/lit/ - Literature

yes

>>10802164
Anybody should be able to express any opinion whatsoever without censorship.

>>10802164
Only white male conservative authors
>>10803306
Not women and nonwhites

>>10802164
yes. the only line I draw is a call to action in the form of inciting violence, i.e. kill all (insert group here)

>>10802164
I was gonna say the pic was bad, then remembered that's Jacobi.

>>10803318
kys

>>10803321
so no?

>>10802164
Absolutely fucking not. People tend to confuse free speech and expression with freedom of saying stupid stuff. No a stupid person doesn't have the same right of a smart one

>>10803318
This but unironically

>>10803321
Why? if the public doesn't will it, the action won't be done. Is it just too shocking?

>>10803468
it's obviously irresponsible to be telling people to commit murder against someone they do not like. if you can't figure that out then you're very sheltered.

Enemies of the people shouldn't have the luxury of free speech.

>>10803438
>>10803502
These. But censorship should be as restricted as possible.

all thoughts come from the world, by exposing yourself to them, you become more worldly

censorship therefore is imprisonment, a lie that such actions are not for others of this world- to it we are imprisoned to the land of the censors, to the lie that the world is not how it truly be.

>>10803502
>Enemies of the people
Meaning what exactly

>>10803321
"All X should be killed" is an opinion.
"Kill all X" is an encitement to commit a crime.

>>10803536
In practice it seems that the statement also has to have some kind of credibility. eg. 'kill the rich' for rhetorical purposes doesn't seem to attract much attention.

>>10802188
FPBP /thread
>>10803502
t. retard

>>10803438
Yes they do.

>>10803524
Let the most ruthless man define it for you.

>>10803542
There are legal precedents for distinguishing between these two acts.

>>10802164
Rousseau never said that

>>10803438
>a stupid person doesn't have the same right of a smart one
In a righteous society, they do.

>>10803559
if 1000 people believe he said it, and 1 person knows that he didn't, does it stand that he said it?

>>10803502
I wonder if those who are """enemies of the state""" just happen to also be everyone you disagree with.

>>10803438
>says stupid stuff

>>10803569
no it doesn't. dumb post.

>>10803569
deep and philosophical.

No. Free Speech Absolutism is an idealist meme.

However I generally am for more free speech protections than we have currently.

>>10802164
The idea of censorship taking place solely as a result of authoritative institutions looking to restrict information is incomplete. Censorship is not only just institutionalised but internalised due to cultural norms, taboos, personal considerations such as social anxiety, et al. I would argue that censorship is ineradicable.

If you cursed on Club Penguin you got banned; this is clearly censorship. But imagine a child cursing in school and getting a time-out. This is censorship, one could say, but easily justifiable. Children are special cases and are not afforded the same legal rights as adults, however, yet the theory of internalised censorship carries through. An adult expressing his opinions in a way deemed unacceptable by these societal internalisations will equally be reprimanded, ignored, silenced -- censored -- without the involvement of any large institutions.

If anybody disagrees with me, please define your terms: censorship, opinion, express

>>10803741
in a sense, the world works its' self out you're saying. i digg it, but I gotta wonder about the limbo between the incomplete starting and the idealized ending- the utopia.

That’s a picture of Fontenelle, you fucking idiot

>>10803990
No you retard it's Emannuel Kant

(((>>10803321)))
(((>>10803502)))

Yes, everyone should say whatever they want at any point, even if it incites violence towards a group. Restricting dialogue between people is wrong because the standard we set can be easily manipulable and they are extremely arbitrary, who and under what principle has the right to ban speech? It also limits the progression of ideas, because when they clash they might reformulate counter-arguments or change in some aspects that are more problematic. But most importantly, you limit the ways in which people can develop, either by accepting the ideas or by rejecting them.

Even if you set a panel of the most important thinkers of this current moment to make the most "enlightened" banning of ideas, there is going to arise some level of bias, even if it's done under "good moral intentions". If you did the same on 50's America you would also get certain level of bias, even if it was the most "enlightened" position. Do it on 1200's Germany and you will also get some "enlightened" bias. Paradigms always shift, so there is no point in setting some standard of banning. Either we accept the bias with all the trouble it has, or we simply don't use it, but we shouldn't mask it under the premise that it's better, more humanitarian or pushes civilization forward.

