I can't understand how people who claim to be for truth and freedom somehow mix up gutter language, etc. with freedom of speech.
It's like saying, "I care about freedom of action. So let me poison your soup since I have freedom of action."
Love of truth and truth of love doesn't operate that way. Freedom, in the ultimate sense, is the POWER TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Not the power to engage in toxicity that destroys other people in search of truth...
no, freedom is the power to do whatever you want you communist faggot. There's supreme court precedent that clearly shows that the first amendment applies to offensive speech as recently as matal v. tam 2017. That means "gutter language" and "toxicity" are covered
In an absolute sense you are right. But in a moral sense you are wrong.
If persons such as yourself really cared about the real goal -- awakening & freedom of a country -- you wouldn't use freedom of expression to derail others on the journey toward that freedom.
Well, surely you appreciate that on the journey to that country the Founding Fathers intended, we all have a responsibility to use free speech in the service of true FREEDOM. Where we stand now, with so much of our wonderful country compromised, is precarious. We need all like-minded people on the same page. And being intentionally offensive with language as a faux litmus test is off-putting. It doesn't serve the larger goal to which free speech was given to us, by the Fathers: freedom of the nation.
Where we stand now, so far downstream from the founding of our land, is with somewhere around half the country totally deceived, walking down that primrose path of quasi-socialism. And, a good portion of those who would fight on the side of right (not deceived, not just fully awake) would be put off by someone using pornographic speech, gutter speech, racist speech, even in a self-ironic sense. It hurts the movement of freedom instead of helping it, in other words.
Surely wise persons in service of larger truth can see that.
we all have a responsibility to use free speech in the service of true FREEDOM.
yeah no going to stop you there,the first amendment is about liberty not responsibility God gave me these rights and I can use them as I see fit in my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If this country is to be fixed we need to adhere to the values enshrined in our constitution above all else
all of which fall under the protection of the first amendment, if you can't even get normies to accept the constitution and the rights it seeks to protect how will you redpill them on anything?
The Founding Fathers would look at someone ravenously desiring immoral speech as someone hell-bent on the destruction of the country. NOT serving free speech.
John Adams, on this exact issue, said this:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
In other words, cloaking the right to free speech in immoral action is eventually counterproductive. It will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Claiming freedom of speech, it will eventually lose freedom of the country. At which time freedom of speech will be lost.
Freedom of speech is irrevocably in service of high freedom: freedom to do what is RIGHT in this country.
view the rest of the comments →
PD_Locksley ago
Thanks, Neon.
I can't understand how people who claim to be for truth and freedom somehow mix up gutter language, etc. with freedom of speech.
It's like saying, "I care about freedom of action. So let me poison your soup since I have freedom of action."
Love of truth and truth of love doesn't operate that way. Freedom, in the ultimate sense, is the POWER TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Not the power to engage in toxicity that destroys other people in search of truth...
LD
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
no, freedom is the power to do whatever you want you communist faggot. There's supreme court precedent that clearly shows that the first amendment applies to offensive speech as recently as matal v. tam 2017. That means "gutter language" and "toxicity" are covered
PD_Locksley ago
In an absolute sense you are right. But in a moral sense you are wrong.
If persons such as yourself really cared about the real goal -- awakening & freedom of a country -- you wouldn't use freedom of expression to derail others on the journey toward that freedom.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
my only real goal is the country to founding fathers talked about and tried to create, there's nothing immoral about free speech
PD_Locksley ago
Well, surely you appreciate that on the journey to that country the Founding Fathers intended, we all have a responsibility to use free speech in the service of true FREEDOM. Where we stand now, with so much of our wonderful country compromised, is precarious. We need all like-minded people on the same page. And being intentionally offensive with language as a faux litmus test is off-putting. It doesn't serve the larger goal to which free speech was given to us, by the Fathers: freedom of the nation.
Where we stand now, so far downstream from the founding of our land, is with somewhere around half the country totally deceived, walking down that primrose path of quasi-socialism. And, a good portion of those who would fight on the side of right (not deceived, not just fully awake) would be put off by someone using pornographic speech, gutter speech, racist speech, even in a self-ironic sense. It hurts the movement of freedom instead of helping it, in other words.
Surely wise persons in service of larger truth can see that.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
yeah no going to stop you there,the first amendment is about liberty not responsibility God gave me these rights and I can use them as I see fit in my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If this country is to be fixed we need to adhere to the values enshrined in our constitution above all else
all of which fall under the protection of the first amendment, if you can't even get normies to accept the constitution and the rights it seeks to protect how will you redpill them on anything?
PD_Locksley ago
The Founding Fathers would look at someone ravenously desiring immoral speech as someone hell-bent on the destruction of the country. NOT serving free speech.
John Adams, on this exact issue, said this:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
In other words, cloaking the right to free speech in immoral action is eventually counterproductive. It will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Claiming freedom of speech, it will eventually lose freedom of the country. At which time freedom of speech will be lost.
Freedom of speech is irrevocably in service of high freedom: freedom to do what is RIGHT in this country.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
what immoral action?