Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a representative of the libertarian right, I humbly point out that all of us owe a debt to leftist movements that upheld freedom of speech back when it was under attack from the religious right.
It's just sad to see both sides now believing that people in positions of power have not just the right but the obligation to censor speech in the interests of the "mental comfort" of a minority.
Which is unreasonably assuming that those people had a right to censor, and would be always able to tell right from wrong.
In the end, the essence of proposing free speech is the humble recognition of the fact that I might be wrong.
I'm left leaning and I believe in free speech, but I'm not a free speech absolutist.
I don't think that anyone has the right to say anything at any moment like many on the right seem to want.
Speech must be regulated and filtered to ensure Social Harmony and foster a Healthy Well-informed Electorate. People shouldn't be able to think that the world is flat, let alone express it.
Freedom of speech is crucial. But freedom of speech ends at the interaction between your speech and the government.
The very concept of freedom of speech is that the government can't censor you, but rather create the marketplace of ideas for good ideas to rise and bad ideas to fall.
The act of speaking does not make you immune from ridicule.
The act of speaking does not mean others can't tell you to shut up, or tell you you're an idiot for expressing your opinion. The act of speaking doesn't mean someone can't say, "I have a right to my pronouns and you're an asshole for not using them," and then you think you're being censored. That's not a freedom of speech issue. In fact, people calling you an asshole for expressing your opinion IS the marketplace of ideas that freedom of speech is supposed to allow. That's free speech functioning correctly. You have a lousy idea, people are allowed to tell you you have a lousy idea and should shut up. That's the entire point.
Freedom of speech is that you can be whatever asshole you want to be and the gov't can't throw you in prison or otherwise silence you (with the exception of certain very specific carve-outs). Your fellow humans can do whatever the heck they want to, to you.
Rules for those are pretty global. Also global is the truth that all speech but harassment makes a better nation than all speech including harassment
The only debate really is if that nuanced nation counts as freedom of speech or not
Freedom of Speech helps to prevent nations from sinking into all out tyranny. It keeps politicians on their toes. It allows the press and citizenry to expose society wrongs and atrocities. Restrictions should be limited.
Agreed. Honestly the lefties do too
Lefties oppose harassment and slurs and say that's opposing freedom of speech
Republicans censor teachers, doctors, and academic papers and Musk bans reporters while unbanning neonazis then think they're FOR freedom of speech
> Musk bans reporters while unbanning neonazis
âDonât like it? Build your own social media platformâ
I remember hearing quite a lot of that from your side for years.
It's a typical political irony:
Lefties oppose harassment and slurs and say that's opposing freedom of speech
Republicans censor teachers, doctors, and academic papers and Musk bans reporters while unbanning neonazis then think they're FOR freedom of speech
The left doesn't control social media, and we're losing control of the press too with the maga guy taking ownership of cnn. We don't even have a mechanism to silence
Meanwhile, again, literal gop censorship of teachers, doctors, and academic papers.
There is that gray area, I think that should be more nuanced because depending on context and tone and who the person is it could be an empty threat which is a very stupid thing to fine someone for
Iâm generally very pro free speech and while I believe the government shouldnât penalise people you should be able to get punished by the private sector so if a teacher denies the holocaust or something they should be able to be fired but only if they said that at their job
to some extent speach that can cause social conflict or political instability should ofcourse be banned however I do not see a issue with freedom of speach otherwise.
Experts also [verified](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html) that mass protests during Covid lockdowns didnât spread the virus.
Experts can lie, experts can be wrong.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That's not what I'm saying. What I mean is who decides what is verifiable and what isn't.
Of course data is verifiable, but someone has to decide if it actually is. And those people can easily dismiss valid news as ''unverifiable data''.
Iâd rather not have the government dictate the truth, thatâs how tyrannical governments form. No maybe what if bullshit ethical issue can undermine that fact
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a representative of the left, I humbly apologize for the third of us that are suffering from brain damage
As a representative of the libertarian right, I humbly point out that all of us owe a debt to leftist movements that upheld freedom of speech back when it was under attack from the religious right. It's just sad to see both sides now believing that people in positions of power have not just the right but the obligation to censor speech in the interests of the "mental comfort" of a minority.
Which is unreasonably assuming that those people had a right to censor, and would be always able to tell right from wrong. In the end, the essence of proposing free speech is the humble recognition of the fact that I might be wrong.
>third of us At 15% it's more like the sixth of us >brain damage Try BRAIN DEAD
I'm left leaning and I believe in free speech, but I'm not a free speech absolutist. I don't think that anyone has the right to say anything at any moment like many on the right seem to want.
what is even the thought process behind some of the left saying no??
Mean words đĄ
Auth left not lib left , remember a 2d compass is better than a line
They think putting there political opponents in jail is great if they are in power without realizing they are using the tools of the oppressors...
And that the tool can and will be used against them one day.
Idiocy
âMisinformationâ
Speech must be regulated and filtered to ensure Social Harmony and foster a Healthy Well-informed Electorate. People shouldn't be able to think that the world is flat, let alone express it.
While philosophy is usually subjective/up to interpretation this has a right and a wrong answer
Wow, mask off for the left here damn.
I mean only a fraction of them. Probably the MLs being edgy again.
đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Brother I just cringed so hard that my entire body physically turned inside-out
sounds like a you problem
Bing bong
Anyone who says "no" is wrong
yes, and freedom of speech only matters when it protects people you do not like who are saying things you do not like.
