How do we preserve free speech without getting subverted?

how do we preserve free speech without getting subverted?
as far as i can tell, you can't have one without the other.
i'm not trying to say that free speech is bad, mind you.
i mean really, that's how the subversion was able to occurr in the first place, wasn't it?
we couldn't stop subversion because it would be unconstitutional to prevent it.

Attached: 1558135193941.png (1043x1397, 711.33K)

We don't need (((free speech))) because we know what's right already.

blackpill me on why free speech is flawed

the whole point is that nobody can limit the truth, so how do you prevent that without free speech?

Education.

Attached: legal to kill kiklets.jpg (1220x619 47.94 KB, 66.67K)

yeah jews are manipulative, that IS the question, not the answer. and what does abortion have to do with it?

Since when is Talmudic law sacred?

The satanic bible is sacred to satanists.

Here's the real answer: Free speech is good so long as it serves the furthering of our interests. If there was a day when white nationalism got into power, I'm sure no one would say "B-BUT THINK OF THE FREE SPEECH" when the commies and degenerates are protesting on the streets and trying to overthrow you. The politically-active leftist is a destabilizing force and public menace who needs thrown in a camp or killed. There are limits, and allowing Jews to print lies, advocate for race-mixing, homosexuality and treason should not be protected by "free speech". There's a reason Hitler rounded up the commies and degenerates and threw them in labor camps

obscenity was at one time not considered speech, yet here we are. even if we don't consider subversive things speech initially, how do we prevent that from changing in the future?

Kill yourself. We don't support that here.
Because you're retarded.
Yes.
We could, yeah.
"MUH PIECE OF PAPER SAY THING SO NO DO THING"

SAGE Faggotry Retard Down Syndrome SAGE Global Reported. The ONLY Absolute Preservation is Freedom of Speech

I've found that on some topics, a 4chan thread will appear to be further to the right than a thread here. For example, 4chan threads are heavily against woman's political rights. Because a large number of people are posting on 4chan, the few paid Jews or organized leftists will be outnumbered by Anons to call them out. On 8ch, because the post rate is comparatively very low, shills make large numbers of emphatic pilpul posts, and they take up a lot more thread space. So my answer: there is strength in numbers.

A based and red pilled board owner could theoretically make something better, but to be frank any sufficiently smart, stable person doesn't have time in their life to manage a large image board.

There is nothing wrong with free speech, if people are able to hear both sides of an argument they can make up their own mind. That creates a healthy balanced society in which everyone is allowed to participate despite disagreeing with each other. The reason we are living in an extreme, intolerant era is because the student protestors from the civil rights era educated the new professorship in a biased way.

That's just your opinion, the site itself is based on free speech. Read the red disclaimer in the top right of the main page. It literally says the words "in the interest of free speech"

And yet there is still censorship.

Also, Zig Forums is its own entity, not a national policy.

Lol, I’m accumulating an archive of what the slavebots running this site try to censor. 8ch authentically can’t survive in an environment of free speech.

(((free speech))) gives cart blanche for jews to infiltrate your society. Jews always try to subvert your country through the media. Right now, free speech probably works in our favor, since the jews are in control, but once we gain power, it has to be culled to eliminate subversion. (((free speech))) is and (((enlightenment))) meme that went against the aristocracy and clergy who were holding their nations in check against the jewish menace.

Without censorship this place would literally trend left. Besides my own contributions, I’ve watched other posters get squelched for unacceptable freethinking. Narcissistic bigots can’t survive in environments of free speech because their ideas suck.

This guy understands more, but remains a corrupted psycho pigment slave projecting degeneracy onto people with superior integrity.

Ducks can claim to be geese, but they’re still quackers.

You’re right, but this place is allergic to free speech.

Attached: zergface-30986097.png (500x522, 163.79K)

You can freethink all you want, but Marxist propaganda is likely to last better on leftypol than here.

Nationalism.
Birthright.
Bloodlines.
Racial purity.

Faggot meme

we kinda had that, but then free speech gave women the vote, remember? subversion of speech can wipe anything away.