The other point is that if you ban an idea it doesn't magically disappear, it just stays in stasis unchanged, you need to bring it forward so that people can discuss it extensively and it can clash with it's opposites. Fascism and Nazism being banned has mystified it as the magical solution to Western countries problems by a minority of neo reactionaries, but that could be healthier if we allow it to be a point of discussion. Yes, some ideas promote violence and hate, but we can't simply think of a society that doesn't have violence and hate, there is no erasing it from humanity, we simply have to accept it and give it proper ways to vent.

>>10804248
>what principle has the right to ban speech?
Historical reasons, imbecile.
Good God americans are so fucking stupid.

If your answer isn't just 'yes' you're a bootlicker and barely qualify as a human being

>>10804254
because banning the ideas and not outright discussing them is the solution?
If something is so bad it needs to not be repeated then surely keeping it in obscurity will work, it's not like it mystifies it or makes it part of counter-culture, and it's not like you can burn books when there are computers and the Internet right? Look at how ridiculed China was when they tried to bad all discussing because Xi Jinping can/will be re-elected.

Surely hiding fascism/nazism/racism has worked wonders when places like /pol/ have gained more traction over the years and right wing is rising on Europe.
You gotta be fucking stupid to think that societies learn by banning certain ideas, specially when hundred of years have passed and the notions of the mistakes made have long been forgotten.

Tell me one good example of banning (ideas) actually working

>>10802164
Human rights are made up

Yes and if you support any restrictions on speech you're subhuman garbage

>>10802164
Yes. If I wish to use the term 'nigger dyke' in one of my novels, then I believe I should absolutely be allowed to do so. Indeed, I already have.

>>10804342
>because banning the ideas and not outright discussing them is the solution?
Yes. Liberalism needs to distinguish between enemies and friends. If a society is funded on some principles and on historical events, those principles ought to be respected and those historical reasons ought to be understood.
>If something is so bad it needs to not be repeated then surely keeping it in obscurity will work, it's not like it mystifies it or makes it part of counter-culture, and it's not like you can burn books when there are computers and the Internet right?
No one cares about /pol/, you're giving too much importance to literal memes.
>Surely hiding fascism/nazism/racism has worked wonders when places like /pol/ have gained more traction over the years and right wing is rising on Europe.
It has, actually. Look at post ww2 Italy or every other western society. Look at America and the red scare. The right wing that is rising in Europe has, in the vast majority of cases, very little to do with actual fascism and is born as a reaction to precise socioeconomic events, not because of muh mystical nature of the counter culture. /pol/'s importance is basically non-existent and a good majority of /pol/ is not even fascist, they're redditors from the_donald.
>You gotta be fucking stupid to think that societies learn by banning certain ideas, specially when hundred of years have passed and the notions of the mistakes made have long been forgotten.
Society learns with history. You commit the classical American mistake of thinking that ideas exist in a vacuum and this flawed premise spoils your perspective.

>>10802164
That’s a picture of Kant you idiot

>>10803502
t. Robespierre

>>10803502
t. Stalin

>>10804441
>>You commit the classical American mistake of thinking that ideas exist in a vacuum
>You commit the classical Anglo mistake of thinking that ideas exist in a vacuum
FTFY

>>10802164
>I am a free speech ABSOLUTIST !!!!111!
>oh but incitement to violence is not cool
>oh but libel laws are necessary
These people drive me up a fucking wall

>>10803318
Conservatives are retarded. It should be only authors who have proven themselves in some way, like having a PhD. Of course that means the measure by which people receive or don't receive PhD's must be improved as well, but you get my point I think. I do agree that you should have some merit of worth or achievement backing you and I do think the Greeks had it right by using a democratic voting system, but only a small group of people had the right to vote.

>>10803438
this, everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and shouldn't be allowed to speak freely

I think it generally should be allowed, so long as we make an effort to shut down wrong opinions

>>10802164
How do you determine the identity of the speaking subject?

