/liberty/ - Liberty

Depends.

Technically yes, unless that person/their group they advocated for had previously ignored free speech crimes against my own or even mocked them. At that point it's just a taste of their own medicine. inb4 eye for an eye. I believe in tit for tat.

>>11866

>Would you defend someone's freedom of speech when they advocate against it?

Usually yes, unless I regard what they are doing as criminal collusion. So if you're saying that shit in a parliament, you can get fucked, for all I care. There's no ethical difference between telling a contract killer to murder MRA's and telling the government to murder MRA's.

Other than that, what this guy >>11867 said:

>unless that person/their group they advocated for had previously ignored free speech crimes against my own or even mocked them. At that point it's just a taste of their own medicine.

Would I defend their moral right to speak their mind?

Yes.

Would I say their employer is obligated to keep them employed regardless of their beliefs? No.

Would I be angry if people refused to publish their work or spread it? No.

>>11877

Would you defend them if they were arrested by the state for illegal speech?

>>11883

Yeah absolutely. Illegal speech is the slippery slope to thoughtcrime.

However, it does present a problem. For example, I am Jewish but I support /pol/s right to say GAS THE KIKES RACEWAR NOW. Because I believe in free speech. I obviously don't support the right to act on that speech. But then where do you draw the line when it comes to inciting violence?

>>11866

Yes because I'm proving them wrong when they take it for granted.

Yes, of course. Free speech is free speech, even if you're using it in an attempt to get rid of it. So long as there's no threat of force or implied threat of force, you can say whatever you want.

>>11884

I would say you draw the line around the time when they actually start conspiring to gas the Jews, burn gays, lynch blacks, etc. So if there's reason to believe that they're actually gathering people up for, I dunno, a lynch mob or something, then I'd say you can safely step in. Otherwise, they're just espousing their beliefs, and, no matter how abhorrent they might be, they must be allowed to do so.

>>11877

>Would I be angry if people refused to publish their work or spread it? No.

I dunno about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if someone made some great discovery and refused to let it be known.

I wouldn't do anything about it, mind you, but I'd still be salty as fuck unless they had a very good reason.

>>11887

No one would know to be angry about it.

>>11889

You underestimate the ruthlessness of ex-wifes and fired employees.

>>11889

I think "If I found out" was sort of implied there, anon.

Let them die by the sword they forged.

>>11866

"I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself."

-Oscar Wilde

>>11907

you retards do quote alot of socialists

>>11941

Back then, socialists used to say things that were actually smart. We don't have that anymore, sadly.

>>11941

There was a time when socialists understood economics, and while we disagreed on the outcomes, we could at least argue at both the moral/philosophical, and intellectual/economic levels.

Unfortunately socialists have become populists, and we've been forced to realize you're no socialist, just a Marxist inbred cousin with mental deficiencies.