That sounds cool when you envision yourself in total control but if you think about it for more than two seconds, you start to see why that might not work out so well.
For one thing, if you found yourself anywhere other than supreme leader, you would chafe under the arbitrary speech codes of the supreme leader. Yes you.
And that's assuming that you even get halfway what you want and get the perfect fascist utopia you imagine in your head.
More likely the leadership will leave a lot to be desired. You would realize this if you started thiking about the human factor rather than the ideal, 100% perfect on the first try factor.
And that's just you.
Society at large would find all sorts of reasons to oppose such a regime. The mere fact that something is illegal will make it cool.

This. Very well said.

The only things/speech that should be allowed are things that are of good to our people in terms of eugenics. Anything that can be harmful to a eugenic society shall be banned. Anybody that does not accept this shall be exiled.

Let them live in nigger society if they wish to be a nigger.

after overhearing a conversation which appeared to have anti-Socjus tendencies. At seventeen, xe had been a district organizer of the Junior Anti-Hetero League.
caused thirty-one Doubleplus-Uncolored HeteroWhyte pysrsons of oppression to orgasm to gay porn.
and single-mindedness of Comrade Ogilvy's life. Xe was a daily cannibis user, had no recreations except a daily hour in the nongendered mastibatorium, and had taken a vow of weekly ogy-attendence, believing marriage and the care of a family to be incompatible with a twenty-four-hour-a-day devotion to progressive justice.

Muh rebels! Get out of here man. If this was true then we’d have a million times more Nazi’s. The reality is people are just lemming conformists. As long as we give them a society to thrive in like the natsoc’s did we would be having any rebels. Any true rebels to our society will be exiled or made an example of. Just as the Jews in our Jew controlled society do to goyim that rebel against them.

Attached: 107B7149-D534-422E-832B-44F16EF5785F.jpeg (1441x7283, 2.76M)

no. uncontrolled immigration and women voting is what caused this.
sage kike threads.

women gained the vote because free speech allowed suffrage to be advocated for.
all bad changes were at one point campaigns that needed free speech to gain support.

Aborting the goyim is just fine, just fine

I laughed
thanks OP

Attached: 1551624875954.png (423x460, 38.22K)

kill the ones subverting it

free speech doesnt mean let others come to your country and destroy it

Hapas are superior to whites. The only way to ensure that this board gets back to a reasonable state is to remove all the current cumskin mods and replace them with hapa mods. Unfortunately, the site owner is a stupid cumskin who doesn't believe in such racism.

subverters could just as easily come from within as without,
specially now that we live in the international age.
if you kill subverters, you must decide who is and who is not a subverter.
how do you do this without violating free speech rights?
how do you do this without it going too far, or not far enough?

free speech is the safeguarded ability to influence.
how do you decide who can or cannot influence?
or in what ways they are able to influence?
who decides how influence is limited?
how do you prevent them from overreaching?
how do you prevent them from subverting?

formatting is not reddit spacing you dumb nigger

Attached: reddit spacing.png (866x475, 53.08K)

You kikes are never going to succeed in constraining the 1st amendment. Or the 2nd.

National Socialism only existed peacefully for 7 years. So the claim that they never would have experienced pushback from a public that wanted more free speech is baseless. It happened in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere. If all you need to do to keep the public on your side is give them cheap food and houses, China wouldn't be having such problems as they have.
And I'm a Piercite myself. Pierce never meant to say that the masses are 100% lemmings. He always used that description to speak in general terms.
Finally, foul as the kikes are (I noticed you are still of the habit of capitalizing jews so I assume you're new here) they're not yet executing people outright for committing thought crimes.
It's funny how you think that shooting or "exiling" people for thought crime will make the rest of society conform to your perfect standards (and BTW, you STILL would hate such a society were you not in charge), because the fact that the jews persecute people for committing thought crime is one of the major reasons why most anons become dissatisfied with the Regime and come here. Most of us are here because we saw the hypocrisy of the System and sought alternative explanations for how the world works.

How about advocate free speech up until we take complete power, then silence our opposition?

Things like "Atheism" or "Free speech" or "Science" or "Ideas" are for PHILOSOPHERS and SCIENTISTS.

Not the common rabble. People like YOU are not equipped to deal with ideas, nor should you be trying to get your half-baked ideas noticed. You should be WORKING and having a FAMILY.

