Free Speech Restricts Our Freedoms

[Mashika]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
The internet has drastically altered the information interchange on the entire planet. Anything and everything can be found on the internet. Every point of view and every area of interest are represented. Some are distasteful, some are evil, some are intention lies, and some make incorrect associations. Regardless of the fact that many misrepresentations exist among the nuggets of pertinent data, a discerning reader can make great headway toward edification in countless disciplines.

It truly is a marvel.

But in certain specific instances, we are told, we are not equipped to make our own decisions and therefore misinformation becomes dangerous to us. We must be shielded from this dangerous misinformation ever being placed before our eyes as it might corrupt and radicalize us. Ultimately, the authorities proclaim, our incorrect decisions could kill us, based on the lethal ideation caused by our puny brains being incapable of sorting out the conflicting data.

And if they don't act on behalf of our misguided selves, we would be in danger of becoming domestic terrorists by the very act of spreading the 'misinformation' further.

One of the problems with the internet, i believe, is that there's so much stuff going on that people always get a "sense of urgency" to post or say something, before a million other messages come trough and your post is lost in the noise

For example, i have joined a few channels on Telegram, sometimes someone posts something important, and i start thinking about it, then want to say something and return to the app to post, and there are 9000 messages already! and the conversation has gone so far offtopic that it doesn't matter what i wanted to say, it's completely lost in the noise and people ignore it because now they are talking about a related topic, but not the original one i wanted to discuss

The sense of urgency around posting something to get your voice heard before the noise comes, causes a lot of people to just share or post stuff without even thinking about it more than 10 seconds, because you lose your chance to speak up, so a lot of people just share without verifying or double checking anything, then they just can't go back and edit or clarify, because *no one will read the clarification*. So their post ends up becoming part of the problem, it then starts being shared if people liked it, in the same way, with a sense of urgency to be the first one to share it and claim some *internet street points*

This happens everywhere, on Reddit, Facebook and other sites like VK and Twitter, The way those sites work actually pushes you to think and act like that. And conversations last for just a day or two tops, if you did not say anything on that time frame, don't even bother, it died already so find the next conversation. It's like an hyperactive brain at full speed

Oh and a side effect is that "the truth" sometimes becomes whatever was said on the post with more likes or the most shared one, and since there's so much stuff going on, people just look for it and read or watch and accept it as the truth, because so many people liked it so it can't be wrong, right? There's no time to research it or think deeply about it, there are other posts to comment or participate on. That's how the brain is wired on social media

[rgray222]

The fact that they are now equating speech with violence is a horrible attack on free speech itself. Once you accept the premise that speech can be equated to violence then you have lost free speech forever.

[Constance]

llllllllllllllllllllllllll

[Constance]

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[Mike]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The fact that they are now equating speech with violence is a horrible attack on free speech itself. Once you accept the premise that speech can be equated to violence then you have lost free speech forever.

Ah yes. Concept Creep.

Up until 5 minutes ago everyone knew speech was one thing and violence was another. But that's suddenly changed. Now, according to some activist lunatics, speech is violence. It makes no sense whatsoever, but things don't really need to make sense in this increasingly postmodern world. Language, like gender, is fluid and can mean whatever someone says it means. It's like that idiot Harvard professor declaring that 2+2 = 5.

Like most of these language manipulations, there is a strategy behind it. If language does indeed equal violence, then:

1) you can get arrested for your speech

2) people that don't like what you're saying can attack you violently and call it "self defense".

That's where this is leading.

[Patient]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The fact that they are now equating speech with violence is a horrible attack on free speech itself. Once you accept the premise that speech can be equated to violence then you have lost free speech forever.

Ah yes. Concept Creep.

Up until 5 minutes ago everyone knew speech was one thing and violence was another. But that's suddenly changed. Now, according to some activist lunatics, speech is violence. It makes no sense whatsoever, but things don't really need to make sense in this increasingly postmodern world. Language, like gender, is fluid and can mean whatever someone says it means. It's like that idiot Harvard professor declaring that 2+2 = 5.

Like most of these language manipulations, there is a strategy behind it. If language does indeed equal violence, then:

1) you can get arrested for your speech

2) people that don't like what you're saying can attack you violently and call it "self defense".

That's where this is leading.

What about music then? Lol!

It could really bring a new meaning to "Battle of the Bands"!

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The fact that they are now equating speech with violence is a horrible attack on free speech itself. Once you accept the premise that speech can be equated to violence then you have lost free speech forever.

Ah yes. Concept Creep.

Up until 5 minutes ago everyone knew speech was one thing and violence was another. But that's suddenly changed. Now, according to some activist lunatics, speech is violence. It makes no sense whatsoever, but things don't really need to make sense in this increasingly postmodern world. Language, like gender, is fluid and can mean whatever someone says it means. It's like that idiot Harvard professor declaring that 2+2 = 5.