>>10804254
>daddy gubmint tells me what to say :)
Eurextrachromosomes

>>10804441
>Look at America and the red scare
Why not at the leftist hysteria that was occurring at the same time? Oh, wait you didn't hear about that, because your whole world "view" is ungrounded and originates with bourgeois platitudes.
von Hoffman, one of the McCarthy's principal critics: "He was more right than his enemies."

opinions are like different animals
there's a certain kind of self-flattery involved in appreciating every animal for their unique beauty even if they're fucking worthless (pandas) but I see nothing immoral in trying to keep as many alive as possible.

obviously you have to start killing if one them is wrecking the whole ecosystem

>>10802164
Free speech destroys the immune system of the society that allows it which creates room for subversive elements that are enemies of that society to freely undermine it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

Stay woke.

>>10805082
My worldview is the same as the PCI and the people who made the Italian constitution.
>bourgeois platitudes.
American Marxists should be gulaged. You're embarrassing for the entirety of the left worldwide.

>>10805177
>American Marxists should be gulaged
The word actually has a history that predates marxism. But an illiterate wouldn't know that, of course.

>>10802164
nah

>>10805164
Fucking fascist. Not in the SJW "I overuse the word facist" sense. I mean actual fucking fascist. You are beneath contempt.

>>10805233
>have democracy with free speech
>society becomes the playground of sophists and vice merchants who run it into the ground
>the people despair, look for an alternative to this 'free' pigsty
>embrace a strong leader who delivers order and safety at the cost of said freedom

Every time. If you dislike fascism you shouldn't be in favour of democracy because it is its natural successor.

>>10802164
There's literally no reason why not. The lowest of expressions is the freest of expressions.

>>10805360
>There's literally no reason why not.
except for your country being outcompeted by more orderly and productive countries who don't waste their time talking about trans rights and fags and black lives

>>10804441
>Liberalism needs to distinguish between enemies and friends. If a society is funded on some principles and on historical events, those principles ought to be respected and those historical reasons ought to be understood.
Very good, Anon.

>>10802164
of course
>>10805415
>the chinese are my friends
>look i'm no baizuo please let me miscegenate with your women
>i'm one of you look ping chow hsiu shee bing tang
>i love china
>love the CCP
kys

>>10805670
I don't think the other poster thinks the Chinese are his friends at all. Why are you so angry?

>>10805677
I hate people who suck off authority just because they're too cowardly to face it as an enemy

>>10805688
you guys suck off authority too though, you just pretend you don't by larping as revolutionaries. It's irritating and childish

yes
also define "author" and define "express"

>>10802164
YES, even violent opinions.

Free speech only works via a certain level of cultural homogeneity. An easy way to prove this is the
>dude you can't yell fire in a theater
meme. The culture largely agrees on this, thus it is a reasonable restriction of speech. Now, with Brazilified countries like the US, you have 1) a bunch of people who do not share each others' beliefs or identities and 2) the internet creating media bubbles that further breaks homogeneity/"radicalizes" people against each other.

Stormtards would say this is why ethnostates are needed. But since that's not realistic, basically there's no fucking solution and everything is doomed to bourgeois rule and a mockery of egalitarianism forever lol. So you can either not care or be >>10804441

Yes
Even if it's shit, because ones man's trash is another man's treasure

>>10804018
if so, a rather generous one at that. Kant wasn't nearly that handsome. I'd still suck his wee wee though

>>10802164
no one should, but restrictions should be very limited.

>>10805890
The original 56% man

>>10805900
>It should be legal, but nobody should do it
K-Y-S my nigga

Should people be allowed to post misappropriated quotes on the internet without being shot at?

>>10806005
I'm saying no one should get absolute speech, but the limitations of speech should be minimal: only in very particular instances. what's the problem with that?

>>10805995
whiter than you muhammad

>>10802164
Free speech is an American meme used as code word for "speech that doesn't challenge the current state of affairs".
No one gives a shit about Nazis and Commies in the streets today because they're just larpers, but you'd hardly see anyone talking about muh free speech at the times of the red scares and when Nazis were a thing back in WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
Once political turmoil is down in favor of the status quo these extreme laws finally get repealed as if nothing happened, and we go around praising the charade of free speech again.

>>10806033
>exalting whiteness like it's something to be proud of

>>10806040
>Free speech is an American meme used as code word for "speech that doesn't challenge the current state of affairs".
I think that's kind of disingenuous. there are plenty of free speech advocates who see nothing inherently wrong with speech that challenges the current state of affairs. but in situations like what John Stuart Mills had mentioned, directly inciting violence and similar things of that nature, is where the line gets drawn.

