why has freedom of speech become the home to absolute turds
- Thread starter likesfish
- Start date
likesfish
You can't park here sir
This is the sick counties you cant come here and preach religious hatred you havnt even brought any guns with you 
.
Its a shame they didnt take their snatch landrover back to its natural home.
Plus wittering on about muslims they didnt even specify if they meant catholic or protestant muslims
.Its a shame they didnt take their snatch landrover back to its natural home.
Plus wittering on about muslims they didnt even specify if they meant catholic or protestant muslims
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, LOVE is a battlefield. The marketplace of ideas is an ARENA.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
this is giving me agoraphobia.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Two cunts enter, no cunts leave.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Just as long as one of the cunts is Niall Ferguson.
Someone on this thread said freedom of speech is either an absolute or non-existent (difficult to find as scrolling on a small phone).
No one seemed to challenge this, so I'll add to it:
There is no objective black hole where we can get our limits and responsibilities from. Where protection of speech ends is decided by those whose speech probably doesn't need protecting.
Limits and responsibilities in regards to what opinions we can express are and will always be defined through a political lens.
Bit tired when writing this but it seems to me that 'paradoxical' is not a bad word to describe limits and responsibilities on freedom of speech if a purpose is to protect dissenting voices.
No one seemed to challenge this, so I'll add to it:
There is no objective black hole where we can get our limits and responsibilities from. Where protection of speech ends is decided by those whose speech probably doesn't need protecting.
Limits and responsibilities in regards to what opinions we can express are and will always be defined through a political lens.
Bit tired when writing this but it seems to me that 'paradoxical' is not a bad word to describe limits and responsibilities on freedom of speech if a purpose is to protect dissenting voices.
Similar threads
