3,443 posts
291 reactions
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,443
- Status
- Activity Streak
Again like Mike, you have little faith in humanity. The world would have already burned if all the people were inherently evil. These rules on freedom of speech are not stopping the world from burning down. People are. Why ? Because their are good people who exercise their rights as well. Don't say we are frail and must be bound to some extent . We aren't.I love it how you all the way at the end suddenly jump to the mods.
Essentially you are saying that everyone is allowed to scream out any thought that pops up in their heads immediately regardless of whether it's highly offensive, racist, sexist etc. You are saying that everyone is allowed to spread the most filthiest lies about other people, causing their reputations irreversible damage or even worse just because they are allowed to say whatever they want.
Go to Jeruzalem and scream "Heil Hitler" and "death to the Jews" and see how that works out.
Freedom of speech was never meant to mean that you can just blurt out anything you want. Everyone who thinks that, needs a serious reality check as they have no clue what the hell they're saying. Absolute freedom of speech would mean the acceptance of racism, sexism, discrimination etc. while our current society is trying to remove this completely. So a society that wants to remove these things, but uses "absolute freedom of speech", is inherently contradictory to itself. That's a hypocrite society.
The notion of absolute freedom of speech is inherently contradicting itself, it collapses on each other as how can a society function when people are allowed to say that white people are superior, that black people are superior and to say that you are allowed to say one of them but the other not? How is as judicial system supposed to function properly if everyone is allowed to say and even do whatever they want as why would "freedom of speech" be limited to words? There are people who let their 'fists do the talking'. If you do not count that as 'freedom of speech', it means you just put a limiter on your supposed absolute freedom, making it not an absolute freedom at all.
The real essence of "freedom of speech" has always been that it has to happen within certain boundaries. It's very tricky to define these boundaries, but that there have to be boundaries, that much has always been certain. What you describe is borderline anarchy. Let the world burn as long as I can insult the crackers and their family that I hate just because they had the gall to do what they were supposed to do.

