They will decide who the Nazis are.
. @TeamYouTube the video in question is co-written with a phd historian who wrote mutiple books on various aspects of the Third Reich and is educational in nature. Dont see how this qualifies for hatespeech.
— Dan Arrows ↙️↙️↙️ (@_DanArrows) July 2, 2019
Tim Pool: Funny how people are shocked when free speech advocates don’t want to run full speed to the defense of those advocating against free speech You’re the fire destroying the internet and you want us to preserve the fire? Ironically though we still will. The paradox of free speech.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, I used to listen to the repugnant verbal diarrhea of assorted brands of communists and accepted it as free speech. Then comes the 2nd millennium where mainstream opinions of 20 years ago are labelled Nazism and attacked. We simply cannot allow the criteria to move. Unless an opinion actively calls for violence or death, it is just as valid opinion as any other and is tolerable in our society. We don’t have to like everybody. Note, calling a tranny, “IT,” is not violence.
Correctumondo. It’s well established people are hopeless at reading others’ minds, but that is now the (sub) standard.
Once words alone, including their perception by others, can be deemed violent, subversive or hateful, we are doomed.
Btw, that is precisely what is happening right now; but it’s targeted on the assumption only “right wing” words are dangerous.
Farrakhan and Iranian mullahs can chant hate riddled calls to arms, as can Maxine Waters, as can many others.
Leftists argue they’re just utilizing free speech. AOC can lie her you know what off trying to inflame, and gets a pass.
The truth of the matter is right wing speech is hated by the leftists so hateful, so somehow violent and definitely dangerous to their political existence. So they must be shut down. Now they have a valuable ally in Big Social Media.
Consider our upcoming federal election; no Fox North checking regressive progressives lurking everywhere in our mediocracy.
Not a comforting thought right now; soon to become a chilling one if voters don’t check these totalitarians.
*
i miss free speech
*
Dan Arrows is a sophist twat.
The comforting thing for me is that I can truly tell anyone who believes that its ok to punch nazis: “Someone, somewhere on the political spectrum considers YOU a nazi. Better keep your head down…”
the debate is getting into the realm of a triple negative, at which point I kinda lose track of the players’ positions.
ah well.
good news, clicked on the Pool link to sample his views.
that clarified things.
aint technology wunnerful !!!
gotta go, Im working out to set another personal record in the weight room.
I’m part neanderthal: prominent bony ridge upper outside of my eye sockets, high tolerance for cold temperatures, and immense
lower body strength.
oh lordy, if I told you how much I can do on the leg press I’d get the same response as the ’20 rounds from 60 feet’ thing.
suffice to say it’s 4 digits by ye olde fashion imperial weights.
ta !!! have ye goode folkes a wondrous weekend ’cause being a retiree, mine starts now !!!!
Everyone’s getting too darned uptight especially those on the Left that are retreating more and more into their safe space hideout. It used to be when people of different stripes sat together to chew the fat that once in awhile a good ‘ole fashioned catharsis took care of hate and anger before things really boiled over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC0V-qU3Wbk
“Free speech” is not forcing YouTube and other private organizations to broadcast your message. It simply means you can’t be coerced into silence.
In Dennis v. United States (I83 F.2d 20I, 2I3, 2d Cir. 1950), a plurality of Supreme Court Justices adopted Judge Learned Hand’s view that Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, did not have a First Amendment right to free speech if his goal in organizing protestors was to overthrow the Constitution and set up a government which would not allow free speech.
In agreement, Dwight Eisenhower stated in the TIME Magazine article, “Eisenhower on Communism,” October 13, 1952: “The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights. A group – like the Communist conspiracy – dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”
No surprise that few were enlightened enough in the ’50s to distinguish between speech and action. What an awful time.
A similar ruling in Canada would be consistent with our shared Common-Law heritage of Liberty, in other words the Charter cannot be used to protect those seeking to overthrow the Canadian Constitution and replace it with Sharia law and/or a Marxist tyranny.
Live by the Censorship, you die by the Censorship.