There is Never a Good Time or Reason to Eliminate Free Speech

Jim Watkins, owner of Zig Forums (parent site to The Goldwater) recently released a statement about the terrorist activity that occurred this month in Christchurch, New Zealand. Contrary to popular belief, the people who make up Zig Forums and The Goldwater do not cheer on terrorism. We are not virulent racists. We do not seek violent and bloody civil war. Sadly, that does seem to be the aim of the Christchurch shooter and unfortunately, most of the mainstream media seems to be doing exactly as he predicted in his manifesto. He aimed to create chaos.

Attached: b62a6fb17a5513e422d361547e5da1ec2bc86466d894e544c90d8068a9e71d98.jpg (992x636, 82.01K)

I have to agree with SCOTUS on this one, there are a number of very good reasons to restrict some speech.

Attached: 1519938865306.jpg (960x636, 209.89K)

Yup, I'd agree with that too. I don't think there is justification for anyone to need an RPG or a tank or a heavy artillery piece

The people who wrote the Constitution felt differently. Just because the document has been subverted and deliberately misinterpreted by brazen traitors, the words are very, very clear. So clear an idiot could understand them. How then, can those elected to support and defend those words be so much more stupid than an idiot?

Attached: 1441427061727.jpg (3012x1728, 1.06M)

Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I should have said. Spaced that bit.

It is time the constitution be amended to address 21st century realities

The 21st century reality is that regardless of the law, people will be able to access and purchase firearms. If the law prevents those people from buying firearms legally, they will do so illegally. This means that gun ownership will be unregulated and unregulatable. Only criminals will have guns, and law-abiding folk will be mostly defenceless. Is that what you want?

As long as the military or police can't have them either, then fine outlaw them.

These anti gun pinko commie faggot Kikes aren't that stupid, they are just hoping goyim reading this are.

They know that without secure borders, something they are vehemently against, guns will flow like water into the hands of criminals, while law abiding citizens will be left completely defenseless.

This is what they want. They are evil, manipulative liars, and the only relationship with guns they are going to get is it's business end.

Aside from imminent threats, and "FIRE" in a crowded venue: n ame them with the respective case and quote of the majority opinion that says as much.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a call to action, and not considered speech. Speech is being able to join and actively promote the Nazi party at work, home, or anywhere else. Also known as being a free person with free will.

Top kek–enjoy your dead board.

I can't fault that statement overall




not quite 100% solid, but if you support free speech you would support people's right to question whether this event is more than it appears to be

True, but in this case, I can find no legitimate reason to believe in the false-flag narrative. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and lays eggs like a duck, it's a duck. Unless it's a platypus, but Tarrant is not that platypus. He killed a shitload of people to accelerate the process of political revolution. He was completely honest and very detailed about his motivations.

then you simply aren't trying very hard

Legitimate reason. I specifically said "legitimate". There are plenty of illegitimate reasons to push a bullshit narrative.

He brought that up. This guy looks like a white supremacist.

No, and you are a fucking coward

t. Putin

Free Speech is a mechanism of disrupting the existing orthodoxy. Once the progressives achieve their cultural druthers, you will see them end their support of Free Speech. It was only useful to eliminate Christian values. Free Speech is inherently subversive, and really, nobody supports Free Speech in an absolute fashion, i.e. its always possible to provide a scenario where any person would agree Free Speech should be curtailed.

This is your brain on Zig Forums.

Attached: 6d09296f4d889f5b7f1de983db6142009c110bec12960bd18bf1f7660f4c1aa8.gif (347x200, 838.26K)

Read a history book, pleb.

Free speech allows for the development of fascism therefore it should be restricted.

How can one man be so cucked? Get off the internet Devon you're clearly too Chad for this place

There’s a difference between free speech and calling foreign people shitskins and saying the kikes did 9/11 and that the NZ shooting never happened.

This is what you get when you invite a bunch of racist homophobic assholes to say whatever’s on their minds. There are very good reasons to limit speech and many of them can be seen firsthand right here on this site.

this is a shill admitting he doesn't want to go to prison for lying

What? So you're just gonna hold hands and sing Kumbaya and hope the rapefugees will go back to where they came from?

