion, I'm not gonna fill up prisons just because people say things I don't like.
>>55792327
>>55792478
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom-of-speech
>the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.
You can say what you want, without government interference, but you can be punished for what you say.
If this isn't how you define free speech, then how would you define it?
>>55790119
They are free to say that, they should also be free to be terrorized by death threats every waking moment of their lives.
>>55790119
>>55792177
Free speech means being allowed to have and express an opinion whatever that opinion might be, without persecution from the people or the state. Free speech however is not the kind of freedom you want to completely let go, you need to put restrictions on it.
Direct insults towards a person - groups are allowed to be insulted, they are not persons, they might consist of persons who might take offense, but that's not what we should care about here as it does not matter whether someone takes offense to something, the receiving persons feelings are not important. The group in itself is not a person and thus simply cannot be directly insulted, the persons in the group can be indirectly insulted as they are part of the insulted group and thus base some of their beliefs or attributes on that group (else they could not be part of that group) but they are only insulted based on being part of that group, they are thus not directly insulted - should not be allowed
Direct incitement destroy a group should not be allowed either.
Every other form of opinion is allowed and should be protected by the law.
>>55790119
Yes, because muslims themselves are against freedom of speech. So there would be no other way to fix the problem.
Dangerous people with dangerous idealism do not get any opportunities.
It isn't about free speech it's about common sense.
There was an admission just now on TV from an Australian general that French authorities are monitoring 10,000+ potential extremists in France at the moment.
That is only the visible individuals.
>>55790119
No I would not.
I support free speech.
>>55790119
Hey BND.
>>55793186
I believe it.
>>55790119
I would, in a heartbeat. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm all for free speech. I'm just not for free muslims.
No. I'm very pro first amendment.
>I think you've misunderstood what free speech means.
It doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and never be punished for it.
That's exactly what it means.
>nations with no free speech trying to describe it
>>55790119
If I would be in charge it would be free speech for citizens and just executions to non-citizens against our nation.
>>55792177
Following your logic, you had free speech during the middle ages as well. You could say the earth is round and god doesn't exist and face the consequenses. In nazi Germany you could say that Hitler sucked and communism is great and also face the consequenses.
That's free speech according to you, no?
>>55790119
Free speech only for those with a french ancestry, if I were in charge in france.
Same would go here,just with a germanic ancestry.
Muslim culture does not belong in europe and should henceforth have nothing to say about how we do stuff.
I would also forbid them from practising their filthy religion in public.
Execute all family members of those that did the terrorrist attack, deport any muslim who does a crime, no matter how petty.
Rapists and radicals shall be executed publicly, along with their family members.
>>55790119
it's the lack of free speech (antifa etc) that's caused the current situation
>>55790119
I would deport/imprison anyone if he encourages terror, but I would also put those Charlie Hebdo fags in prison.
>>55794318
nicca is u for real?
>>55793186
>10k+
top
kek
>>55790119
Free speech is unsustainable in the long run. Sure you should be free to speak your mind, but not say what ever the fuck you want whenever you want. This can only lead to discord.
>>55794844
Of course.
Its how every country should treat their invaders.
Free speech works just fine if you live in a homogeneous white society, same as with welfare.
>>55794318
*arabic-muslim culture mate
that's the real cancer here
the combination of the arabian culture that mixed with islamic culture, that's what makes arabic muslims so extreme but if you were to convert to islam right now, and not step inside a mosque and only were to study islam by yourself, you'd only be ïnfluenced by islamic culture, that wouldn't mean you won't become an extremist, you can still become an extremist because religion in itself allows for people to become extremists, but there would be a much higher chance for you to end up moderate
it's the arabic islamic culture that's the real cancer, in my opinion islam is equally violent as christianity merely because both are agressive monotheïstic religions, however the European-christian culture makes people not want to become extremists, whilst the Arabic-islamic culcutre does
don't just cry out that it's the islam, because then you'll be countered by the argument that islam and christianity are both equally worse, and that christianity has done loads of killings in the past, and people will say that there are also non-extremist muslim countries
but if you say it's due to arabic-islamic culture and not islam alone that those people are such beasts, then both the non-violent muslim extremist argument falls apart, but the "christianity has done bad"-argument aswell, that christianity was middle-ages-european-christian-culture, not current-european-christian-culture, two distinct cultures, the arabic-islamic-culture has remaind the same for these 1000 years, shown by the fact they are still beasts
>>55792177
This.
If I got out on the street, follow people and tell them that I'm going to murder them, I am practicing free speech.
But it would be fucking ridiculous if I didn't get any punishment for it.
>>55790119
>if you were in charge, would you be willing to imprison/deport/execute anyone who expressed radical Islamic views that seem to support/condone terrorist acts?
No. I would imprison/deport/execute anyone who was muslim, regardless of what they said.
>>55790119
They can say what they want. But they'll have my hand up their ass until I'm satisfied if they're serious or not. Then they'll have my foot up their ass if and until they decide to act. At which point they'll be sent to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison for rebellion.
>>55795642
What makes you think I don't shun christianity either?
They destroyed all our cultures with the inquisition.
Christianity is just as much as a retarded desert sand-nigger philosophy as judaism and islam.
>>55790119
Who cares what they say. Words don't kill people. Let the crazies speak freely, that's how keep you an eye on them. Trying to shut down free speech is futile, it just moves it underground where it's no longer subject to criticism.
Free speech is the best defense against extremism.
>>55796072
>They destroyed all our cultures with the inquisition.
I can see that just like America, you subscribe to the "fairy tale" version of history.
Or most likely, you're another divide-and-conquer shill, posing as anti-islamic to derail the thread.
>>55790119
No. I'm more fascist now than I ever have been. This free speech/constitutional bullshit isn't going to save America. Tea party c-ucks have to wake up and realize that mumbling "muh free speech" is the equivalent of laying down in front of a tank.
It's now or never.
>>55796072
Have you read what I've said? Christianity and Islam both are probably equally extreme, however the indigenous european culture mixed with the christian culture produced an european-christian-culture which in the middle ages was equally as agressive as the arabic-islamic culture, however the european-christian culture progressed and civilized because of the european culture, whilst the arabic-islamic culture stayed barbaric due to its arabic culture
both are probably equally violent and extreme