Like most of these language manipulations, there is a strategy behind it. If language does indeed equal violence, then:

1) you can get arrested for your speech

2) people that don't like what you're saying can attack you violently and call it "self defense".

That's where this is leading.

It gets even better though.

Australia renames shark attacks ‘interactions’ and ‘negative encounters’

The next time a shark savages a swimmer or surfer in Australia, there’s a new way to describe what has taken place. This is not an “attack” but an “interaction” or a “negative encounter”.

The reappraisal of shark semantics is part of efforts to change the way the public views the species, with the authorities and scientists eager that they should not be portrayed as man-eating monsters, despite increasing numbers of people being injured by sharks.

Australia renames shark attacks ‘interactions’

So basically, when a killer shark rips you to pieces or even swallows you whole it's okay, it was just an "interaction".

But when you use some words that someone finds offensive, it's not okay, it's "violence".

[Mike]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The fact that they are now equating speech with violence is a horrible attack on free speech itself. Once you accept the premise that speech can be equated to violence then you have lost free speech forever.

Ah yes. Concept Creep.

Up until 5 minutes ago everyone knew speech was one thing and violence was another. But that's suddenly changed. Now, according to some activist lunatics, speech is violence. It makes no sense whatsoever, but things don't really need to make sense in this increasingly postmodern world. Language, like gender, is fluid and can mean whatever someone says it means. It's like that idiot Harvard professor declaring that 2+2 = 5.

Like most of these language manipulations, there is a strategy behind it. If language does indeed equal violence, then:

1) you can get arrested for your speech

2) people that don't like what you're saying can attack you violently and call it "self defense".

That's where this is leading.

It gets even better though.

Australia renames shark attacks ‘interactions’ and ‘negative encounters’

The next time a shark savages a swimmer or surfer in Australia, there’s a new way to describe what has taken place. This is not an “attack” but an “interaction” or a “negative encounter”.

The reappraisal of shark semantics is part of efforts to change the way the public views the species, with the authorities and scientists eager that they should not be portrayed as man-eating monsters, despite increasing numbers of people being injured by sharks.

Australia renames shark attacks ‘interactions’

So basically, when a killer shark rips you to pieces or even swallows you whole it's okay, it was just an "interaction".

But when you use some words that someone finds offensive, it's not okay, it's "violence".

Attachment 47000

Oh of course. It's "Critical Shark Theory"

[Pam]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The fact that they are now equating speech with violence is a horrible attack on free speech itself. Once you accept the premise that speech can be equated to violence then you have lost free speech forever.

Ah yes. Concept Creep.

Up until 5 minutes ago everyone knew speech was one thing and violence was another. But that's suddenly changed. Now, according to some activist lunatics, speech is violence. It makes no sense whatsoever, but things don't really need to make sense in this increasingly postmodern world. Language, like gender, is fluid and can mean whatever someone says it means. It's like that idiot Harvard professor declaring that 2+2 = 5.

Like most of these language manipulations, there is a strategy behind it. If language does indeed equal violence, then:

1) you can get arrested for your speech

2) people that don't like what you're saying can attack you violently and call it "self defense".

That's where this is leading.

It gets even better though.

Australia renames shark attacks ‘interactions’ and ‘negative encounters’

The next time a shark savages a swimmer or surfer in Australia, there’s a new way to describe what has taken place. This is not an “attack” but an “interaction” or a “negative encounter”.

The reappraisal of shark semantics is part of efforts to change the way the public views the species, with the authorities and scientists eager that they should not be portrayed as man-eating monsters, despite increasing numbers of people being injured by sharks.

Australia renames shark attacks ‘interactions’

So basically, when a killer shark rips you to pieces or even swallows you whole it's okay, it was just an "interaction".

But when you use some words that someone finds offensive, it's not okay, it's "violence".

Attachment 47000

Imagine a world where the word "attack" has been removed from the dictionary. In the future an unwarranted pummeling from the authorities will merely be considered an "interaction". In fact as violence increases around the globe wouldn't that be a great way to sanitize everything?

The underlords are not creative, they don't have that ability. They do the same thing over and over. Make a change based on a alleged good cause,usually creating a victim group and exploit man's desire to be good. In this case, a call for compassion for sharks. You notice those that ask for this change really never do anything to benefit sharks or the environment that sharks live in for that matter.They don't change or modify their lifestyles or consumerism, either. Although, they reserve the right to ask you to do so.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Life is a continuous choice of perspective. It forms one's perception of the world.

Perspective is informed by ideas. Ideas appear freely in the public square and live or die by the extent they are shared.

If control of the perception of the public is the goal free speech must not be allowed. Unfortunately, an informed public is difficult to censor and mislead. As censorship becomes excessive it becomes equally rhetorical, often resembling dogma, where substance gives way to partisanship regardless of the facts.

Inevitably, censorship leads to tyranny and radicalism.