This bears repeating over and over for those of you who will never get it


See : The French Revolution. The Russian, Chinese and Cuban Revolutions. The America Revolution etc. Even the goddmamn Indian Revolution. Did you honestly think the Brits packed up and left after one embarrassing salt march? No, this was accompanied by decades of mutinies and rebellions till they had enough

What if I'm an amerimutt where mass shootings happen every day?

Provide the scenario where speech alone, not inciting violence, should clearly be legally restricted.

None of those reasons are good, white.

The SCotUS judge who authored the majority decision that mentions shouting fire in a crowded theater has gone on record saying that he thinks the decision was a mistake.

Consider suicide.

t. shlomo goldbergstein
there is never a good reason to ban people for calling out degenerate satanic pedophiles like you
we remeber how Mao and Lenin got to power and what they did after that
first they started by policing speech, using gullible students as their storm troopers, then they began the greatest genosides mankind has ever seen abd devastated the the lands they occupied for generations to come
china will likelly never recover from Mao's scars
and it all started by some big nosed faggot using "good manners" as an excuse to ban words becos some snowflake got offended by it
gas yourself filthy degenerate

Attached: to the oven.jpg (800x584, 99.62K)

No I’m here for the porn, and when I get bored I come to the political freak out threads for entertainment.

Hate speech is not the same thing as free speech.

Hey go for it if it’ll shut you up.




And more kikery

Popular to contrary belief, most of us just want to see every kike get gassed, so that all the cultures of the world can live in peace…seperatr from eachother.

Fuck transhumanism
Fuck multiculturalism
Fuck "isms", "ists", and "phobics"
Take your kike labels and shove them up your kike-bot asses. Humanity will always exile the inhuman kike menace.

And I don't even care about Nazis! Hating shylocks is clearly a natural human response!

Attached: 64f8147a725454430c9a0df668c2a2b5f3ffb68f320423dcfb53143907ce91d6.jpg (203x248, 10.21K)

>goyim no! The rapefugees are the REAL problem! Not the (((people))) bringing them in!
fuck off, kike. Once we get rid of you we can play damage control. YOU'RE the real problem.

Attached: 7c494e8815a809662ff1c4b4d0a34dde17c5e04e2726740cb121e197a1110c1b.jpeg (1000x921, 206.48K)

You just proved my point by providing a malleable boundary around Free Speech. Who decides what constitutes incitement? Keep in mind that 54% of Canadians polled say that alt right groups are the greatest national security.

Attached: Annotation 2019-04-07 163435.jpg (646x487, 52.86K)

There's nothing wrong with yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater if it actually IS on fire. The people trying to suppress that speech want you to burn alive.

Please describe what hate speech is to you then? I fear people don`t realise that "hate speech" is being used as an excuse to censor folks that are not doing anything wrong, except not agreeing with the censor.
So it is important that "hate speech2 is described in detail. Your statement has no merit otherwise.


Dunno what Zig Forums is but it sounds good, would love some freedom of speech.

Terrorism is the future. Terrorism is the physical embodiment of free speech.

I am talking about what the law says hate speech is, and what the average reader thinks it is.

I am not a fan of hate speech laws myself. I think Megyn Kelly probably did see a lot of white people in blackface growing up, and it probably was considered okay at the time. That’s no reason for her to lose her job. I think Ilhan Omar should be free to objectively state facts about where money is coming from without risking her political reputation.

But this guy is fucking nuts. “Contrary to popular belief we don’t cheer on terrorism”? What? Obviously he was not here reading the threads when the shooting happened because that’s exactly what was going on, it’s still going on, and that’s probably why people are now scrutinizing this site’s freedoms. The whole site has an anti-Semitic tone to it. It’s a super supportive environment for anyone who hates non-whites. There’s a thread in here about moving to the Pacific NW and locating fellow white supremacists. Maybe Jim W doesn’t think that is the case, but that is what your random asshole off the street sees within seconds when they come here and look around. Our constitutional rights don’t include taking away someone else’s constitutional rights.

And pointing a finger at YouTube is just ridiculous. That whole pedo thing has been going on for years, it’s been in the news before, and it’s led to hundreds of thousands of account bans and a site wide policy barring comments to kids’ videos. They HAVE taken action. And this problem was due to a vanishingly tiny fraction of users. It would be like if one person on this site said something mean about Jews and it took several threads to ban him. But that isn’t what happens here. And anyway, problems on YouTube don’t make problems on 8ch go away or lose their significance.

