Thread has been deleted
Last comment
free speech
blameF | 
Other ArtemisS 
is absolute in all situations except when it directly harms someone (defamation, incitement of violence) the first amendment must be protected at all costs change my mind i guess, not enough people say this nowadays
2020-07-07 00:05
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
#1
 | 
Turkey Rhenie
wtf does that mean
2020-07-07 00:07
my bad dude you guys havent had that since 1980
2020-07-07 03:16
#72
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
Well I for one am aganist freedom of speech, too much dumb people around, i'd regulate the FUCK outta what they can and cannot say if I could
2020-07-07 15:18
clarify. Examples, please.
2020-07-07 15:38
#80
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
youtube.com/watch?v=IqLkhxLp1fo This Like this, I'd arrest this lady for the simple crime of being stupid. Immoral, I wont deny, but I just cant stand that kinda shit
2020-07-07 15:40
Alright I mean, we agree that this is a dumbbitch 100%. But what will you do when somebody says something you don't agree with, but it's more nuanced? What if you interpreted something wrong? Should I go to jail if I say Bolsonaro is one of, if not THE, most retarded president I've ever seen?
2020-07-07 15:43
#85
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
Yes I'd jail bolsonaro cuz hes harmfully stupid, but if you argue a point with a valid database+fundamental knowledge I cant really call you stupid, wether I disagree or not. (Kinda like how I have a bunch of leftist and rightist friends, we disagree but we all have valid points)
2020-07-07 15:45
I'm sure there are people that think your opinion here is harmfully stupid. I actually think that restricting freedom of speech in many ways is harmfully stupid. Why? Because we will need to have people that regulate what other people are saying, and who gets to decide what you're saying is "wrong" or "right". What if the people that need to regulate that sort of shit are politically biased? You understand what I mean? I'm personally big on freedom of speech, love that shit. What I would say is, is that maybe not everyone should be able to vote. I think people, maybe, should first do some sort of test to see if their choices are at least slightly thought through. This is a restriction of people's freedom, yes. But I think this would be a net profit. Also I don't think just about anyone should be able to run for president or minister. I think we need more experts in our governments, and less "regular folk". Have a minister of health be a doctor, have the minister of defense be a general, have a minister of education be a school director etc. etc. One caveat would be that they all have to have some political background, obviously. The idea isn't entirely thought through yet, but something like that. But freedom of speech itself must still be endorsed by each and everyone of them.
2020-07-07 15:53
#91
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
You're point is valid, however you didnt disagree with me on classifyinh other thoughts as "harmfully stupid", so as stupid as it may be, is my desire to censor others harmfull or constructive? For instance, the current br gov is far right, so they are sacking all leftists from the ministerys. That however means they took out everyone that had a degree and now all ministers are military or priests, because they are the only ones that agree with the current president, is'nt that kinda harmfully stupid?
2020-07-07 15:57
It's 100% harmfully stupid, no discussion. But I feel like a big problem is education in this instance. So if censorship like that would exist to get harmfully stupid people out of positions of power, then the education system has to be improved AND freedom of speech has to be reinstated afterwards. But I am convinced that as soon as there are restrictions on freedom of speech, a great many other problems will arise. So I think your desire to censor others isn't harmful, yet. But when you start acting upon it it might become harmful. And if you were in a position of power and you'd make a law that prevents people from exercising their freedom of speech, I think a great deal of harmful things will come of it - eventually. I think I'd have to be pretty exceptionally naïve to assume that somebody with the power to censor others will at some point reinstate freedom of speech, you know what I mean?
2020-07-07 17:44
#95
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
I agree
2020-07-07 18:10
very nice mens))
2020-07-07 18:18
Problem with that is, how do you distinguish between stuff thats stupid and stuff you don't like. And who polices that, who makes these rules, etc. that's a slippery slope which quickly leads to eastern germany 1980 situations... Nah keep free speech, as long as I can call it stupid I am fine with people being stupid. I am more worried about stupid people with power but thats another point
2020-07-07 15:48
#89
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
There are lots of point that I dislike, but they are clearly not stupid, and those should never be censored IMO. Again, when there is a good to be made point with a valid database+fundamental knowledge, it should'nt be ignored. Stupid people in power happen cuz they can make a stupid statement on twitter that appeals to a stupid mass, so thats what shouldnt'nt be allowed
2020-07-07 15:52
#2
 | 
Poland rude_wredne
But frankie and her simps men 😞👌
2020-07-07 00:07
i think a place like HLTV is OK, but big platforms like twitter and facebook should have to abide by f free speech
2020-07-07 00:08
#9
 | 
Poland rude_wredne
No its not ok. Just get more mods to ban blatant tosic people
2020-07-07 00:10
we need a couple of NA mods that actually follow the rules
2020-07-07 00:10
Problem with HLTV mods is that nobody really watches over them.
