How do we preserve free speech without getting subverted? as far as i can tell,...

Daniel Morgan
Daniel Morgan

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 (711.33 KB, 1043x1397)

Grayson Wood
Grayson Wood

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

Hunter Garcia
Hunter Garcia

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?

Wyatt Peterson
Wyatt Peterson

Education.

Attached: pilpul.png (66.67 KB, 1220x619)
Attached: legal-to-kill-kiklets.jpg (47.94 KB, 539x723)

Brayden White
Brayden White

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

Gavin Nelson
Gavin Nelson

Since when is Talmudic law sacred?

Noah Bailey
Noah Bailey

The satanic bible is sacred to satanists.

Andrew Wright
Andrew Wright

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

Kevin Price
Kevin Price

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?

Chase Gomez
Chase Gomez

how do we preserve free speech
Kill yourself. We don't support that here.
i'm not trying to say that free speech is bad, mind you.
Because you're retarded.
i mean really, that's how the subversion was able to occurr in the first place, wasn't it?
Yes.
we couldn't stop subversion
We could, yeah.
because it would be unconstitutional to prevent it.
"MUH PIECE OF PAPER SAY THING SO NO DO THING"

Justin Rogers
Justin Rogers

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

Ayden Brooks
Ayden Brooks

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.

Matthew Nguyen
Matthew Nguyen

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.

Andrew Sanders
Andrew Sanders

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"

Leo Young
Leo Young

And yet there is still censorship.

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

Jace Powell
Jace Powell

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.

Jaxson Bennett
Jaxson Bennett

(((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.

Kayden Flores
Kayden Flores

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.

Kevin Cox
Kevin Cox

reddit spacing

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

Christian Rogers
Christian Rogers

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

Brandon Brown
Brandon Brown

how do we preserve free speech without getting subverted?
Nationalism.
Birthright.
Bloodlines.
Racial purity.

Samuel Lewis
Samuel Lewis

Faggot meme

Ryder Reyes
Ryder Reyes

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

Gavin Green
Gavin Green

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.

Liam Turner
Liam Turner

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.

Luke Bennett
Luke Bennett

Winston thought for a moment, then pulled the speakwrite towards him and began dictating in Big Sister's familiar style: a style at once sassy and pedantic, and, because of a trick of asking questions and then promptly answering them ('What lessons do we learn from this fact, comrades? The lesson–which is also one of the fundamental principles of Socjus–that,' etc., etc.), easy to imitate.
At the age of three, Comrade Ogilvy had refused all toys except a Liberace album, a Freddy Mercury poster, and a tube of "Questioning tots glitter lipstick." At six–a year early, by a special relaxation of the rules–he had begun receiving hormone treatments and changed his prounouns. At nine, xe had been a anthetero troop leader.
At eleven, xe had denounced xis uncle to the Thought Police
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.
At nineteen, xe had designed a dildo which had been adopted by the Ministry of Pleasure and which, at its first trial, had
caused thirty-one Doubleplus-Uncolored HeteroWhyte pysrsons of oppression to orgasm to gay porn.
At twenty-three, xe had perished in action. Pursued by enemy Klan outlaws while flying over the pacific northwest un-progressified region with important despatches, xe had weighted xis body with xis machine gun and leapt out of the helicopter into deep water, despatches and all–an end, said Big Sisteer, which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of envy.
Big Sister added a few remarks on the purity
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.
Xe had no subjects of conversation except the principles of Socjus, and no aim in life except the defeat of the WhyteHeteroCisMale and the hunting-down of spies, saboteurs, thought-criminals, and traitors generally.
Once again, Winston glanced at his rival in the opposite cubicle. Something seemed to tell him with certainty that Tillotson was busy on the same job as himself. There was no way of knowing whose job would finally be adopted, but he felt a profound conviction that it would be his own. Comrade Ogilvy, unimagined an hour ago, was now a fact. It struck him as curious that you could create dead men but not living ones. Comrade Ogilvy, who had never existed in the present, now existed in the past, and when once the act of forgery was forgotten, xe would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar.

Wyatt Roberts
Wyatt Roberts

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.

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 (2.76 MB, 1441x7283)

James Hall
James Hall

i mean really, that's how the subversion was able to occurr in the first place, wasn't it?

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

Robert King
Robert King

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.

Aiden Moore
Aiden Moore

Aborting the goyim is just fine, just fine

Andrew Wright
Andrew Wright

I laughed
thanks OP

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

Camden Flores
Camden Flores

how do we preserve free speech without getting subverted?
kill the ones subverting it

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

Thomas James
Thomas James

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.

Cameron Sanchez
Cameron Sanchez

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?

Wyatt Bailey
Wyatt Bailey

formatting is not reddit spacing you dumb nigger

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

Elijah Morris
Elijah Morris

posts some faggot tier meme from god knows where
trying some kind of faggot reverse psychology to get the goys to support restrictions on freedom of speech

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

Caleb Richardson
Caleb Richardson

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.

