Common Arguments Against Free Speech (And How to Respond)

[The Whispering Monk]

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.'

you're absolutely right that there must be a recognized & real threat.

If I'm a Jew, and a group of military-age males say they should make October 7th happen again, well, I'm going to take them at their word. If I was armed, and my family was behind me, it'd be very likely that I'd make sure those men never get the chance to go anywhere and find weapons.

 

[LordsFire]

you're absolutely right that there must be a recognized & real threat.

If I'm a Jew, and a group of military-age males say they should make October 7th happen again, well, I'm going to take them at their word. If I was armed, and my family was behind me, it'd be very likely that I'd make sure those men never get the chance to go anywhere and find weapons.

The grim thing is, with how crazy a lot of these zealots are, the following is entirely feasible:

Zealot: "Global Intifada! Kill all the jews!"

You: "Are you actually serious about that, or are you just talking shit?"

Zealot: "Of course I'm serious, zionists are genocidal scum that need to die!"

You: "I'm Jewish, are you saying you want to kill me as soon as you have the opportunity?"

Zealout: "Yes!"

You: *shoots him.*



So many of these people are so far out of contact with reality, that they would literally say the things necessary to get a nigh-impregnable self-defense argument in court.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Superglue/stich people's mouths shut, and cripple their fingers if they disagree with free speech. We wouldn't want them saying or typing anything naughty, now would we?

 

[Cherico]

The grim thing is, with how crazy a lot of these zealots are, the following is entirely feasible:

Zealot: "Global Intifada! Kill all the jews!"

You: "Are you actually serious about that, or are you just talking shit?"

Zealot: "Of course I'm serious, zionists are genocidal scum that need to die!"

You: "I'm Jewish, are you saying you want to kill me as soon as you have the opportunity?"

Zealout: "Yes!"

You: *shoots him.*



So many of these people are so far out of contact with reality, that they would literally say the things necessary to get a nigh-impregnable self-defense argument in court.

Darwins chainsaw of natural selection never sleeps.

 

[ATP]

The grim thing is, with how crazy a lot of these zealots are, the following is entirely feasible:

Zealot: "Global Intifada! Kill all the jews!"

You: "Are you actually serious about that, or are you just talking shit?"

Zealot: "Of course I'm serious, zionists are genocidal scum that need to die!"

You: "I'm Jewish, are you saying you want to kill me as soon as you have the opportunity?"

Zealout: "Yes!"

You: *shoots him.*



So many of these people are so far out of contact with reality, that they would literally say the things necessary to get a nigh-impregnable self-defense argument in court.

True,but if they win,they would be court.And send all of us to happy green lgbt massgrave.
So...schoot,when you still can.

 

[ShieldWife]

There are obviously some fuzzy areas in freedom of speech, even for the most ardent free speech advocate. Almost every political position is going to involve violence, but advocating for a violent political position has to be protected speech. If an American says that we should expel all illegal immigrants, that means police are going to use violence to do that if the policy is enacted. If an American says that we should go to war with Russia, then that means advocating killing people. Of course, those ideas are protected by the First Amendment.

Is a call to genocide similarly protected? Yes, probably so unless the person making that call is threatening immediate violence against a person. It’s not the call for genocide that is the legal problem, but whether or not it is reasonable to think that this person is going to inflict violence against someone else.

 

[King Arts]

There are obviously some fuzzy areas in freedom of speech, even for the most ardent free speech advocate. Almost every political position is going to involve violence, but advocating for a violent political position has to be protected speech. If an American says that we should expel all illegal immigrants, that means police are going to use violence to do that if the policy is enacted. If an American says that we should go to war with Russia, then that means advocating killing people. Of course, those ideas are protected by the First Amendment.

Is a call to genocide similarly protected? Yes, probably so unless the person making that call is threatening immediate violence against a person. It’s not the call for genocide that is the legal problem, but whether or not it is reasonable to think that this person is going to inflict violence against someone else.

You know I never thought about it like that but yeah you have a point..

 

[S'task]

You know I never thought about it like that but yeah you have a point..

That's how First Amendment law works in the US, it's called "Imminent lawless action", and covers more than JUST violent acts (though violent acts are the VAST BULK of what it prohibits).

So, to use current events, the issue isn't people going "kill all the Jews" it's that they then have fairly consistently gone "kill all the Jews, and there's some RIGHT OVER THERE!" It turns a generic call into a specific threat, and that specific threat is what is illegal. Further, as you see more and more graffiti being put on buildings indicating "Jews live here" or that published map with "spread the infatada" of where Jewish people live in New York you're moving away from generic political speech into specific violent threats to individuals.

 

[ATP]

That's how First Amendment law works in the US, it's called "Imminent lawless action", and covers more than JUST violent acts (though violent acts are the VAST BULK of what it prohibits).

So, to use current events, the issue isn't people going "kill all the Jews" it's that they then have fairly consistently gone "kill all the Jews, and there's some RIGHT OVER THERE!" It turns a generic call into a specific threat, and that specific threat is what is illegal. Further, as you see more and more graffiti being put on buildings indicating "Jews live here" or that published map with "spread the infatada" of where Jewish people live in New York you're moving away from generic political speech into specific violent threats to individuals.

So,basically,in USA you could say "kill all X' and it is freedom of speech,but not "kill particular X,or X people live here" becouse it is crime?
did i undarstandt it right ?

 

[S'task]

So,basically,in USA you could say "kill all X' and it is freedom of speech,but not "kill particular X,or X people live here" becouse it is crime?
did i undarstandt it right ?

Not exactly, you can call for targeted specific violence so long as it's not likely to be acted on, or unable to be acted on, by the listeners. IE "String her up" in regards to Hilary Clinton is protected speech for 99% of the time people chant it, the only time it would cross the line into illegal is if, for instance, the crowd literally had Hillary Clinton under their control. The edge is better summed up with the question "Is this speech likely to spur others to do illegal things in the immediate future?" If the answer to that is "Yes" it's likely not protected. While if the answer is "No" it's protected. And that "immediate" is important, speech that may be calls for violence and the violence happens days or weeks later doesn't count under this, as well as calls to violence that obviously cannot be immediately or reasonably thought to be acted on (IE the aforementioned chanting of "string her up" in 99% of circumstances).

 

[49ersfootball]

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.

Not for the triggered WOKE!

 

[ATP]

Not exactly, you can call for targeted specific violence so long as it's not likely to be acted on, or unable to be acted on, by the listeners. IE "String her up" in regards to Hilary Clinton is protected speech for 99% of the time people chant it, the only time it would cross the line into illegal is if, for instance, the crowd literally had Hillary Clinton under their control. The edge is better summed up with the question "Is this speech likely to spur others to do illegal things in the immediate future?" If the answer to that is "Yes" it's likely not protected. While if the answer is "No" it's protected. And that "immediate" is important, speech that may be calls for violence and the violence happens days or weeks later doesn't count under this, as well as calls to violence that obviously cannot be immediately or reasonably thought to be acted on (IE the aforementioned chanting of "string her up" in 99% of circumstances).

Thanks !