“What’s next?” is also just silly. Nile Red is a YT user whose videos can be used to learn how to make meth, explosives, poisons, whatever you want. But he isn’t advocating doing those things or giving you step by step instructions. He’s had videos taken down before but he’s worked with YT and kept his account in good standing. Nobody is coming after him. And he’s like 18 years old.

This community is supportive of hate speech and xenophobia, and it’s hypocritical to claim that it’s being persecuted.

If anything, that should be cause for people to support MORE freedom of speech, not less.

Is not a hivemind, no matter how many retards on Zig Forums dive as far into groupthink as the rest of Web 2.0 does. People have the right to talk about how much they despise niggers, to talk about how the place in which they live would be better off without a rapidly-expanding influx of foreigners. Others are free to disagree, and debate happens freely. "Hate speech" deserves to be protected the same as any other speech. In fact, it deserves those protections MORE.

Attached: unironically based nigger.jpg (640x397, 78.15K)

I agree with you that discussing things like that should not be a crime. That’s how we understand things and grow as a species.

But the problem with that is that there’s a bunch of asshats out there who can’t read something like “all gays should be exterminated,” (a current thread) and not take action. Half the people on the planet are fucking idiots. They should not have unsupervised access to information for the same reason that children shouldn’t be left alone with matches.

For a bunch of idiots who have somehow managed to find their way online, just the words “gays should be exterminated” are all it takes to cause a crime to be committed. It shouldn’t be like that but it is.

And when this NZ shooter showed up as a sort of living internet meme, looking just like a clueless six year old showing off all the things he learned from anonymous message boards, people want to know why shit like that is encouraged.

I like free speech but I don’t think the admins of this site are taking a sustainable approach to protecting it. Just plugging their ears and screaming about rights and the constitution will not be enough. You can scream about your rights the whole time the cops are beating you and wrestling you into the car but if you were driving around with a dead hooker and six pounds of blow you can’t be surprised at the way they’re treating you.

Attached: image.jpeg (700x602, 142.8K)


Please explain this reasoning to me. I am really asking.

Person 1: I support the troops and border protection and all lives matter and everything else the military or hired guns do to protect my country. Fuck all these libtars that want to restrict or support those causes less.

Same Person 1: I will kill any cop or military person who comes to my house and tries to enforce any law I don't like. They want to take your guns away so they can come to your house and take your freedoms. So I need my guns to kill cops or military because they WILL be coming to my home sooner or later.

So Government entities are good like border patrol or cops or military? But we must also have guns to protect us from those people who will one day come to infringe on our rights?

Isn't this the same as that old saying about: When they came for "Whoever" I didn't say anything. Then they came for "Whoever" and I did nothing. Then there was no one to say anything when they came for me?

That saying is about extreme conservatism and the danger of segregating people into groups. So what am I missing? How is this whole thought process not a giant contradiction?

I am really asking. I know there will be plenty of antisemitic and homophobic comments, but can anyone explain this to me without insults?

Freedom of speech is easily confused with speech without consequence. You can say whatever you want. And others can judge the shit out of you for what you say. That is freedom of speech.

I think the key is a sincere belief that what is happening in the western world (regarding immigration) is a crisis of comparable magnitude to the rise of the nazi party as a world power, or the events leading up to the Bosnian genocide.

If you can look at world events and imagine a future where anyone with pale skin who won’t publicly convert to Islam is exterminated, this probably does seem terrifying.

I mean.. with the obvious exception that these people also believe the Jews were the bad guys and the nazis were trying to help.

get fucked kikenigger.

No, you fucking retard, it takes much more than that. The person needs to CHOOSE to exterminate gays. The person needs to choose to seek out arms to exterminate said gays. The responsibility lays with the person who makes the choice to exterminate gays because he read the words "gays need to be exterminated", and NOT on the person who posted said words.

