You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Yeah, I'm advocating for certain tactics by ridiculing the thought that free speech doesn't include booing, which you don't seem interested in the least about, instead you're busy taking this conversation about freedom of speech (especially the speech you hate) and turning it into something completely idiotic, like what you think about me.
Booing is not speech. A cow can Moo, but that is not speech.
(IFF) you are advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) you are advocating for SJW tactics.
(IFF) you are NOT advocating for SJW tactics (aka, booing) (THEN) please simply explain what you ARE advocating for.
IFF you think Booing is not Freedom of Expression than you Think that Booing is not Freedom of Expression. You Think That Someone Expressing themselves by Shouting is not protected speech, it should be stifled, censored and suppressed, and at least it should be ridiculed as Idiotic Moo Cow behavior.
IFF you think booing is Freedom of Expression then You're An Idiot Moo Cow Equivalent.
Ultimately.
Moooo.
(if you didn't get it, you make a value judgement about what is and isn't Freedom of Expression)
A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.
However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").
To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).
A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.
Do you also believe "disturbing the peace" (midnight road construction as performance art for example) is sacrosanct free speech?
Yeah, unless they were uncivilized and tried to censor the other by booing, violating their speech, raping them.
It only violates the others speech if they were to do something more than Boo, like stopping that person from speaking with force. You seem to think that it's a violation of that other person's freedom of speech should they try and disrupt or express their disagreement that strongly, because that person is entitled to only certain kind of disagreement and no disruption, should he be disrupted or distracted that constitutes a violation of speech, stop disturbing, you're violating...
You cannot silence someone by being louder than them exactly like you cannot stop someone from writing by writing everywhere and anywhere that they suck. In both instances they can continue unabridged by your commotion, unless they are terminally devoid of confidence abd lack any conviction that they live entirely by suggestion and only for the approval of others, then you can try to argue that they have been violated, these poor feeble minded retards.
When noise is generated to silence it ought to be pretty quiet. O yeah, it's idiocy 101 over here, people are censoring BY booing, in robot terms: "when noise is generated". It's called freedom of expression, the conundrum is that freedom of expression is perched on what is acceptable to you and others as you try and suggest:
Yeah, freedom of expression for general disagreement, not strong hatred.
"if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
There's absolutely no either or. They both are protected, the booing doesn't violate the actual speech, exactly like the speech wouldn't violate anything it disrupts or it has hate for, if someone wants to boo no body has the right to stop them, and should someone try to boo louder to stop them great, even if they do stop, it has not violated them and it couldn't, unless they were retarded.
Air-horning someone in person is the equivalent of black-marking over all of their written words.
Sure the words are still technically on the page, but nobody can read them.
It's not the equivalent at all. You keep asserting so though despite that censorship is not Broadcasting what you want to censor with a loud noise over it, especially when you don't have the only copy and cannot stop anyone from writing or speaking by such ridiculous "tactics", the difference is between a speaking engagement being stopped vs being disrupted, exactly like steem, nobody can stop anyone from writing no matter how much they try to disrupt them, and disruption is only in terms of how much conviction one has as someone with a strong conviction will not relent in the face of such little adversity.
Hello @baah,
I edited my comment again after having read all of your exchanges wit @logiczombie.
so... I am leaving without my former question.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
Censorship is not about intentions. Censorship is either happening or it isn't, it is the results that matters and not the intent, and it must be a result that arrives at solely because of that act and does so with repeated frequency, so being booed once or a million times, regardless of who's being booed, must every time result in being silenced, which it never does, EVER. One boo or a million boos won't make it censorship because it doesn't stop anyone from speaking, exactly like one downvote or a million cannot stop someone from writing and posting. You can keep believing that one boo magically becomes censorship when it is longer than normal, I'm sure you also believe that standing up for freedom to express oneself is advocating whatever or however that said one was expressing themselves,
and much like you seem to believe that intentions is what constitutes censorship, ergo, if I intend to silence someone with a boo or a downvote, I tried to censor, despite the resulting disregard of either that is obvious option numero one as a response to my "censorship" (intent).
