Free Speech in North Korea

[davedan]

Look I hate to tell you this UP but Conty has already said that you should get off the internet given you can't fix your own computer. So um, you know ...door's that way.

[Dakota Bob]

"I identify as an attack helicopter" I don't really give a shit about the rest of this discussion but that was a pretty fucking funny response.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I kinda get where Conty's going with this.  He's saying that the whole "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is often used as an excuse to attack people merely for stating their opinions.

For example:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw</a>

And here's some reactions to the incident:

https://archive.is/Sb55b

I'm sorry, but "attacked"?

If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.

Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.

Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.

Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public

But his argument is seriously flawed.  Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor."  And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.

Exactly none of those people were making the argument that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" rather their argument was "Lauren is a poopy head, fuck her" which does not pertain to free speech at all.

Which by itself is a shitty thing but it aint got nothing to do with no free speech arguments.

[Even Then]

Mate, there's a shitton of difference between "the consequence of being disagreed with and having people use their own freedom of speech to tell you that you're being a prick" and "the consequence of being sent into a goddamn gulag by the government". Of course /you/ would support this inane dribble, UP. Fuck you and fuck that Thatcher fucker.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I kinda get where Conty's going with this.  He's saying that the whole "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is often used as an excuse to attack people merely for stating their opinions.

For example:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw</a>

And here's some reactions to the incident:

https://archive.is/Sb55b

I'm sorry, but "attacked"?

If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.

Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.

Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.

Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public

But his argument is seriously flawed.  Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor."  And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.

Exactly none of those people were making the argument that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" rather their argument was "Lauren is a poopy head, fuck her" which does not pertain to free speech at all.

Which by itself is a shitty thing but it aint got nothing to do with no free speech arguments.

Read those quotes again, especially the second one.  They're saying attacking her was justified because she expressed her opinions.

Mate, there's a shitton of difference between "the consequence of being disagreed with and having people use their own freedom of speech to tell you that you're being a prick" and "the consequence of being sent into a goddamn gulag by the government". Of course /you/ would support this inane dribble, UP. Fuck you and fuck that Thatcher fucker.

1.  No argument from me.

2.  There's also a world of difference between people insulting you and people assaulting you.  This is the latter.

[davedan]

Ewww I agree with UP again. I feel dirty. Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech  amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.

[Even Then]

I agree with davedan because fucked if I give any consideration to that apologist for antisemitism and other things.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

https://archive.is/Sb55b

I'm sorry, but "attacked"?

If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.

Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.

Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.

Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public

But his argument is seriously flawed.  Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor."  And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.

Exactly none of those people were making the argument that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" rather their argument was "Lauren is a poopy head, fuck her" which does not pertain to free speech at all.

Which by itself is a shitty thing but it aint got nothing to do with no free speech arguments.

Read those quotes again, especially the second one.  They're saying attacking her was justified because she expressed her opinions.

I read the quotes, they aren't arguing that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences", they aren't arguing for freedom of speech at all. If anything they're arguing against freedom of speech specifically with regards to Lauren Southern.

Again that's a shitty thing and not an opinion that I hold, but if you're presuming those people were arguing for freedom of speech to begin with then it isn't there in their quotes.

If one of those internet insta-pundits had said "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, let's all pee on Lauren Southern for what she said. Secretly I hate myself. Bwahahahaha." or some other variation that includes the specific phrase "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" you'd be right.

[pyro]

Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech  amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.

More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.

[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]

[TheContrarian]

Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech  amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.

More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.

[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]

What about inciting violence?  I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech  amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.

More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.

[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]

What about inciting violence?  I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.

So-ypu'd be in favor of legal action against Donald Trump because he incited violence against leftists and Democrats then?

[TheContrarian]

Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech  amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.

More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.

[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]

What about inciting violence?  I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.

So-ypu'd be in favor of legal action against Donald Trump because he incited violence against leftists and Democrats then?

You mean that mob that attacked one of his recent rallies?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Nah Conty, I was being rather more specific. Should the The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office have charged Trump for inciting a riot for encouraging his hairbrained fanbase to brain counterprotesters? Yes I know they relented but I want to know what you think given your enthusiasm to see those inciting violence brought to account.

[pyro]

What about inciting violence?  I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.

Yes. Exactly.