You are workers, and you are meant to have a stable family.

The woman obeys. The man gives obvious orders like, "We will need food made, and the house clean for the children."

The woman simply does that and does not obey. The state protects the husband if he needs to use force to get her to obey, for the sake of their children.

They both go to church on sunday to hear Saint Tarrant or his disciples speak simple morals and simple values. Nothing complicated or difficult.

The philosopher reads books. The scientists reads books. They develop ideas. They write the ideas. Other philosophers and scientists read those ideas. The common folk never need to know about ideas.

Ideas are dangerous, as we have seen. Women abandon the family, and men in their eternal loneliness become gay. And everyone turns leftist and society goes insane.

Thus we must quarantine ideas to philosophers and scientists, and keep the simple people living a simple life without ideas and knowledge getting in the way of their family life and work.

Considering the state of the world, and all that has happened, nothing could be more obvious than this. Everyone just wants a sane family. Everyone just wants to make the bad ideas go away. We don't want to be told "It's ok to be gay," as we face our 23rd year completely alone, and pondering, "No woman will ever love me. There just aren't enough women, for one. But there are plenty of men…"

That's not a thought we should have, yet we have it. Enough men have had that idea that it's become a reality, and now cute transgender girls have become better housewives than actual females.

The only solution is to quarantine all ideas, and keep the common people working, and with families.

Quit gatekeeping fucking faggot, even Koko the Gorilla hated kikes.

Prove that putting your family before genetic strangers is morally or ethically incorrect.

Your point is more of one against immigration than against free speech.
If all immigration is prohibited, and free speech is only for citizens (men) and not visitors or women, you would achieve the same result without the fracturing that hairsplitting speech would cause.

There might not be anything to do.

Subversion is one of the possible consequences that comes with free speech.
With the good comes the bad and it becomes a question about for the different communities about what sacrifices they are willing to make to have certain benefits.

Stop. Listening. To. Vox.
He is just another level of controlled opposition that sits beneath the Richard Spencer types.
Really, listen to his spiel and think about it for a moment:
Stop listening to this manlet.

Because everyone recognizes Rafaella Gunz as the premiere authority on Jewish law. LMFAO

Then kikes will frame they best and brightest of your society, braindrain you until eugenics is pointless, and use the people they stole from you to subvert other nations.
There is no restrictions you can place that will stop jews other than a restriction to their neurons delivered by ballistic force.

Free speech is a meaningless value. The idea that free speech is important to the pursuit of the truth comes from the presupposition that pursuing truth is desired on a societal level, which is obviously false. Most people have no interest in truth. Therefore, free speech is nothing but a tool of (((liars and manipulators))). If you want an example of why free speech is a failure, look no further than the American society.

Attached: Media.jpg (1024x768, 224.37K)

Go back to kikechan, nigger.

op here, who tf is vox

nobody has been able to refute any of these arguments.
it seems as though you can't have free speech without subversion,
but all known alternatives have proven themselves to be overreaching.

how do we solve the influence question? to little, and the right people won't get a say.
too much, and the right people get drowned out.

Free speech (not just the US 1st amendment, but the concept itself) cannot last in perpetuity. It suffers from the same issues as the paradox of tolerance. Free speech is a form of absolute inclusion. In other words, no one can be excluded from the conversation. That's the theory. This only works for as long as everyone agrees that is a moral good that should be upheld. It's like the lolbergs' NAP. But like all humanist moral constructs, it breaks down as soon as people come along and say "No, we do not tolerate this form of expression and we want it banned." This was triggered in the West by the importation of Islam. They have strong conviction against anything that detracts from the Quran and do not care at all about these white ideas of human rights. That's all it takes to bring this fragile idea to its knees. As soon as the inclusion absolutists that defend free speech say "Well, we must exclude those who wish to exclude others (Muslims, Natsocs, Communists, or whatever)." their absolutist stance breaks down then and there. They are intolerant of the intolerant and are therefore no longer universally tolerant. Then it just becomes a matter of collective willpower to decide who it is that actually ends up being excluded. Those that never cede what they consider to be the moral high ground of free speech will hold that stance right up to the point they are lined up along a wall and shot and their morality dies with them. Since Muslims give no fucks and are strong in their resolve to undermine Western concepts, the weak willed whites immediately capitulated and agreed that Mohammed cannot be mocked, for example. Some capitulated out of fear, some out of misguided altruism. However, it was inevitable that this would happen. Free speech is the idea that everything must be tolerated, even evil. Evil people must be allowed to spread their evil. Fools think that evil can be made unappealing to the masses by engaging the evil in dialogue. But evil will always creep in unless stomped out violently.