2020-07-07 00:11
#73
cry | 
Brazil IsFree
Fake centrist
2020-07-07 15:18
no
2020-07-07 22:08
no
2020-07-07 22:09
They do. You can write anything you want, they can however decide to suspend your account.
2020-07-07 00:15
violating the principle of free speech
2020-07-07 00:16
Because you're violating their guidelines, you agreed to them when you created an account. If that's "violating" free speech then we aren't just talking about legal consequences, but any consequences, in that case there isn't a single country in the world where freedom of speech exists, not even America.
2020-07-07 00:24
If you're kicked off HLTV, you can go elsewhere, it's not a necessary platform, so, I mean, who cares. But, on platforms like twitter, facebook, youtube, platforms that are dominant, and partial monopolies in the public flow of information, free speech SHOULD apply, because social media is one of the primary modes of information in the modern world
2020-07-07 01:10
#84
device | 
Denmark JKTP
You accepted there terms the moment you used there site. If you wan't to remove terms of service well that's a wholenother story, then we are talking about deregulation and well that's something Trump loves.
2020-07-07 15:44
HLTV is fine, I don't care. I'm not talking anything about ideals. It doesn't matter if they're private companies, they're too powerful and too all encompassing for free speech to not apply there.
2020-07-07 22:12
If facebook, twitter and google worked together, they could nearly completely control the public narrative.
2020-07-07 01:11
they don't because it is not a public forum. You have to abide by their company policies. As such they have a right to remove things they deem inappropriate
2020-07-07 02:23
I'm not saying free speech laws CURRENTLY apply to social media, but they should. You don't count as a private platform when three companies control nearly all of the online discourse.
2020-07-07 02:24
No they are still private companies and as such can control what they want posted on their forums. You cannot fight that fact
2020-07-07 02:25
It shouldn't be the case. You cannot possibly say that private companies should be allowed to dominate what amounts to our speech. If google, facebook and twitter worked together, they could easily completely control the narrative. Private companies don't have a right to control the narrative, when you're that big, you shouldn't have the same rights as a private compmany.
2020-07-07 02:27
FRANKEK & HER CLOWNSIMPS
2020-07-07 00:21
Fr🤡nkie and her cl🤡wns
2020-07-07 10:07
+1kk XD
2020-07-08 09:19
#3
 | 
North America retard2k
China should voice their opinion
2020-07-07 00:07
Lol😂
2020-07-08 09:21
Free speech does not exist, and it will never will.
2020-07-07 00:08
it does in the USA, legally anyways
2020-07-07 00:09
Someone wealthy with enough power will always controll what is being said. What can i do against a billionare if he silences my voice? Go in court? haha
2020-07-07 00:12
free speech should apply to all platforms
2020-07-07 00:13
Should, yes. Will, no.
2020-07-07 00:13
shoot for the moon, you'll probably still hit a star.
2020-07-07 15:40
#86
device | 
Denmark JKTP
To an extend, but it also depends on what you are saying and by silencing your voice do you mean murder. Isn't Greta Thunberg a normal girl that is going against not just a billionare but like the whole corporation society and id say she is winning.
2020-07-07 15:47
How is she winning?