>>10806040
>Laws against the overthrowing the government are anti-speech laws
You can say whatever you want, just not anything that incites political violence
Overthrowing the government is a violent act that only people who cannot get their point across using speech will resort to

>>10806055
>doesn't understand a blatant meme
go back, now

>>10806081
>le you need to go back face

>>10806093
thank you

>>10806096
>tumblr gifs

>>10806103
yep

>>10806108
This is fun m8

>>10805688
The entire world is against the right, open your eyes. The system is using far leftists LARPing as revolutionaries to destabilize democracies,

>>10806110
agreed

>>10806077
>Overthrowing the government is a violent act that only people who cannot get their point across using speech will resort to
Political disagreements aren't a product of misunderstandings, they are a struggle to control the material conditions of existence.
If you actually believe that political positions live and die by the amount of factual support they stand on and can be brought down once the "incorrect" side has been educated, you're too deep into the liberalism koolaid.

>>10806117
>training for the impending revolution

>>10806126
you're not gonna win by hitting dicks... you gotta start sucking 'em

>>10806119
>Political disagreements are a struggle to control the material conditions of existence
you sound like a another Marxist trying to justify violence because muh material conditions

>>10806077
>You can say whatever you want
>just not anything that incites political violence
??
So you can't really say whatever you want?

>>10804350
All human language is made up too.

So we shoukd stop writing, talking, thinking in words?

That argument doesnt work past step two.

Ask you a direct qn anon: are you against human rights or your responsibility in serving those rights?

Be honest.

>>10806161
what they just said is the basis for class warfare, and the fascists agree with this sentiment, the liberals agreed with it in the 18th century and 19th as well. you’re just a child of political serenity, you don’t know anything epistemological fracturing like with loyalists and patriots or unionists and confederates so this is all news to you. Studying history will alleviate you of your illusions about power and respect for the regime

>>10806141
>your average dick sucking revolutionaries

>>10802164
yep

To OP

I think censorship should be communal instead of dictated topdown.

Because censorship is a defensive weapon against enemies of the State, even if the enemies are telling the truth.

But we still need censorship because it is a barrier against anti-social speech which destabalizes society. It is almost always easier to write fuckpoopslol than another Animal Farm; letting anarchic speech happen is allowing shitposting IRL.

So, social censorship: flag the shitposter until he reaches a threshold. Then drag him outside the city and stone him.

>>10806192
>the revolutionary resistance
I think we're in good hands anon

>>10806220
are you okay with the communal decision being to socially censor your ideas?

>>10802164
GuLAG gULag gULaG GuLAG gULag that boy Stalin somethin'

>>10806230
>>10806220
and / or speech?

>>10803569
Considering every imbecile here champions "free speech absolutism" by terribly misquoting everyone from Russeau to John Stuart Mill, who championed an essentially different idea of free speech to what's currently conceived, that is, free speech was a right limited to people "in maturity of their faculties", which depending on the author could mean anything from white peole, to only self-employed people, to anyone who isn't fucking christian, then I'd say your fucking garbage post is practically a crime and you should be arrested for it.

>>10804747
>conservatives don't have phds

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>10806224
But she makes such a compelling argument

>>10806258
>hahahahahahahahahahahaha
literally 0 conservatives have had, currently have, or will have any PhD's. sorry sweetie :/

>>10803438
>We have free speech but only if we use it responsibly

>>10806267
>if i'm naked, they're sure to take me seriously
I think it worked. consider me a dick-sucking revolutionary from now on

>>10806267
It would be hot if the cops arrested her and then gang raped her in her cell afterwards.

>>10806308
hell yeah dude I looooovvveeeee me some good hot rape

>>10806267
Standing out there
The roast
Being sneared at
The most
Calling out
The host
Finding a husband
The worst

>>10803536
>in my opinion you should kill all x
>in my opinion the best way to do it is to bomb them
>in my opinion if one were to place a van filled with ANFO outside the X building that would be good
>in my opinion you could make the ANFO by...

>>10806304
Dick sucking revolutionaries it is, then

Let's make this more interesting. Here's an argument AGAINST freedom of speech.