Tarrant did what he did because he wanted to accelerate the process of full-blown violent revolution and race war. He didn't do it because he saw some words on a computer screen. The absence of words on a computer screen would not have lessened his disgust with the elitist-supported invasion of European countries by Muslims, nor would it have lessened his rage at the injustice evident in the lack of punishment given to said invaders who commit crimes in the country that graciously and foolishly allowed them in.

No. You deserve to be insulted for your deliberate conflation of two entirely-seperate philosophies. You stupid goddamn big dumb faggoty doodyhead who probably fornicates with sheep because they are the only animals docile enough to allow you near them.

so hating faggots and owning guns is enough?
yeah, that's fucking stupid, maybe i just enjoy my firearms and hate faggots, maybe i have a great job,loving wife, 2 strong boys and great fucking life in general and would never sacrifice that just to actually kill some faggots, but i find it cathartic to post "exterminate the gays".
it's all fucking mind crime bullshit, if you think a guy is going to do some crazy ass shit then catch him in the act, stake the fucker out and wait for him to actually make a real move, this preemptive bullshit just keeps getting walked back to the point where even the slightest deviation from the group think is a crime. we've already seen this happen.
freedom is inherently dangerous, you cannot be both entirely safe and entirely free, i choose to err on the side of freedom, even if it does mean some wild asshole may attempt to kill me. i find those risks much more tolerable and manageable than facing off with the fucking government trying to enforce some fucking thought crime law.

That's perfectly fine.
Also perfectly fine.

Like I said, the responsibilty lies with the person who chooses to kill. I feel like you failed to accurately comprehend what I wrote.

More like all reasonable speech in this case.

You’re overlooking basically the main point of what I said.

They are idiots. They read shit and do it. They are not capable of critically consuming information.

This is why people quote discredited studies by defrocked medical professionals instead of googling “do vaccines cause autism.”

The internet is full of fucking retards who put information directly into their brains without examining it first.

Tarrant did what he did because he’s nuts. I realize you want to make him a martyr and a hero but the odds are really against that.

He was a crazy fuck who had access to guns, just like all mass shooters of the last half century.

We cant have the bad with free speech then we cant have the good. It's all or nothing.

Free speech doesn’t include inciting crime.

It doesn’t include inciting violence either, if you disagree with the law.

If you honestly believe there’s a fire in the theater and no one will listen to your cries of “fire,” and you then proceed to destroy the theater in order to escape the fire; you don’t get off the hook for the damage you caused.

I get that some people believe there’s a very real threat to their way of life, and they feel extreme measures need to be taken, but you can’t ignore the consequences of your actions in the name of righteousness and just expect everything to work out. ESPECIALLY if you hold the unpopular political viewpoint.

It’s pretty narrow minded too… if you live in NZ and aren’t a full-blooded Maori, you probably have the same legitimate entitlement to your homeland as the white European fatsos who think the USA is theirs by God-given right. You’re there on the same ticket as the people you rally against. And believe it or not there are plenty of Maori and Native American people today who don’t want the whites out of their countries.

Not to mention that when the Islamic terrorists actually DO cause mayhem and terror, as with the WTC… the natural and expected reaction is to strengthen our resolve and commit more deeply to resisting terror… so what do we expect Moslems to do when we attack them? Take the hint and go away?

Most of the places in the world where these kinds of attitudes are encouraged are Islamic nations, ironically. Like Brunei. Why are the white supremacists so eager to fall in line with their policies?

Fuck you.

How come most of the Muslims in the video are wearing shoes in a mosque? Looks like an altered video if you ask me.

there's always a good time. americans are not looking for democracy, they are looking for a king who shall not be questioned.

Look, Alex Jones was big enough to admit what an asshole move it was to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax. He even went as far as admitting he was suffering from mental problems. The shooting was real. It happened. You aren’t a Moslem and you’re not a kiwi and you don’t really know if people wear shoes to the mosque or not. And besides, maybe it’s a shoe friendly mosque. There are Jews who don’t keep kosher and gay Catholics too.

And really.. Do you actually believe that if people can spot wires and CG and other fuckups in blockbuster Hollywood productions, there’s someone on a government budget who could pull off faking a mass murder in real-time in front of witnesses? Come on. Where did all the actors go and who did the coroner carry off and how did they get the local Islamic community to go along with it and continue mourning family members they never had for years after the fact?

