Common Arguments Against Free Speech (And How to Respond)

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Count Dankula is a rather avid advocate for Freedom of Speech, after all, he knows firsthand how it feels to get punished by the government for his words, yeah? And this video here is him tackling ten common arguments against Free Speech. Be warned, Dank is a memelord, and is quite edgy when he wants to be.



To list off each argument:

1. "You are defending racists, therefore you are a racist." This is standard poisoning the well, so to speak. Dank's response is: "Support is Not Agreement."

2. "Criticism is Not Anti-Free-Speech" It speaks for itself, really. Though Dank mentions it it often the case that those who complain loudly against criticism are often those who are trying to make the Free Speech advocate out to be a hypocrite.

3. "You Just Want Freedom from Consequences." No one is unaware that actions, including speech, have consequences. It should go without saying. What the advocate rallies against is the absurd punishments that extend beyond what's reasonable, such as doxxing, cancelling, legal and financial repercussions.

4. "The But." "I'm in favor of Free Speech, but..." Then are you really?

5. "Mr. Fascist, save me from the Fascists." Imagine hating Trump and the GOP with a passion, thinking them literal fascists, while wanting a law limiting speech to pass their collective desks. Dank can't understand it, and I imagine he's not alone.

6. "Oh Irony" More of an aside, but Dank raises the point that suppressing speech is quite Fascistic, and that turning towards the government to protect you, when it's the government that will harm you if it becomes fascist is quite silly.

7. "Victim 180." Authoritarians getting hit by the same Hate Speech rules and whining about it, only to turn around when they get help, having not learned the lesson.

8. "You May Remain Offended." It speaks for itself. There is no right to not be offended. Full stop.

9. "The Empty Room Fallacy." The fallacy is "Well just because you can't use any platforms or stay things in public, you can say it in an empty room, therefore, you still have free speech." Which is absurd. The purpose of speech is to communicate with other people. Without access to other people, you're not speaking freely.

10. "Private Companies Can Do What They Want." While it's true in a vacuum, it's accompanied by a lot of hypocrisy. It's easy to side with a company when they are on your side. And easy to ignore this argument when a company stops following the authoritarian's views.

There's more to the video, including some extended thought on Freedom of Speech, but what I want to ask is, are there any other arguments against Freedom of Speech that you see often? And how would you take those arguments apart?

 

[Cherico]

The whole anti racism excuse for being anti free speech pisses me off.

There were anti free speech laws on the books that banned hate speech against jews in the Weimar republic it didn't do us a fucking bit of good. Closing down storm front also didn't help minorities a bit because instead of one easily monitored place where the hardcore racists hung out that could be easily monitored by the FBI and quickly shut down potential violence you now have a bunch of lone wolves we cant monitor it made my people and our places of worship less safe.

In fact I want racists who hate me to speak that means I know who to avoid, the whole argument made my people less safe assholes.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@Cherico
I’ve said it before, people’s memories are short term and very selective

Also, history is taught sort or broadly at best and made to indoctrinate people at worst

Doubt they even know of any of those anti-Hate Speech laws or the early National Socialist party being arrested by the previous government

As for taking down sites like Stormfront and prohibiting people from speaking their “hate speech”

I think there’s a logic in that if they can be heard, they can increase their numbers and that if they speak, they can hurt people just by expressing their malevolence and hostility

This talk of hurt can be justified with talk about people committing suicide due to bullying & harassment and inflating the rates of incidence without even having to give sources or proper numbers

 

[Cherico]

@Cherico
I’ve said it before, people’s memories are short term and very selective

Also, history is taught sort or broadly at best and made to indoctrinate people at worst

Doubt they even know of any of those anti-Hate Speech laws or the early National Socialist party being arrested by the previous government

As for taking down sites like Stormfront and prohibiting people from speaking their “hate speech”

I think there’s a logic in that if they can be heard, they can increase their numbers and that if they speak, they can hurt people just by expressing their malevolence and hostility

This talk of hurt can be justified with talk about people committing suicide due to bullying & harassment and inflating the rates of incidence without even having to give sources or proper numbers

No matter what you do in life you will be hurt by others, no mater what rules are in place no matter what your status or power it will happen. It is also true that no matter what you do you will hurt others, even if your intentions are good. People fucking up is the default setting for humanity. There will never be a perfect age or a utopia with out bullying and harassment. There will always be poverity, people will commit sucide and bad things will happen.