A Black Lives Matter supporter: systemic racism keeps the Black man down! we deserve reparations!
You: actually statistics have shown that institutional racism is not only a myth but....

You think this is how public discourse takes place? Appeal to emotion is more powerful than reason. Another example -- feminism today is destructive and divisive:

Third wave feminist: for every dollar a man gets, women get 12c also there aren't as many female politicians as male ones because of sexism
You: actually, those statistics are severely flaws for several reasons...
Third wave feminist: MUH GLASS CEILING

What can you do about this? A sane answer would include limiting speech that is hateful or emotive, unless it is accompanied by facts.

>>10806503
who ultimately gets to decide what is hateful and / or emotive? who gets to decide what are and aren't the facts?

>>10806517
Nobody. There should just be rules preventing potentially harmful ideas, and I'm not defining harmful here, it's just a safeguard.

It's all about context.

A public debate about Holocaust revisionism is okay, someone on the streets shouting "Jews lied to us!" is not.

Someone publishing a study on the size of human brains is fine, someone handing out pamphlets stating "Did you know Black people are dumb?" is not.

Basically, if you wanna talk about sensitive subjects, you can present data, but keep your inciteful inferences to yourself.

>>10806533
so can someone not simultaneously voice they think black people deserve reparations, or that women should be paid more because "muh sexism", without being inciteful?

whether or not any data they might have leads to the right conclusion is arbitrary, if the point is simply not being inciteful.

>>10803502
Good idea, until your enemies take power

>>10803502
Who are the "enemies" and who are "the people"?

>>10806602
good question

>>10803502
are "the people" the majority? are "the people" inherently right and always advocate for what's best? what if they have shit ideas and I oppose them? do I now not deserve free speech? what if "the people" 's opinions change and you have a minority opinion opposite of "the people" ? is it fine if we take away your free speech? or for anyone else in the foreseeable future?

>>10806230
I'm not okay with it, because i have an ego. So, in an effort to say what i must and STILL not get dragged outside and stoned, i will moderate my expression.

Unless what im saying is worth getring stoned to death for (veeeeery little, even for toptier poet novelists), this is a comfy middle ground for me.

>>10806637
so it's only fine unless it happen to you. got it.

and if your "moderate expression" is still enough to be seen as social censorship worthy, then what?

>>10806649
**happens to you

>>10806554
You can accuse a particular business/institution of discrimination if you wished, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Why is it wrong to say "Black people should go back to Africa" but okay to say "White people should pay Blacks more to make up for slavery"?

"Women belong in the kitchen" - No, "women should be paid more" - Yes.

If you let one kind of race- or sex- based voice in, you gotta let them all pass. It's extremely hypocritical to refer to one as hate speech but the other as equality-promoting.

It's either all inciteful or none of it is, and since most people agree that some of these are inciteful, then democratically, I think everyone should be in favour of limiting free speech.

>>10802164
No. Certain attachments have to be in place if they have significant influence. It's often easy for some popular retard to shill some dumb shit, with many eating it up. People are not critical (at all) because they want to play tribal games, instead of reading a book, they want to feel smug and confident in their political/social/philosophical position/group. Arguably it is the eater's fault, but this doesn't change the influence and corresponding negative impact on the world. Accountability (with possible indirect censorship and demonisation) and emphasis on critical thinking, are necessary for optimal truth and intelligence in society. No need for it be a legal thing, just build a culture that is very critical and anti-tribalist/-ideological. Basically the opposite of what we have. This extends beyond authors/intellectuals, you need culture-driven societal regulation, if you believe in anything that isn't 'I want the world to crash and burn'.

The majority of public""intellectuals"" are pseudointellectuals spewing some cool-sounding but inane dribble about something they largely barely understand. People don't call them out on this, they don't even notice the hollow quality of this spew. It is important to quality control because it affects the world.

Furthermore, there is an argument for direct censorship for the purposes of societal cohesion/stability. Despite what the kneejerk reaction of individual freedom might tell us. This depends on other, far more subjective things, though.

>>10802164
Not Rousseau, but also not Voltaire.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattributed

>>10806728
You realise it's a troll right? I mean, there's a picture of Schopenhauer rather than one of Rousseau or Voltaire.