We have one of them right now and it fucking sucks. The only people who wanted him in office, beside the insanely wealthy, are hick farmers and unskilled industry workers who now realize that his international politics are making them all poor.

Trump is broke, but he still has the support of his former buddies because he can hook them up. If there were enough wealthy voters to sway an election, he would have kicked farmers and auto workers to the curb long ago.

I'm just surprised that 8ch finally admitted that they are in cahoots with goldwater to get your click-bucks.

it's pretty tame vertical integration all things considered

that's where you're wrong, and that's why you will never fit in here

Attached: 1553723019267.jpg (611x869, 34.08K)

No shit. It's because evil huwite men bring development and techonological progress with them wherever they go, raising the standards of living for everybody.

There are several reasons I won’t ever fit in here, not the least of which being that I will never want to fit in with a bunch of racist homophobic chauvinists. I may have mentioned this before but this is mainly a source of entertainment for me.

Also some of the people who frequently post here are as mentally unstable as he was. The only people who want to “fit in” at an insane asylum are the ones that live there.

stop putting up this straw man in your debates all the time. Nobody's arguing to make guns illegal. over 80% of americans (ALL americans, democrat and republican) think there should be more laws around the purchase of guns like more background checks and waiting periods. Only 2nd amend fags conflate the argument to "they want to take our guns away!" YES, some of them do, but MOST of the efforts are to have better checks. When Trump came into power he removed the law that kept certifiably insane people from purchasing guns. Is that progress? Is that what's going to balance you purchasing a gun vs. no more massacres?

Go fuck yourself.

Attached: reasonable gun owner.jpg (1739x1123, 341.4K)

Rational people don’t care about gun rights because they realize that the guns are not what cause people to go out and commit mass killings, or even individual killings. They’re just the most readily available tool when someone goes over that line and commits to kill someone else.

People who genuinely care to stop mass shootings understand that once you ban guns, people will still feel the need to kill, and will do it using bombs, fire, poison, electricity, whatever will do the job. That’s why they choose to put their energy into fixing behavioral healthcare, ending racism and bullying, alleviating poverty, shit like that.

It’s easier for inept and lazy politicians to address the symptoms than the cause. That’s why we made people take their shoes off at airports after the shoe bomber, that’s why we started using backscatter X-ray after the underwear bomber, and that’s why we’ll invent some new technology to identify stomach bombs the first time someone swallows a bomb before getting on a plane. Who the fuck knows why all these people want to blow up planes? Not anyone in Washington.

All these shooters have left behind a wealth of evidence clearly pointing to years or even lifetimes of social rejection and abuse by their fellow man, and it is very rarely asked, “how do we identify people like Tarrant and Klebold and Harris and Cruz and Holmes, and make them feel like welcomed members of society, before they shoot up their communities?

Gun nuts always jump straight to “but if I give my guns up then I can’t defend myself from the criminals with guns!” They never get as far as imagining what they could do to reduce the chances someone will stick a gun in their face in the first place.

Firearms are not a fundamental right, nor are they necessary to defend fundamental rights. If the government wanted to shut down a resistance all they’d have to do is disconnect the power and water and those patriots would be eating each other in a matter of weeks. The guns would not be a problem.

Your entire last paragraph is completely wrong. First and foremost our country was founded on our right to kick the government's shit in if it tries that stupid shit in any way, shape or form. You NEED weapons to do that, there's NO negotiating with that. Second, deliberately restricting critical infrastructure is an act of tyranny of maximum caliber. You're sick in the head if you think no one would do anything about that within hours. Even so, it would only slow the mindless sloths like you who preach their own self destruction.
Inb4 muh superior military tech
The military is outnumbered. Piss off enough people and they'll be outgunned too. If not by quality, then quantity.

As for the rest of your tripe, that "rich history of abuse" that leads people to do things like mass shootings is always going to go under the radar because, provided it's not a religiously motivated attack, the people around the shooter have already established that they want him to be like that through their own actions. You stupid fucks like to go out, find the biggest, most dangerous thing you can find, push it's buttons day and night, endlessly until it finally snaps, then when it does what it's inevitably predisposed to do, you all go "ohh, woe is me, who could have seen this coming, oh I'm such a victim, now I have leverage to ban everything, etc etc.". It happens so often, mass shootings have actually gotten boring. There isn't even really that many of them, but when they do happen, people are just as apathetic towards the entire scenario as they were to the person that snapped and gave people their comeuppance in the first place.