Adam Powell
Adam Powell

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

Luis Allen
Luis Allen

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.

Jeremiah Bell
Jeremiah Bell

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

Parker Jackson
Parker Jackson

if you don't let me win when I throw a tantrum you're a big meanie and I'm telling mommy!
Prove that putting your family before genetic strangers is morally or ethically incorrect.

Gabriel Johnson
Gabriel Johnson

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.

Elijah Davis
Elijah Davis

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.

Brody Anderson
Brody Anderson

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:
Ethnic nationalism is good, but paganism bad, everything is fake, nothing is real, your all just incel losers, stay and fight alone, don't meetup or you're abandoning your group (even though I ran to Italy with my daddy's jewbucks), worship the kike on a stick do nothing, wait for god, evolution bad, you can't tell what white is because evolution bad, culture is what makes white, not genetics, no this doesn't make cis nat, you're gamma/incel/(insertbadgoyinsulthere), of israel should exist!
Stop listening to this manlet.

Jackson Taylor
Jackson Taylor

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

Asher Ortiz
Asher Ortiz

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.

Jaxson Stewart
Jaxson Stewart

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 (224.37 KB, 1024x768)

Evan Hill
Evan Hill

Go back to kikechan, nigger.

Justin Nguyen
Justin Nguyen

op here, who tf is vox

Aiden Gonzalez
Aiden Gonzalez

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.

Ian Cook
Ian Cook

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.

Matthew Edwards
Matthew Edwards

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.

Jayden Reed
Jayden Reed

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

Kayden Anderson
Kayden Anderson

how do we preserve free speech without getting subverted?
You can't, some degree of totalitarianism is required.
Education.
You can't educate everyone.

Owen Carter
Owen Carter

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

Cameron Price
Cameron Price

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.

Michael Cox
Michael Cox

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.

Evan Reyes
Evan Reyes

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

Isaac Lewis
Isaac Lewis

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 (6.8 MB, 3000x2000)

Nicholas Lewis
Nicholas Lewis

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?

Nathan Green
Nathan Green

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?

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez

the "influence question", as i think it should be dubbed,
is the issue that will define whatever happens after the 2nd american civil war.
inb4 larp
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.

Brandon Sanders
Brandon Sanders

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

Adrian James
Adrian James

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.

Connor Diaz
Connor Diaz

blackpill me on why free speech is flawed
pedos

Luke Nelson
Luke Nelson

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.

Hunter Morales
Hunter Morales

still pretending race is merely the color of your skin

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.

Asher Garcia
Asher Garcia

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

Samuel Long
Samuel Long

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.

Dominic Hall
Dominic Hall

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.

Jace Flores
Jace Flores

meant for

Carson Hill
Carson Hill

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 (323.9 KB, 751x1534)

Nathan Nelson
Nathan Nelson

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.

Angel Thompson
Angel Thompson

How do you declare, from a principled position that this man must be silenced?
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.
but they could plan in private and implement in public
Subversive elements would receive a death sentence as soon as legislation or policy is introduced which is in contradiction to the concrete document.

Cameron Myers
Cameron Myers

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.

Josiah Scott
Josiah Scott

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

Elijah Evans
Elijah Evans

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.

David Watson
David Watson

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.

Kayden Gray
Kayden Gray

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

Lucas Young
Lucas Young

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.

Jeremiah Phillips
Jeremiah Phillips

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.

Aiden Allen
Aiden Allen

Naiveté summed up in one post

Adam Roberts
Adam Roberts

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.

Aaron Clark
Aaron Clark

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.

Dylan Ramirez
Dylan Ramirez

your
Whose?
by people from many backgrounds
Whom?
whatever they are told
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 /leftypol/index.html

Luke Perry
Luke Perry

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.

Leo Jenkins
Leo Jenkins

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

Adam Murphy
Adam Murphy

Thank you.

Owen Brown
Owen Brown

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

Isaiah Cruz
Isaiah Cruz

I'm the user who posted the roman art

Henry Ramirez
Henry Ramirez

Lot of defanged wolves ITT. Thread theme.

Christian Bailey
Christian Bailey

The only free speech that should be tolerated is investigation into the true nature of natural law. Anything that deviated beyond the pursuit of absolute natsoc truth, gets censored. Free speech is for utopianists.

Elijah Hughes
Elijah Hughes

There would be no nudie mag in the dads takcle box because the Dad knows that degenerates get the rope. But by that point the threat of death wouldn't be what is stopping him from being a degenerates, it's because he understands in depth Jewish mind control because schooling has taught him well. Get your mind out of the reactionary loop user.

Laws don't work in this day and age because we have a culture machine telling you do bad shit and laws that don't punish.

Landon Richardson
Landon Richardson

Free speech is good until they damage the citizen.

This is the golden rule.

Wyatt Reyes
Wyatt Reyes

Sound a lot like the National Socialist position on markets, they are good until they violate the Volk. Funny that.

