PDA

View Full Version : Why Free Speech is Not the Problem



Nachtengel
Wednesday, November 12th, 2008, 11:35 PM
It's a habit for many people on these nationalist forums to declare themselves avid supporters of free speech. I used to think I was one. But I just had a reflection, and I discovered that I don't really believe in free speech. Do you? Let's see...

What is free speech? The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government. Right, you'd say, it sounds good. It's what you would want. It's what you would have in your ideal state. Wait... really? Think again. Would you agree with granting free speech to minorities? What about multiculturalists? What about people who convert to Islam? Worse, what about paedophiles? Zoophiles? And generally, any people with sick and twisted ideas? I'd think most of us wouldn't. I'd think most of us would have some limits somewhere and disallow something. I think most of us would use censorship somewhere.

Therefore;
Censorship isn't a problem concept. It's not bad. It's that we aren't the ones in power. We aren't the ones who decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed.

What do you think?

SouthernBoy
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 12:14 AM
What do you think? I think I have no reason to fear freedom of speech because I am right. :)

Loddfafner
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 12:34 AM
Freedom of speech is crucial to sustaining a healthy society. I treat the expression of crazy fringe ideas as the equivalent of the old canary in a coal mine. When all I hear is bland conventional thinking, I know something is gravely wrong.

Grimm
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 12:40 AM
For your country, Todesengel, I feel one way. I want Germany to stay as German as possible and would understand the strategy of putting limits on free speech in order to do so. Anyone remember Hitler? But for my country I feel differently. Even if we were formed by Germanics, we are a melting pot, and I just want my government to be fair. Fair to everyone. I don't want any group getting any special favors, but I want all groups to have the protections and freedoms of which our constitution ensures us.

Sissi
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 12:49 AM
In other words, you don't change the ideology, just the people who have the power? :|

I hate being nannied by the state. I am old enough to think for myself. It would not make me feel any better if it was National Socialists who restricted my right to expression instead of Socialists or Communists. In fact I resent them just as much for silencing the people. A government who is afraid of the people is of little worth.

stormlord
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 01:20 AM
To be honest I think that's a pathetic way of thinking, and it brings us down to the level of people who know they're wrong and thus need to silence their opposition.

If you truly believe that we couldn't win ordinary people over in a fair and open public debate, then frankly why do you think such cretins are worth saving?

And no, many people don't believe in censorship, not for anything, and you seem to equate free speech with free action. Free speech for minorities? The problem isn't free speech it's them being here in the first place. Multiculturalists? They never won over ordinary people, they simply made them afraid of saying what they really think. The fact that you think "most of us" think in the same way about banning anyone who disagrees with us is disturbing.

Wrong is wrong, it isn't defined by what provides you with an advantage. It isn't wrong when someone mugs you, but right when you mug someone else.

Allenson
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 01:33 AM
Once again, we boil things down to legislation vs. social/cultural/personal responsibility.

I wish for the ability to speak my mind under the law (or lack thereof). The legal ability to do so however, does not grant me the "social right" to go around and spew vulgarites about paedophilia (as you used as an example). Societal norms, hard-wired into us since time immemorial, do a nice job at repressing such absurdities.

Laws have a way of pissing people off and making them want to do something all the more, many traditional social pressures on the other hand, steming from our distant past and almost codified in our genes, are fantastic deterents to perversion.

How's that for a paleoconservative anwswer? ;)

Nachtengel
Thursday, November 13th, 2008, 01:38 AM
To be honest I think that's a pathetic way of thinking, and it brings us down to the level of people who know they're wrong and thus need to silence their opposition.

If you truly believe that we couldn't win ordinary people over in a fair and open public debate, then frankly why do you think such cretins are worth saving?

And no, many people don't believe in censorship, not for anything, and you seem to equate free speech with free action. Free speech for minorities? The problem isn't free speech it's them being here in the first place.

Multiculturalists? They never won over ordinary people, they simply made them afraid of saying what they really think. The fact that you think "most of us" think in the same way about banning anyone who disagrees with us is disturbing.
I'm not confusing anything and no I'm not afraid of debating multiculturalists. But I realized it doesn't matter who has the best point. Sorry to break it to you, but ordinary people are idiots with no sense of duty to their folk. Take a businessman. He is interested in making more money and paying less, so he supports immigration. And children? Children don't have the capability of differentiating. You'd rather have a paedophile on TV, using his right to free speech to persuade children into allowing to be abused? I wouldn't.


Wrong is wrong, it isn't defined by what provides you with an advantage. It isn't wrong when someone mugs you, but right when you mug someone else.Wrong and right is relative. I don't care anyway if restrictions are wrong. I don't care what's "fair". I care what is most advantageous for German nationalism. Removing anti-Germanic and twisted influence from my country is.


Once again, we boil things down to legislation vs. social/cultural/personal responsibility.

I wish for the ability to speak my mind under the law (or lack thereof). The legal ability to do so however, does not grant me the "social right" to go around and spew vulgarites about paedophilia (as you used as an example). Societal norms, hard-wired into us since time immemorial, do a nice job at repressing such absurdities.

Laws have a way of pissing people off and making them want to do something all the more, many traditional social pressures on the other hand, steming from our distant past and almost codified in our genes, are fantastic deterents to perversion.

How's that for a paleoconservative anwswer? ;)
But these social pressures are disappearing in this day and age. Centuries ago there was social pressure if a woman had premarital sex. She was shamed and shunned. Now she isn't anymore. Decades ago a prepubescent girl wearing make up and provocative clothes would have been punished by her mother. Now it's acceptable. It's even advertised.