Freedom of speech...freedom of thought...

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

Credit given to Wolfram87 who presented this pod cast in another thread...

I find offensive the notion that someone else should decide what I can and can't investigate...
It is offensive to me, in regards to any subject, that I must be subservient to someone else who may or may not deny me freedom of speech or thought...

It is an absurdity that we are intimidated against judging for ourselves, on the basis of objective evidence provided, what is true and reasonable...

Once again I say, if what is being espoused is based on sound reasoning, then that rationality of thought will simply be reinforced when examined by reasonable people...

Achtung! Emotionalists are verboten to voice their opinions hieran, verstehen?!
Only reasonable, fair-minded people, who agree with me, are permitted to post in this thread...

Always glad to spread some Hitch around.

Hitch? Ya mean "Christopher Hitchens"?


The OP is apparently delighted that all of those nonexistent ogres who trying to stop him from doing sumpin or other, are not gonna stop him anymore.

Take THAT! You creatures under the bed!

Right, cuz ain't no one doing nuthin' to free speech or anythin'. Pay no attention to the absurdly overreaching "hate speech" laws behind the curtain. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

"Hitch" does indeed refer to Christopher "Hitchslap" Hitchens.

A Nazi has the right to spew his/her crap.

I have the right not to listen.

What an absolutely asinine piece of apologia. The dog in the video is the entire context in which the phrases are being uttered. He uttered those phrases because they were the most horrid things he could think of, because again, this was supposed to be nothing more than an elabourate prank on his girlfriend (I can't remember if the dog was his or hers, but he was training it to raise its paw at random nazi phrases).

By the reasoning you just presented, any given documentary on the Second World War or the Holocaust might be subject to the same legal battle, because they too would likely contain those phrases. Context is irrelevant, remember?

And that is the entire problem with laws such as these hate speech laws: they rely entirely on the perception of a recipient to determine whether or not a crime has been commited, and ignore context and intent. An offended party only has to show that their feelings were hurt by something someone said, and making the complaint is already an indication of that. The accusation is evidence of its own truth.

No threat was made. No statement of intent was uttered. No incitement of anything by anyone towards anyone else. To claim that he "caused fear and alarm and stirred up hatred" because he posted a video online (not sending it to anyone, just posting it on his channel) is tantamount to climbing a hill with binoculars to peep in someones window, and then be outraged that they exposed themselves to you.

I tend to use the confederate flag as a form of protest against authoritarians although I am a left-libertarian. I usually carry around the orange and black confederate memeflag around because it is a running gag among mutualists and left wing market anarchists.

Free speech and freedom of though needs to be protected. Even offensive speech deserves protection. Just because you find something offensive doesnt mean it is offensive to others. It is really easy to ignore people you think are stupid. Now if you want to beat up or murder someone for waving a flag, then you are an authoritarian and a danger to society and freedom.

A video of him doing just that is the reason for his prosecution. What specific details of the video the Thought Police found objectionable is immaterial in this context. And given then level of thin-skinnedness on display, the saluting dog might as well have been the "offensive" part.