The key is an informed public, informed by a free press that holds government accountable. Both of which has been under attack for decades as the education system and the press have become part of the propaganda campaign to censor views opposing official policy.

What happens as the perspective of the world is dictated almost exclusively by invisible potentates pulling the strings of the 'authorities' in the public eye? What happens as the public looses its ability to choose their own perspective based on their own research and conclusions?

What sort of world do the 'authorities' wish us to perceive?
Do any of us still will for another way, a different perspective, a better outcome?

Will we hold onto our ideas in secret, thereby depriving the world of a larger perspective, an alternate perception?

A healthy society thrives on discussion, on debate, on fair play. A tyrannical government thrives on ignorance and fear, and rules by decree.

Both of these forms of government and the spectrum between, are a choice. The only difference is who is doing the choosing and based on what criteria...it is all merely a matter of collective perspective.

[Satori]

Here is an example of speech they want to silence. An excellent interview between Naomi Wolf and Reiner Fuellmich and some members of his team.

About one hour. She covers a lot of ground about the economic and control aspects of the jab and CV-19.

https://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...f-3754698.html

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Satori (here)
Here is an example of speech they want to silence. An excellent interview between Naomi Wolf and Reiner Fuellmich and some members of his team.

About one hour. She covers a lot of ground about the economic and control aspects of the jab and CV-19.

https://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...f-3754698.html

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Interviews Naomi Wolf

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/ad8653dc-fe21-4a04-a161-80ac184951cd

[thepainterdoug]

Free speech restricts our freedoms, like living peaceful, insures our violence, like being generous insures our selfeshness, like being cautious insures our peril,

well I could go on, but you get the idea.

so if I pay you the money I owe you, it will insure your going broke.

so best I dont pay you because after all, I care about you.

[T Smith]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)

Are there any comedy writers here at avalon ? i think there is an already written script here, ready to be cast and packaged to sell to HBO

If it were my show I would simply call it, " The Idiots "

Yes, great idea, but such a show would get canceled or banned.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I'll leave this one here, another gem from the Prophet:

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[onawah]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL! California MANDATES Sex Discrimination for Corporation Boards! TRIAL NOW!
2,778 views Dec 7, 2021
591
Judicial Watch
481K subscribers

Judicial Watch announced a California Superior Court trial for December 1 in a taxpayer lawsuit challenging constitutionality of California’s gender quotas for corporate boards of directors (Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (No.19STCV27561)). READ https://www.judicialwatch.org/ca-gend...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FvqlgSWgHeI

(This could go in a number of threads, but I'm putting it here to interject a bit of hope, hopefully. )

[Ewan]

Thought this was worth sharing.

Rowan Atkinson, a well known British entertainer/comedian and actor's thoughts on Free Speech.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

edit: I miss Mike.

[Vangelo]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1827551238893776956

“No guarantee of free speech” - Walz

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2024


https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1827732445233402288

Laura Loomer
@LauraLoomer
·
56m
On @MariaBartiromo’s show just now, the brilliant @peterschweizer just said without a doubt, the Chinese Communist Party has been “grooming” Tim Walz @GovTimWalz. He says he brought back copies of Mao’s “Little Red Book” for copies of his students upon his return to the US.


Here’s the clip.

The Chinese Communist Party is grooming Tim Walz.
@Tim_Walz

He’s the CCP’s Trojan Horse.

To quote Waltz... "There is no guarantee of free speech on mis-information or hate speech, and especially around our democracy."

This is exactly why we have the first amendment, i.e. to allow speech of any kind.  It's purpose is to enable dissent, specifically political dissent.  Walz is either ignorant of how and why we have the first amendment or he knows, and wants to send the US down the road of totalitarianism (in any number of forms... see the 2nd tweet).  A true supporter of the first amendment will defend any person's right to say the stupidest, hurtful, horrific things.  Defending the right to free speech does not mean you agree with the speech.  

There are two dangers that concern me about those who are anti-free speech:
1) The definition of acceptable speech will change along with the change in political leadership.  Said another way, one man's hate speech is another man's virtue speech.  We have already seen how dangerous this can be with covid "mis-information" that was censored and later turned out to be the truth.  Many were harmed and have died as a result.

2) Limiting's one speech also limit's one's thoughts.  A society without diversity of thought will not evolve and will eventually rot and die.

Cross Posted Here:

[Rawhide68]

If you are interested in the EU's involvement in transforming the world into a totalitarian and Orwellian global entity, this is for you.

A specter is haunting Europe, but not the specter of disinformation or hate speech.
No it is the specter of linguistic control and censorship to curb free speech and it's not comming from China or Russia, but the heart of the EU itself from the European Commission.
Specifically, this report details the hundreds of unaccountable and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering 'hate speech' and 'disinformation' to the tune of almost €650 million.

How the EU Manufactures Misinformation with Norman Lewis

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=knrDRrsjaT0

Many thanks to Norman Lewis for his great work, and to James for bringing attention to this important issue!