People have to learn to accept that the world has always been kind of shit and will always be kind of shit. And if you start out with some utopian bullshit that will never happen and try to innact it you will probally make things worse.

Absolutely no one deserves or can be trusted to determine what is or isnt 'hate speech' that kind of power is by its nature inherently abusable. You give that kind of power to people and it will be abused and if you think it wont be used on you your an idiot.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

No matter what you do in life you will be hurt by others, no mater what rules are in place no matter what your status or power it will happen. It is also true that no matter what you do you will hurt others, even if your intentions are good. People fucking up is the default setting for humanity. There will never be a perfect age or a utopia with out bullying and harassment. There will always be poverity, people will commit sucide and bad things will happen.

People have to learn to accept that the world has always been kind of shit and will always be kind of shit. And if you start out with some utopian bullshit that will never happen and try to innact it you will probally make things worse.

Absolutely no one deserves or can be trusted to determine what is or isnt 'hate speech' that kind of power is by its nature inherently abusable. You give that kind of power to people and it will be abused and if you think it wont be used on you your an idiot.

What you just said goes against the insane brand of "idealism" they love

It's also backed up by their sheer "cynicism" towards the idea of people being even able to survive or live through this stuff

Also, by people, I think that they think the majority of people can't do their own thinking and surviving and voluntary helping of one another. They can't be trusted because they're both stupid and incapable.

As such, the Philosopher Kings are needed to take over and dictate people's lives for their own good

 

[Cherico]

What you just said goes against the insane brand of "idealism" they love

It's also backed up by their sheer "cynicism" towards the idea of people being even able to survive or live through this stuff

You have to live in the world that exists even if it sucks, and humanity has been through worse.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

You have to live in the world that exists even if it sucks, and humanity has been through worse.

No, it can be better.....through the methods that involve giving up liberty in exchange for......a security that isn't what they promise, only requiring to exchange more of said liberty for said so-called security that doesn't even result in that Utopian Dictatorship

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

What you just said goes against the insane brand of "idealism" they love

It's also backed up by their sheer "cynicism" towards the idea of people being even able to survive or live through this stuff

Also, by people, I think that they think the majority of people can't do their own thinking and surviving and voluntary helping of one another. They can't be trusted because they're both stupid and incapable.

As such, the Philosopher Kings are needed to take over and dictate people's lives for their own good

I think when you get down to it, there's a level of blame that the Censorship crowd lobs at, not just the Free Speech crowd, but at people like Mister Metokur who lob insults and edgy humor as a matter of course.

Which ignores human agency. And the need for people to become well-adjusted, to develop thinker skin.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I think when you get down to it, there's a level of blame that the Censorship crowd lobs at, not just the Free Speech crowd, but at people like Mister Metokur who lob insults and edgy humor as a matter of course.

Which ignores human agency. And the need for people to become well-adjusted, to develop thinker skin.

Human Agency?

You know I have heard before that there’s a difference between Regular Justice and Social Justice

Regular Justice will look at your crime and arrest you for it

Social Justice will go on about how/why you committed said crime, usually backgrounds, or say that people are only assholes because of their environment, circumstances and MAYBE their culture and as such shouldn’t be held accountable for their own actions

Because people aren’t individuals, they’re guys who can easily be indoctrinated into anything and they’re representatives of groups. So arrest a minority, you are therefore victimizing the rest.

 

[Doomsought]

1. "You are defending racists, therefore you are a racist." This is standard poisoning the well, so to speak. Dank's response is: "Support is Not Agreement."

I prefer coming at this one from the standpoint that tolerance is not a first order virtue, but a result of taking the principle of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and applying it to petty insults and rudeness. If someone calls you a nigger or a cracker, calling him an asshole is not only true but the just and proportional response to his wrong doing. Any action beyond that is excessive.

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

(And How to Respond)

Helicopter rides.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Helicopter rides.