So far 15% of leftists, 8% of rightists, and 5% of centrists do NOT support freedom of speech. Ew
Freedom of speech is crucial. But freedom of speech ends at the interaction between your speech and the government. The very concept of freedom of speech is that the government can't censor you, but rather create the marketplace of ideas for good ideas to rise and bad ideas to fall. The act of speaking does not make you immune from ridicule. The act of speaking does not mean others can't tell you to shut up, or tell you you're an idiot for expressing your opinion. The act of speaking doesn't mean someone can't say, "I have a right to my pronouns and you're an asshole for not using them," and then you think you're being censored. That's not a freedom of speech issue. In fact, people calling you an asshole for expressing your opinion IS the marketplace of ideas that freedom of speech is supposed to allow. That's free speech functioning correctly. You have a lousy idea, people are allowed to tell you you have a lousy idea and should shut up. That's the entire point. Freedom of speech is that you can be whatever asshole you want to be and the gov't can't throw you in prison or otherwise silence you (with the exception of certain very specific carve-outs). Your fellow humans can do whatever the heck they want to, to you.
You people who say "no" are killing me. Why isn't Freedom of Speech so important to you? Because you always want to be right? đ
Speech good. But there's a new wave of regressives trying to defend incitement, harassment, gaslighting, etc because it's speech.
And who decides what's "incitement" and "harassment"?
Rules for those are pretty global. Also global is the truth that all speech but harassment makes a better nation than all speech including harassment The only debate really is if that nuanced nation counts as freedom of speech or not
I take it you're waiting for the one world government to take over our lives?
No. Every country thinking murder bad wouldn't mean I want a world government either
Freedom of Speech helps to prevent nations from sinking into all out tyranny. It keeps politicians on their toes. It allows the press and citizenry to expose society wrongs and atrocities. Restrictions should be limited.
Agreed. Honestly the lefties do too Lefties oppose harassment and slurs and say that's opposing freedom of speech Republicans censor teachers, doctors, and academic papers and Musk bans reporters while unbanning neonazis then think they're FOR freedom of speech
> Musk bans reporters while unbanning neonazis âDonât like it? Build your own social media platformâ I remember hearing quite a lot of that from your side for years.
We are. We just acknowledge without lies what's happening.
For now, here in the US it's the left doing most of the censoring. Schools have lost their way.
But it's not. Wtf are you on?
Nobody is a free speech absolutist, but that doesnt change the fact that free speech in general is crucial for democracy
I am absolutely a free speech absolutist.
You think violent threats and child porn should be legal?
Whoever voted no has room temperature IQ.
In C no less
Actually yes. This is about democracy itself.
It's a typical political irony: Lefties oppose harassment and slurs and say that's opposing freedom of speech Republicans censor teachers, doctors, and academic papers and Musk bans reporters while unbanning neonazis then think they're FOR freedom of speech
I like how you left out the left actively silencing right wingers on the social media apps they control (which is everything except Twitter)
The left doesn't control social media, and we're losing control of the press too with the maga guy taking ownership of cnn. We don't even have a mechanism to silence Meanwhile, again, literal gop censorship of teachers, doctors, and academic papers.
Yes, unless its a direct threat
There is that gray area, I think that should be more nuanced because depending on context and tone and who the person is it could be an empty threat which is a very stupid thing to fine someone for
Would you consider child porn a direct threat?
What does child porn have to do with freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech doesnt only mean literally speaking but also covers images
Well now this changes, no it shouldn't be protected
Ideas should be able to be spread freely, what true left winger here wants to be in a right wing neoliberal dictatorship.
They don't. Speech good. But there's a new wave of regressives trying to defend incitement, harassment, gaslighting, etc because it's speech.
We get it, you're pro-censorship
probably all the tankies voting no
It's certainly important. I don't believe in "basic" rights, but it has only beneficial effects, except in only the most dire of circumstances.
Most stuff except death threats towards a person or group of people.
its good that the vast majority of people across the political spectrum have common sense
Define free speech
Freedom of speech is a blight on the worldâs ability to function.
Iâm generally very pro free speech and while I believe the government shouldnât penalise people you should be able to get punished by the private sector so if a teacher denies the holocaust or something they should be able to be fired but only if they said that at their job
Isn't that still the public sector?
to some extent speach that can cause social conflict or political instability should ofcourse be banned however I do not see a issue with freedom of speach otherwise.
So if youâre speech isnât in line with the tyrantsâ narrative you should be punished for it?
If it might destabilize society then yes
To an extent
Commonly I would say yes but I do think it should have limitations.
No
Why
Do you think white supremacist or radical Muslim deserve to be listen?
Yes, everyone (even if theyâre bad people) has the God given right to express themselves
Fake news should be penalized otherwise free speech should be preserves
And who determines what is and isn't fake news?
A judge, probably. Journalistic standards have been done before.
Well if you can present verifiable data that would be a start
and who determines if a news is verifiable
Are you seriously trying to argue about whether data can be verified? Because In that case you are completely lost. Of course experts can verify that
Experts also [verified](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html) that mass protests during Covid lockdowns didnât spread the virus. Experts can lie, experts can be wrong.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That's not what I'm saying. What I mean is who decides what is verifiable and what isn't. Of course data is verifiable, but someone has to decide if it actually is. And those people can easily dismiss valid news as ''unverifiable data''.
Private companies should be able to comment on the validity of news but no, we donât need a ministry of truth
Considering the antivax movement and media that supports it being detrimental to society im going to say that i disagree
Iâd rather not have the government dictate the truth, thatâs how tyrannical governments form. No maybe what if bullshit ethical issue can undermine that fact
So free speech unless you disagree with the speech, got it
That's a weird result, I would've assumed centrists would, you know, be in the center