Bascially, free speech cannot last forever except in a white ethno-state, or even arguably a white ethno-globe, and even then it might not be tenable.

how do you prevent government overreach when it comes to restrictions on speech?
how do you prevent those restrictions from changing in s bad way in the future?
as far as i can tell, the difficulty of regulating speech is caused by how murky it is.
how do you define at which point speech goes from acceptable to unacceptable?
when is it genuine and when is it subversive?
when are undertones accidental or imagined, and when are they intentional?
it's such a murky area, idk how you could restrict it without catching many innocent in the crossfire,
or accidentally letting (((them))) get away.

Good point. You deserve a reply, I'll give it when I have the chance.

You can't, some degree of totalitarianism is required.

You can't educate everyone.

is this a leftypol thread pushing a anti-free speech sentiment in a attempted organic nature?

Well, that's the rub, isn't it. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of free speech and it works well to undermine true tyranny and facilitate new ideas and social growth and progress (I assume you understand that I don't mean modern "progressivism"). It was a depressing realization that free speech wasn't sustainable. The truth is I don't know the answer to your questions. The Lutheran Christcuck in me says it's impossible to prevent despotism as man is fallen and even a white entho-globe would not be perfect, as humanity can never reach a state of perfection. It's clear that an axiomatic definition of good an evil is required to make those sort of distinctions. Personally, I don't think Pagans can offer that. Tyranny can and will take new forms and crop up from time to time.

Thankfully, I think people of a European extraction are predisposed to a desire for freedom when excluding external demoralization. Not sure if this is genetic or cultural, but it definitely exists. I genuinely believe that if the Third Reich grew to be overtly tyrannical toward the Volk then it would have been overthrown or reformed. Unfortunately, we do not have this historical case study. However, there are many stories of Germans that fled Germany because they disagreed with the NSDAP and did face state enforced harassment. This is the story of my father's side of the family. My mother's side immigrated to the US from Germany before WW1 for economic reasons. Then there are stories of German Americans that went to the Fatherland to fight for the Reich. So it's complicated. I don't know, brother. Power corrupts.

I would tend to say that anything that defies natural law- "Abort your children, sodomize each other, have sex with children, animals, or corpses, cross-dress and race-mix, women should be treated as men and should working/fighting/leading instead of being mothers" should be considered subversive and duly suppressed, but I don't know how you draw lines in the interest of pragmatism.

Women had no birthright to the rights described in the bill of rights. All MEN does not mean all MEN AND WOMEN.
Niggers are also not MEN, but animals.
Of course this falls apart because jews were classified as men.

If citizenship is tightly controlled and it's made clear the duty of citizens is to violently protect the rules, freedom of speech can work.

Free speech is a meme. It literally doesn't matter if you're free to kill jews and talk about killing jews.

Attached: 3e3365554a557583797ff7cfc0d955733ab581868507e619bfa12f72fd6d81d0.png (3000x2000, 6.8M)

I want to agree with you and am mostly on board with what you are saying. But what do you do if a white man, citizen and free man, reads the Talmud or some gobblygook from the fFrankfurt School and decides to promote… let's say miscegenation or women's suffrage. How do you declare, from a principled position that this man must be silenced?

that's what i mean. we know what's good and what's bad, but when pen meets paper,
how do we actually describe it so that only the guilty are punished, and so that the guilty ARE punished?

the "influence question", as i think it should be dubbed,
is the issue that will define whatever happens after the 2nd american civil war.
i think we can all see which way the wind is blowing,
nationalism is increasingly popular with citizens everywhere,
while the gov is increasingly globalist everywhere.
im not saying whether we'll win or lose, but something is gonna happen.

the decision of what is or is not acceptable to be advocated for,
as well as who may advocate at all, are the biggest challenges facing an empire,
in my summation.