I'm curious, what made you come here?

Filled with subjective interpretations. Militias being defined in 1903 is not at all what the founders said, it was an interpretation same as any other. It’s clear the notion was to have national guard type of state based militias that could never be disarmed. I will concede these were citizen militias, kept their weapons I. Their homes, and represented their immediate community or state without the federal control we see now. The constitution does not protect your right to own an AR15 for fun, but I would be ok with a new thoughtful amendment that helped modernize the document.

Most violent overthrows lead to dictators and communism. A regulated militia is not you and your dimwit drinking buddies collecting guns to shoot at pictures of a black politician.

Attached: tmp_12718-Screenshot_2019-04-10-16-28-428650845751198691405.png (1080x2160, 521.56K)

Remember, There is Never a Good Time or Reason to Eliminate Free Speech.

Speaking of which, you're a chinless faggot (as in: an actual homosexual) Diana is an illiterate former prostitute, Jim is a tax-evading pedophile, and your readership at the Goldwater is so shitty that you rely on Zig Forums 'articles' to beg the four regular readers here to please come to the Goldwater and increase your readership.

bullshit. It's really strange how you seem to support the New Zealand shooter, but the staff at The Turdwater spend 48% of their time desperately deleting comments that have been posted on their 'articles', getting butthurt if somebody mentions that Diana is a horse tooth monkey faced former prostitute.

You're completely full of shit

Except you know the American revolution, which was done by some drinking buddies, who did blow and smoked opium while growing hemp.
Second amendment is for the American people to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical.
I'm getting the vibe you're not an U.S citizen.

The book's that the founding fathers wrote, the bill of rights and declaration of independence spell this out.
I understood this at 7 years old, what mental handicap do you have that prevents you from understanding this?

No it wasn't. The right to keep firearms cannot be infringed.
It's right there, and in the writings of the founding father's its clear that's not what they were suggesting.

are you aware that the plural form of words don't require an apostrophe?

I understood this at 7 years old, what mental handicap do you have that prevents you from understanding this?

Not an argument.
But I've seem to hit the nail on the head, you're a foreigner in some cuck nation like the U.K where you can't own so much as a knife so instead of seeing this as an issue you turn around go online and try to lecture others about their freedoms.

i never said jack fucking shit about your argument

and it was TWO grammatical errors

You're clearly upset, I guess my suspicions of you were correct.
Go lick up Oxtail soup of the floor because bowls and spoons have been deemed a dangerous weapon by your government.

OFF* the floor

make that three grammatical errors

Attached: Not_An_Arguement.jpg (431x582, 61.53K)

lol i like that one

Well I like the image board format and I got tired of 4chan just being a meme firehose with a jillion posts per minute. This site had some good porn on it, and then I found a bunch of other really interesting boards and eventually started getting curious at the outrageously exaggerated headlines on the front page. Some of them are just irresistible.

Many of them aren't exaggerated which is why you stand out.
The Elephant in the room is pointed out but you ignore it.

Out of all the dumb shit I've ever read on Zig Forums, this has got to be some of the dumbest shit.

Attached: fourth.png (1000x1000, 2.6M)

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

To add, the U.S Military which is underpaid, lied to about benefits and ignored after service until recalled.
The U.S military wouldn't be willing to wage a war against themselves.
Would you want to bomb Ohio if you knew other members of the air force were bombing your home state of Arkansas?

A well regulated militia. Jeb sitting in front of his trailer with shotgun in his lap is not that.

Yet it was Jeb's who overthrew the British.
B-but that was patriots!
Who were untrained civilians who were tired of British Tyranny.

I don't care that your EU countries are becoming a Muslim Caliphate, serves you retards right.


For a
See how the following is equally unambiguous:

The text was very clear. Adding the context and justification of a need for a REGULATED militia in a state would be unnecessary if the intent was “Congress shall make no law respecting the ownership of arms, or prohibiting the free…” exercise of trade and ownership.

A well regulated militia has never and never been a part of the second amendment when will you U.K soyniggers get that?