>>10806676
I'm not asking most people though, I'm asking you. do you think someone can ask for reparations without being inciteful? or that women can do the same when asking for equal (higher) pay?

>it's either all inciteful or none of it is
not in an absolute sense. that's to disregard both genuine intention and the results. I could argue one could advocate for both the former and latter of the comments mentioned, and not do it in an inciteful or hateful manner, though obviously genuine intention is extremely hard to prove, if not impossible in some cases. therefore I'm basically in agreement with you on the conclusion: you have to draw a line somewhere. it's not about what's genuinely inciteful or not, it's about whether or not what someone is doing or saying seems to pass that threshold.

>>10806775
First of all the word inciteful means encouraging others to break the law. Obviously discrimination is illegal so stating you don't believe in equal pay is necessarily inciteful. But for the sake of argument let's assume inciteful means hateful. Yes, I believe it is possible to make statements that are highly sensitive without being hateful. However...
>though obviously genuine intention is extremely hard to prove, if not impossible in some cases
yes, I don't believe it is possible to determine the threshold of genuine intention to an extent which is legally enforceable -- I mean, tone alone makes a ton of difference. Are you going to prohibit sarcasm? I don't think a jury has any value in this because you can't delegate decisions about morality to a group of people.

You also talk of result, which is contentious also. Most economists agree that enforcing equality leads to inequality, although this happens through unintuitive and indirect action. Most people, however, assume that you're sexist or racist if you don't support quotas, for instance. So yet again things get blurry, which is why I'm making the argument that it's fair to limit all opinionated speech on these topics.

You are right that it's not either/or in an absolute sense, but in practice, since we as people are very susceptible to being manipulated into acting in hateful and divisive manners, we need some restrictions, and they must applied universally on a topic, not in the current manner where we only ban speech which is pro/against something.

>>10806075
>but in situations like what John Stuart Mills had mentioned, directly inciting violence and similar things of that nature, is where the line gets drawn.

The problem is that end up claiming that people saying things they don't agree with are actually "directly inciting violence and similar things of that nature" by association.

>>10806649

C'man anon, dont couch it like i'm a hypocrite with no selfawareness. That's tarring and feathering without trial. Hear me out before throwing me to the lions, wot?

I APPROVE of the action as a system mechanism: it works PRECISELY because i dont want to suffer.

the same reason i dont stealburnstab everything in my path today: because i dont want to go to jail tomorrow.

IF my moderated opinion is deemed worthy of a public stoning i will try to leave that community. Aka self-exile. I might end up in some hick outland with no wifi or toilet paper, but hey, my throat's not cut. That's a good start.

I SHOULD be successful in fleeing, because outcries tend to need a little buildup before total public hysteria. Since i have self moderated, i should at least have a headstart.

Although, if the verdict to stone me is overwhelming, i might be doing something WAAAY wrong. Very helpfully, the riled public will likely be shouting the reason why i qualify in a snappy slogan.

yes
they shouldn't be allowed to deny the holocaust or call for the death of minorities tho

>>10808141
>denying evolution and climate change is allowed because it's obviously retarded
>denying the holocaust is a threat

C:\Users\Martin Luther\Pictures\Things That You Go Hmmm\

>>10805662
Who is that ?

>>10802164
First off, I'm pretty sure George Washington said that, you fucking idiot. Second, that's a picture of Mozart. Jesus Christ this board sucks

The biggest problem with denying some speech is that, who gets to decide what's to be banned?
and when we pick the who, we need to decide what are going to be parameters that it should take into account for banning speech, it's all very subjective, prone to corruption and highly ideological, so I don't think the results are going to be positive. Also, values will change in time, so how should societies decide when to revise what to ban?

No one wants to have a system for banning speech that it's integral and well developed, it's always going to be filled with hypocrisies that benefit a group in particular or that puts the ideas of one own at risk of being banned. I think the easier and more sensible approach is not to ban the ideas, just take action when actions are being committed (likewise, you don't detain a person under the notion that he is prone to crime, but when he commits the crime itself).
I mean it as, you shouldn't ban nazism, antifa or whatever, but you detain it's members as soon as they buy the materials to make explosives. It's impractical, but you are going to get no where trying to decide what's an ethical system for banning.

>>10803438

yet here you are not being censored and shit