2020-07-07 16:00
#93
device | 
Denmark JKTP
She is spreading awareness of Global warming. Nearly all countries have accepted global warming and are doing something about it, except shitty USA and there corrupt politicians
2020-07-07 16:04
This is why this country has a president supported by white supremacists, KKK, neonazis, alt-right and other some aberrations
2020-07-07 15:19
pretty sure those same people would have supported every other right wing president in history, trump isnt any different
2020-07-07 22:10
still doesnt matter, free speech is free speech
2020-07-07 22:10
here in Romania actually exist for now ... we can actually say or talk about all evens from history or present xD
2020-07-07 00:34
[deleted]
2020-07-07 00:09
Hate speech is not okay
2020-07-07 00:09
doesnt really matter lol
2020-07-07 00:10
depends, some people say things that are hate speech but it isn't considered hate speech by many in the public, or at least a loud minority. And other times somebody will say something that isn't hate speech and a loud minority will still call it that. "Micro-aggressions" and shit
2020-07-07 15:41
#12
 | 
North America aTTilla12
I actually dislike hate speech laws, when I see stuff like people getting arrested for doing a nazi salute outside the german parliament I cringe inside, I love the first amendment and free speech but hate speech laws are mega cringe in my OP and the government mandating what type of speech is considered hate speech is even scarier, that's just my op though feel free to disagree.
2020-07-07 00:10
#56
 | 
Turkey TheKaiser
I don't think openly being a neo-nazi counts as free speech.
2020-07-07 03:27
#58
 | 
North America aTTilla12
They weren't neo-nazis they were tourists who probably did it as a joke, also they got released after they paid bail, how is that gonna fix anything? but yeah I chose a bad example tbh.
2020-07-07 05:56
#65
 | 
Turkey TheKaiser
I mean, yeah, German laws are "a bit" intolerant on this topic I guess; but I think all those tourists already knew what would happen. I think hate speech laws are good, but in required times.
2020-07-07 12:24
#103
 | 
North America aTTilla12
I disagree but I respect your opinion.
2020-07-07 23:43
#106
 | 
Australia z3ro_
But then what is defined by 'hate speech'. Is it words you get offended by? Things that you do not agree with? Wouldn't that be subjective? That problem arises when speech laws are enforced. Sure with free speech you will get idiots, but there wouldn't be as much censorship.
2020-07-08 09:36
#107
 | 
Turkey TheKaiser
I don't like censorship, but I'm just saying that what Germany doing is a bit understandable; since they've had some "issues" about the censored things. But of course I think they might be taking this censorship thing a bit more seriously than it should be.
2020-07-08 15:52
People like to use this quote a lot when they say certain speech should be banned "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." But these people like to miss out the second half of the quote "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." -Karl Popper This quote is not in support of banning speech at all even if it is intolerant, it is in support of banning intolerance when it spills over into violence. Freedom of speech exists to protect speech that is offensive, we wouldn't need it if it existed to protect good speech. On principle you should stand with anyone's right to speak freely "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" should be something we all live by but sadly it is a dying principle across most of the west.
2020-07-07 00:12
[deleted]
2020-07-07 00:11
#20
 | 
Iceland ban1c
no. 1 - the first amendment is an american law, not a universal law; futhermore, america must stop thinking they are the center of the universe. no. 2 - the american first amendment is so poorly upheld its almost laughable, it's easier to talk about hitler in Berlin then have independent opinions in america.
2020-07-07 00:15
america sucks, but in ideal, the 1st amendment is a good idea, and everyone should do everything in their power to defend it
2020-07-07 00:17
#24
 | 
North America Swboy1010
Yes we could be better at upholding free speech with no exceptions. If someone is being racist and they offend you then just ignore them and people will go on their separate ways don’t be a pussy.
2020-07-07 00:19
No you don;t ignore them, the best way to cure bad speech is with good speech, you definitely don't silence them and force them underground.
2020-07-07 00:23
#37
 | 
North America aTTilla12
+111 yes mens, silencing them isn't going to make them a less hateful person.
2020-07-07 00:32
#23
 | 
Sweden Rynam
yes
2020-07-07 00:19
FREE SPEECH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO PROTECT RIGHT NOW
2020-07-07 00:22
👏INSULTING👏IS👏NOT👏FREE👏SPEECH👏
2020-07-07 00:24
#30
 | 
North America Swboy1010
Yes it is you have the right to insult people and they have the right to ignore you so man up.
2020-07-07 00:25
Admins have the right to ban you, so man up and stop crying
2020-07-07 00:26
#32
 | 
North America Swboy1010
Or Admins can just man up and ignore it becuase let’s face it my words ain’t hurting anyone if they are toxic to you than just put it in sport mode and ignore it. Stop being a pussy.