Well stated.
That's an excellent distinction between Civil-Protest and HARASSMENT/CENSORSHIP.
If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?
What are you talking about? Booing is not censorship. The speaker at the event is not entitled to silence from the audience. A boo is not the equivalent of censorship since the speaker can speak regardless of boos from the audience. Freedom of expression is forever more for expressing Strong Hatred than for expressing "general" or strong disagreement.
Now you want to equate someone booing at someone else as censorship, which is fine, in idiot land. Good luck stopping said "censorship".
Freedom of Expression (booing) is Censorship. Stop the Censorship (freedom of expression).
Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.
If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?
Are you trying to suggest that harassing someone is Censorship now? You are grasping at straws, trying to make it seem that people can do anything they want as long as they claim it's protected by the freedom of expression, and that I suggested or said anything to that effect. Your question is a Complex Question Fallacy, as it's a yes and no question with a loaded premise that damns me if I agree or if I disagree as I must accept the premise regardless if the premise is false, and it is false because I never suggested that people harass or disturb others and do so because it's their freedom of expression, but here you are yet again still repeating the same vain nonsense that tries to suggest that.
People have a right to Boo and Booing is not censorship. It's not censorship to harass people, it's harassment. Censorship is the act of Suppressing or Stopping someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not Freedom of Expression, and that is exactly what Booing someone who is giving a speech is. Booing someone all over town is Harassment, Booing someone at a speaking engagement is neither Harassment or Censorship. Booing someone all over town is not Censorship, as even then the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.
What Are you talking about?
I agree. We must let those we hate express their views with their words (which is how you most effectively communicate your thoughts and intentions and beliefs).
If you don't like what someone says, use the "mute" button or walk away.
And or blog about how much you hate them and why (which will likely only draw more attention (notoriety) to the person you are hating). I mean, for example, Ben Shapiro wasn't widely known until he got CENSORED (shouted down) by the SJWs.
That's not censorship. He wasn't stopped by 'sounds' from expressing themselves.
Was he physically assaulted?
Extended booing (and air-horns) effectively CENSORS the person speaking (using actual words).
By saying you want to protect "both", you're essentially endorsing CENSORSHIP/HARASSMENT.
It "effectively" doesn't censor, exactly like "hidden" posts don't censor.
Booing is speech. Holding a poster is speech, it is regardless of what you think includes speech, much wiser and infinitely sharper minds than you have concluded this a long time ago that freedom of expression is inherent in infinite number of modes and ways, not simply spoken words. Duh.
Are you familiar with the saying, "your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face"? *
A primary function of Freedom Of Speech is to protect the people's right to criticize their government.
Now imagine, that a government (or one of its individual agents) broadcast loud booing OVER the soundtrack of any media it found critical.
This would be de facto censorship, not free speech.
Logic Zombie, you're not kidding.
No, that's Freedom of the Press. Freedom of Speech is the right of people to express the unpopular and even hated expression.
No it wouldn't, it would be someone broadcasting booing over someone else's broadcast, even if they tried to 'de facto' censored it, it would be no different than someone broadcasting Porn with God Is Watching text flyovers in attempt at "censoring" that porno since anyone can ignore the booing and get the original broadcast, same with the porno. Let's say for the idiotic thought exercise that there is no original as they have all the copies, then I'd ask why broadcast in the first place, because censorship does not include broadcasting the only version with loud booing over the top, EVER (including such an idiotic hypothetical).
The point of this hypothetical is to place the government in the position of the SJW.
(IFF) it's ok for an SJW to air-horn Ben Shapiro in person (THEN) it's ok for a government (or corporation) to air-horn anti-government speakers.
Interesting side-note. There has been some research into speech-jamming technology which could be used to silence speakers at large rallies (like Martin Luther King jr. for example) and it has the added bonus of making the speaker look like an idiot (potentially destroying their credibility).