Yet it's the left that needs hugboxes. Try harder kike.

Well, fuck dude. We can't even do that with our current "justice" system when it comes to murder or rape. We can't read minds and determine who is innocent and who is guilty. I may actually deviate from many here in that I don't want to see even innocent niggers go to prison for crimes they didn't commit as it is unjust and I think it feeds into their hate of the "white man" instead of (((who))) actually runs things at the moment.

We must write laws that are vague enough to be interpreted so that the guilty are punished, but not so specific that traitors can escape justice on technicality. This the timeless struggle we must contend with. Will we ever find the perfect balance? I don't think so, but as far as I am concerned we are not even close, so lets congeal into something that is even capable of making those choices first before we start bickering on the hypothetical cases that may or may not materialize in the future.

pedos

i'm not talking about false convictions,
i'm talking about stuff like hate speech laws.
yeah, i say nigger, so what?
i don't deserve to go to prison for it.

how do we make sure that our speech regulations don't criminalize things that are acceptable? that's the issue.

Superior intellect doesn't run away when presented with evidence, only to appear in another thread and pretend you didn't see anything. Jews do.

By havig a smart populace.
Current education system makes people dumb.

Hmmm. Of course hate speech laws are dumb and no one should be punished for group discrimination, which is a natural fuction of human cognition. As far as pornography, we could first of all highly regulate the industry. Only allow women of birthing age to do solo videos. No men involved so as to reduce the cuckoldry caused by the cerebral pleasure center reroutings caused by watching other men fuck women. Of course no gay shit. Really no men at all. If not totally shutter the industry. The issue is debatable. As far as general entertainment media, I think it would be as simple as providing gov grants to projects that are societally beneficial and formulating a culture that rejects the subversive themes I mentioned above. It's ultimately subjective unless you are appealing to a higher truth and morality on good and evil, as I said. Maybe you disagree with what I have said but I think that most white people have intrinsic desire to consume compelling moral stories rather than subversive ones.

As for the random white guy that says "Fuck white people we all deserve to die!" I don't know maybe let him do his thing. It's the well financed subtle subversion that is the issue at the moment. Let's deal with that first.

no porn of any kind should be allowed at all.
you can't let these people get their foot in the door, it really is a slippery slope.
remember "safe, legal and rare"? remember "medical use only"?
remember "as long as it's behind closed doors"?
if you allow one form of degeneracy, there's no reason why you shouldn't allow other forms.
the frog jumps from one pot and into another.

as for genuine fringe weirdos vs well funded ops, are they not dealt with in the same fashion?
their rhetoric is the same, and if we somehow get rid of those well funded ops without taking out the stragglers,
they will simply fund the fringe guys covertly.

i can appreciate where you're coming from with the "cross that bridge when we get to it" mentality,
but if these issues aren't immediately dealt with, there will be a counter-revolution.
not to mention the fact that it's really all the same bidge.
subversion is like a crack in a dam, even the smallest one can spiderweb into a catastrophe.
we need to get it right the first time, because there likely won't be another opportunity for a very long time afterwards.

meant for

I absolutely understand your stance. But it gets back to your fundamental question of what is degeneracy and what is genuine art? Pragmatism should also be considered. I know its not a philosophically ethical argument but a black pronz market WILL surface. Did you not have kids passing around Penthouse cutouts in your elementary school, because I did. This is already happening in the UK on a macro scale since their porn restrictions. Its not a ethical argument I'm making here but a pragmatic one. Men want to see tits. Some men cannot see IRL tits. We will have to contend with what is porn and what is not. Even Justice Scalia said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." That seems pretty arbitrary and subjective to me. I base my "cross that bridge when we come to it" mentality on the fact that if we remove the monied support for what we know is subversive then those fringe weirdos will be so rare they will be naturally suppressed by the existing social structure to where the gov would not even need to be involved.

Attached: afcc52e8dab913105da4a5446587211a4500c9f677aa1bfddd782a806316c162.jpg (751x1534, 323.9K)

Freedom of speech is the absolute test of whether an ideology is bullshit or not. If it can't survive open criticism then it's made up of lies.