2020-07-07 00:28
No, admins don't want to be associated with your kind and neither does any company in the world, so if you lose your job for something you say you're free to find another (if you can), snowflake.
2020-07-07 00:30
#40
 | 
North America Swboy1010
And those companies can go under if they lose too many good employs when they violate free speech.and no one would work at that company anymore and thus they will owe many good employees when they fired them becuase they hurt other people’s “feelings.” So yes companies who do this are actively abusing human rights.
2020-07-07 00:37
"So yes companies who do this are actively abusing human rights." like you give a fuck about human rights Also having a specific job isn't a "right", if you want to work with other people you could try to grow up maybe?
2020-07-07 00:47
#53
 | 
North America Swboy1010
So you support human rights abusers nice your definitely helping your argument right there.
2020-07-07 03:11
#57
 | 
Turkey TheKaiser
But they have right to speak against rights, since it's not hurting anybody? And they can ban whoever they want, since it's a private company and what's going on here doesn't affect anybody in life?
2020-07-07 03:31
ok retarded buffoon
2020-07-07 00:29
#41
 | 
North America Swboy1010
See you are conducting free speech by insulting me glad a fellow human being is practicing it.
2020-07-07 00:38
#66
 | 
United States krawfish23
bitch
2020-07-07 12:26
you are homosexual man
2020-07-07 15:13
"defamation, incitement of violence" you can spin so many things to fall into that category. Just questioning somebody's origin is today translated directly to: "you are trying to setup skinheads against him."
2020-07-07 00:29
cool
2020-07-07 00:30
"except when it directly harms someone (defamation, incitement of violence)" Hypocrite
2020-07-07 00:35
its the whole your rights end where my rights begin defamation is infringing on my right to live. Incitement of violence is infringing on my right to exist at all
2020-07-07 02:20
Weak.
2020-07-07 15:07
So you would be ok with hundreds of people calling to kill black people publicly?(just an example)
2020-07-07 15:22
Learn to take insults
2020-07-07 15:07
insults are fine, defamation and incitement of violence isnt
2020-07-07 22:08
+1 but in Europe we don't have free speech anymore
2020-07-07 01:11
Freedom of speech comes with the freedom to shut one up.
2020-07-07 02:28
+1
2020-07-07 06:38
#47
 | 
Finland Jodecast
2020-07-07 02:21
There is no such thing as free speech.
2020-07-07 03:24
#59
 | 
United States flipfone
Certain cases of obscenity should not be covered by free speech
2020-07-07 06:18
freeze peach
2020-07-07 06:28
not everyone can face hate speech and fake charges calmly There are always people get hurts when someone speak freely
2020-07-07 06:29
except... you're not a free speech defender
2020-07-07 06:51
#70
OK | 
Peru TheJuan
no cry is free
2020-07-07 15:15
No need to change your mind when you are right
2020-07-07 15:16
I would try to change your mind on the exceptions, arguing even those are not, but not sure I feel like debating rn The TLDR would be a strict voluntaryist perspective (nap, free association): - Incitement of violence: if people act on the incitement they should be held individually accountable, not the one inciting, because they are not robots with no will of their own - Defamation: the more influent you are the more you risk losing your reputation. People with zero influence aren't punished already. I could more or less agree on defamation in the case of news outlets, since they get often get funding from the state so they're a bit artificially shielded from consequences
2020-07-07 15:29
tosijjaaa yes
2020-07-07 15:33
You cannot offend someone with your freedom of speech. The problem is who is the one to judge? Sometimes you offended someone with your freedom of speech and you dont realize it. When they pointed out you said I had freedom of speech you cannot criticize me. But where are their freedom of speech?
2020-07-07 15:43
freedom of speech is regulated by country or by rules of the website In UK you have freedom of speech on a box in a park for example. But full freedom of speech other than that doesnt exist. You cannot proclaim racism, theft, murder, torture.
2020-07-07 15:50
FURIA
1.28
Chaos
3.54
K23
1.19
Invictus Int
4.50
ORDER
1.51
AVANT
2.50
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.