 

[IndyFront]

As posted in the other thread, recent polling of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza shows wide support for Hamas and the October 7th Terrorist Attacks, as well as erasing Israel from existence though support for all of these measures is higher in the West Bank then Gaza atm.

I'm going to trigger a looot of people with what I'm about to say, but as a free-speech absolutist I believe people should have the right to express views no matter how repugnant. I say the same thing when far-right-wingers say stupid things like "Jews are the devil" or "Brown people suck and all think the same" or "Africa is a shithole country!". Yes, their views are stupid and in some cases repugnant, but censoring them is not the solution (much less bombing the shit out of them)

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm going to trigger a looot of people with what I'm about to say, but as a free-speech absolutist I believe people should have the right to express views no matter how repugnant. I say the same thing when far-right-wingers say stupid things like "Jews are the devil" or "Brown people suck and all think the same" or "Africa is a shithole country!". Yes, their views are stupid and in some cases repugnant, but censoring them is not the solution (much less bombing the shit out of them)

There's also a HUGE difference between saying you support a group's right to exist and saying that you support that group's right to exterminate, attack, rape, torture and mutilate their opponents.

 

[IndyFront]

There's also a HUGE difference between saying you support a group's right to exist and saying that you support that group's right to exterminate, attack, rape, torture and mutilate their opponents.

Of course! Imv, you can talk about attacking, raping and torturing all you want so long as you're not acting upon those thoughts. And despite how vehemently I disagree with it, I can honestly understand why a lot of Palestinians want to destroy the State of Israel.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Of course! Imv, you can talk about attacking, raping and torturing all you want so long as you're not acting upon those thoughts. And despite how vehemently I disagree with it, I can honestly understand why a lot of Palestinians want to destroy the State of Israel.

No, you can't. If you threaten an action that would result in bodily harm and/or death, the target of your accusations is justified in pre-emptive retaliation. It's a thing with governments and with individuals.

 

[IndyFront]

No, you can't. If you threaten an action that would result in bodily harm and/or death, the target of your accusations is justified in pre-emptive retaliation. It's a thing with governments and with individuals.

Careful, you risk legitimizing the attacks of October 7th with this kind of train of thought. 75 years of occupation and controlling their resources would mean the State of Israel is causing bodily harm and/or death on a widespread scale.

I recently discovered,that Natanjahu compared palestinians to Amalek.
Here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjfrpXUpNCCAxWQRPEDHeMFCwA4KBAWegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianpost.com%2Fnews%2Fnetanyahu-compares-hamas-to-amalek-rival-of-the-israelites.html&usg=AOvVaw06JPO2MwCM6hTE5mIAUmXv&opi=89978449

Considering that Amalek was people who was supposed to be genocided by King Saul,it mean,that at least in rhetoric Jzrael do not differ from Hamas - both pledge Holy war and killing all infidels.

Anoter proof,that it is not our war,and we should not intervene there.

Good thing most Israelis don't support his extremist fundamentalist regime. Jewish extremism is just as incorrect as Islamic extremism. People who let religion do their thinking for them are not very intelligent.

 

[King Arts]

What I find funny is how many on the “right” were free speech absolutists yet on a dime they turned against that if it’s criticism of Israel.

 

[LordsFire]

No, you can't. If you threaten an action that would result in bodily harm and/or death, the target of your accusations is justified in pre-emptive retaliation. It's a thing with governments and with individuals.

The key to all this is 'credible threat'

Trash talking while playing X-box live is not a credible threat.

A bunch of old men sitting in rockers on their porch talking tough is not a credible threat. If they have guns in their hands, that changes.

This is directed more at Indyfront than you, but:

If a man says 'Kill all the X' passionately, that has free speech protection, though I'd hope law enforcement would be noting that person is someone to look out for.

If that same man says 'Kill all the X,' while right in front of an X person, and has a gun in his hands?

Yeah, that's gone from 'free speech' to 'credible threat.'

 

[ShieldWife]

What I find funny is how many on the “right” were free speech absolutists yet on a dime they turned against that if it’s criticism of Israel.

Yeah, that is completely disgusting and really goes to show what hypocrites many people on the right are. Obviously, not everybody on the right wants such censorship/canceling, but the ones who do are no better than their mirror images on the left.