Connor Cook
Connor Cook

Yes, certain concepts are good until they are harmful.

The trick is moderation.

Christian Rogers
Christian Rogers

I agree, the central ideal is Volk/Nation/Race and there you start to see what is meant by true socialism. Everything must be referenced against this standard and from there you can seperate the chaff from the wheat. This must be constantly reinforced in the people's minds through education and propaganda, Hitler said it first so you know it's da truth.

John Howard
John Howard

Go away, schlomo!

Jeremiah King
Jeremiah King

But how do you decide who is evil?
Remember that people that dress nicely and peacefully protest are EVIL, HATEFUL BIGOTS that must be destroyed and a bunch of mad max rejects and degenerates who violently attack everything they don't like are good.

If you cannot tell, then you cannot persecute. Simple as that.

Henry Perry
Henry Perry

I don't think he is wrong. Free speech is not used as a pursuit of the finest ideas because if it was we would have National Socialism, instead we have Globo Homo…

Free speech seems to be just a tool of the Jew and what we have now is the result of unfettered free speech.

Anthony Nelson
Anthony Nelson

That is only because Globohomo holds power and they don't care about free speech or the people.

Or are you forgetting that Hitler came to power trough free speech and that we are here thanks to free speech?

Luke Walker
Luke Walker

You sound more like a Jew than him to be honest…
If Hitler came to power because of free speech then it really doesn't sound like a good idea for reigiems that want to retain power. Especially the old order that allowed free speech and protected it as its enemies used it to subvert it into what we have today.

Daniel Roberts
Daniel Roberts

Globohomo don't care about free speech.
We are only here thanks to free speech.

If they didn't care about free speech we wouldn't be here… exactly.
They could crack down on National Socialists and no one would care, if they were smart they would censor all dissidents. The only true dissidents are Islamists and NatSocs, unfortunately/fortunately we are higher IQ and less religious so we don't shitpost irl.
As I said earlier, the only speech that should be tolerated is that which is eugenic for the volk… anything else deserves to be censored.
Just like the problem with democracy, good/truthful ideas aren't always popular.

Grayson Foster
Grayson Foster

none of those involved created the porn, they are victims of it and should be treated as such.
paid mandatory re-education for all involved, scandanavian style.
people might think it's dumb, but remember that this is basically what auschwitz really was.
those who actually made the porn won't be so lucky, however.
only save those who can be saved, the rest get the block. public.

Charles Jenkins
Charles Jenkins

But how do you decide who is evil?
Evil people are pretty easy to distinguish.

They preach discord, chaos and distrust among the people.

Tyler Thompson
Tyler Thompson

the only true dissidents are Islamists and NatSocs,
Shut the fuck up roach.

The only arabs I like are arab nationalists, your islamics kinds are massacred by them, see ISIS.

Noah Cruz
Noah Cruz

Free speech has to be preserved as long as you are not in power. If the white man comes to power then the white man can afford to get rid of free speech in order to preserve the white power structure. While whites are not in power we have to be defenders of free speech, because free speech can be used to subvert the jewish power structure.

Zachary Jones
Zachary Jones

subversion happens anyway, so enable free speech

Benjamin Jenkins
Benjamin Jenkins

If any of you fags remember Beaverposter, he suggested replacing free speech with three rights that cover what free speech aims to defend:
The right to criticize
The right to question
The right to hate
Also, subversion has a much older history than free speech and banning free speech certainly won't stop it. At best, banning free speech with the intent of preventing subversion will hinder your side's ability to improve itself through self-criticism and questioning itself while your enemies will evolve leaps and bounds beyond you in secret. It's setting yourself up for stagnation.
but my government is perfect and needs no improvement
There is no perfect government or policy because people are imperfect and different from each other, often significantly different depending on the culture and race. At best, you'll come up with something that works well for your people now and only needs small tweaks as their culture evolves over the centuries. At worst, you'll assume you're right when you actually aren't and doom your own side to the aforementioned stagnation.

Attached: Beaver-on-Free-Speech.png (517.13 KB, 1887x849)

Levi White
Levi White

ctrl+f "beaver"

I was not disappointed. And you summed it up nicely to boot.

David Brown
David Brown

that is a good point, subversion can happen with or without free speech.
beyond an ethnostate and only letting men vote, what else can we do to prevent subversion?
i've been thinking about merit-based direct democracy,
wherein the voter must prove that they are knowledgeable enough to have a say in whatever laws are written for a particular subject.
say you want to vote on what is done about fracking.
you need to understand the process itself in great detail,
how it impacts the environment, the benefits or drawbacks of natural gas,
or any other aspect that i don't know about because i'm not qualified to make a decision on fracking.
perhaps we could do a similar thing with speech.
you can say whatever you want as long as you know what you're talking about.
someone can file a complaint that you don't know what you're talking about because xyz and an investigation could be opened into the subject.
if they find that you are a dumbass spewing shit, you go to court.