And that is where the bill of rights and constitution fail.
You would need a separate set of simple rules by which all other law and rights are derived, and which cannot be changed or reinterpreted.
Groups of people who break these rules would be considered enemies of the nation, whose life would be forfeit as long as their executor could provide evidence showing a pattern of subversion.
The founders lacked the foresight necessary to implement these ideas, and the fact that the bill of rights came after the constitution is evidence of that.

Most, and by that I mean 99%, of modern laws would be cause enough to execute nearly every politician, nigger, jew, rich fuck, and possibly half the population if the Declaration of Independence was used as that foundational document.
Of course no private information could be used to prove the case if this were to be implemented. Private information being on a person, or in a person's property.
Subversive elements would receive a death sentence as soon as legislation or policy is introduced which is in contradiction to the concrete document.

You'd really have to be an idiot to throw away freedoms and a constitution that has sheltered people's rights for hundreds of years. Do you know how many people fled from Europe specifically in order to live in a free society. You are no better than the retarded left-wing and it wouldn't surprise me if you're actually controlled opposition trying to attack right-wing ideals.
Valuing freedom of speech is important because it means you can openly confront the bullshit lies that people tell. Whenever people attack freedom of speech it always fails to stand up to scrutiny. Freedom of speech is the only freedom that absolutely matters. Without it all the others are meaningless.

Don't think the power of many lies can't kill something great.

If you have freedom of speech you can always say the truth. That's why it's important. Not to mention we're in the era of the internet now. It's much harder to suppress information. Why do you think they worked so hard to destroy wikileaks? The kikes fear freedom of speech more than anything.

Not the guy you're responding to but see my comment

I would disagree with you in that the right to defend yourself with deadly force is more fundamental and important than the freedom of expression. But even that, it's not words on a sheet of paper that protect the police from showing up at your door and taking your weapons. Its your weapons that prevent that. Nothing else.

zero reading comprehension
Based niggers amirite?
Baizd wymyn amirite?
Aryan Dacapedes!

It's the mass media that is the problem they are the ones using freedom of speech to subvert and manipulate the people. The best solution is to break up the companies and make sure they are headed impartially by people from many backgrounds with different political ideals but whom agree in not politicizing news or with a regulator tasked with hunting and fining media companies for bias.

bans on objects like drugs or guns don't fail because a market always exists,
they fail because when we punish people, we try to be fair.
we should not be fair. we are trying to prevent crime here,
the punishment should be so horrible that nobody would ever consider doing it.

drugdealers die. pornographers die. subverters die. traitors die.
these are just a few, but you get the idea. we needpreventative punishment, not fair punishment.
these people do not deserve fairness, the fact that they refuse fairness to others is reason enough.

...

If you aren't able to speak then you can't gather support for your rights. Additionally not everyone is going to agree with what you have to say, it's impossible to completely destroy freedom of speech in an era with the internet. Everything they are doing online right now, all the censorship is backfiring hard and opening people's eyes to the bias and leftist extremism destroying people's lives.

The naive ones are the leftists who think they can censor free speech in this era. People will always rebel against whatever they are told is wrong and not allowed. It's human nature.

Whose?

Whom?

By whom?

You dance around the problem while attacking the character of anons.
You speak of diversity yet fail to understand that not even the founders who espoused the benefits of freedom of expression only thought those rights should be limited to free white men of good moral standing and their heirs.
You think that a laissez-faire approach will continue to work despite the fact that this attitude is what is destroying that very same right.
And you have zero reading comprehension.
Take your feel good lolbertarian bullshit back to >>>Zig Forums

So execution for the 13 year old who found an nudie mag in his dad's fishing tackle and handed it around to his friends? C'mon man, you know that real life is not that simple. I don't want to pull you off your self righteous train here, but let's be real. This is why I wanted to focus on conglomerates like MindGeek and the like. It doesn't make sense to direct your disgust and anger at horny teenagers and silly people.

If not everyone has freedom of speech then freedom of speech is not a right that exists.

Thank you.

Changed VPNs for connection reasons just so no one thinks I'm samefagging or IP hopping or some shit

I'm the user who posted the roman art