Freedom of speech
At least 100 years ago, people did not have or know the concept of free speech and were only allowed to speak in 5-word sentences. Then they discovered how much fun it was to cry "Fire!" in a crowded room and watch normies stampede to the exit. Death and lulz ensued, and freedom of speech was born.
Freedom of speech is a legal concept, civil liberty and a recognised human right that gives one the ability to speak whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want without fear of state censorship or legal repercussions. Many countries have constitutions that protect free expression, but none do it better than the OGs that thought of it first.. England with the Magna Carta. Americunts did it later, but admittedly did a better job of it after they rebelled against the britfags after the War of Independence. Lesser trolls use it merely a means to an end in mundane flame wars to act like a douche while claiming to be safeguarding "basic civic liberties". Others like Count Dankula take their trolling to another lulzy level entirely by becoming martyrs for their loud shitposting, pissing off normalfags, celebrities and the established powers that be.
The First Amendment (for retards)
On the internet, the First Amendment is 101% likely to be invoked completely fucking wrongly by a brainlet who hasn't taken the time to actually read the motherfucker. So we're going to do the due diligence of actually informing you of what it means in words you can understand. By the way, you're welcome.
The Right to Speak Your Damn Mind
Once upon a time, our Americunt forefathers took a break from slaughtering injuns and making their slaves pick cotton to declare that all land-owning white men who were allowed to vote had certain unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights, the foundation of the United States constitution, established these rights. The very first one offered them the freedom to say whatever the hell they wanted to say, no matter how stupid or offensive it was, and THE GOVERNMENT would have no power to intervene. Non-government organizations, on the other hand, still had the power to force people to GTFO. Just read the fucking thing:
—The First Amendment
The First Amendment protects us all from evil by guaranteeing our right to:
- Anything on 4chan
- Freedom of Assembly
- Create & share amusing racial epithets!
- Freedom of the Press
- Freedom of Religion
- Petition the Government for redress of our grievances
- Political dissent and mod sass
In addition, the First Amendment also prohibited a particular religion from being forced upon us by the State, which is a bit different from how Americans view it today, but whatever. The long and short of it is that being allowed to speak your mind is a good thing, because it allows healthy dialogue between two individuals, and even between individuals and the state. This allows awareness of certain topics or problems in any community to spread, and be talked about openly, and for those in charge to address it properly. At least that's the idea in theory...
The First Amendment's also gave "freedom of the press", originally referring to the right to "publish" one's political thoughts and beliefs. Printed pamphlets, posters, flyers, newspaper columns and even letters sent to those newsletters were able to be published with whatever insane bullshit people wanted on them. Whether you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, a KKK member, or a Zionist, you had the basic right to spread the word. These days we have the internet for this purpose, and we have outlets like imageboards, forums, even Jewtube comments (which of course the commenters are world renowned for their intelligent and high quality opinions).
Limitations to Free Speech
HOWEVER... it should be noted that Freedom of speech and expression isn't a UNO Reverse card. While you are TECHNICALLY free to say whatever you want without consequence from the state, there are common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech recognized by a court of lol that DO open you up to a number of consequences, while not specifically violating this right. Common limitations can constitute any of the following: (click on them to learn more)
- Libel or slander
- Sedition or treason
- Fighting words
- Classified information
- Trade secrets
- Non-disclosure agreements
- Public Security
Is this simple enough for you nuggets to understand? Good, carrying on...
On the Internets
Anywhere there are stupid attention whores who have no idea what they are talking about, there will surely be an appeal to the First Amendment for protection. Unlike real life, every single website on the internet has an owner who wields total power over everything passing through said site, therefore making the Internet a collection of despotic nation-states, each ruled by its own tyrant (READ: PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT). Although most webhosts would argue that it's a good idea to practice free speech out of principle, and that the actual legal wording of the most recent revision of the USC should be used as a template. However, those webhosts don't own facebook, twitter, reddit or 4chan, which are platforms notorious for spurious bouts of censorship.
If you're getting ready to cite the First Amendment to protest your "brutal oppression" by that faggot moderator at whatever website he banned you from, or because a thirteen-year-old banned you from his Call of Duty lobby, ask yourself the following important questions first:
- Is my oppressor a United States law-making body?
- Is my oppressor trying to form a law?
- Is my oppressor a United States law-making body trying to form a law?
- Is my understanding of the First Amendment solid?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you should probably shut the fuck up and follow the rules you agreed to when you joined. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or United States Constitution does it allow you to post your retarded bullshit nobody wants to hear.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Arguments Against Freedom of Speech
Count Dankula made a pretty good video on the top ten most overused arguments against freedom of speech. Our article will focus on some more niche ones, but this is definitely worth a watch:
Flag burning is totally allowed under freedom of speech, it's called symbolic speech. You wanna know who burns the most flags? Boy scouts. The BSA publication "Our Flag" states, "When the national flag is worn beyond repair, burn it thoroughly and completely on a modest, but blazing fire". So you end up looking like a brainlet to any true 'MURRICAN patriot who isn't completely braindead.
Burning the flag of any major western country nowadays is considered safe speech by the cucked administrative powers that be, and nobody cares about safe speech. Besides, Antifa burn them for free when they aren't already busy burning dumpsters. If you really want to piss off normalfags with flag burning, burn an LGBT flag or the national flag of Israel. Better yet, buy a shitload of copies of the Quran and burn that instead, then watch the lulz ensue as you claim it's a protected, symbolic, artistic form of expression. Remember, the name of the game is to GET LULZ OR DIE TRYING! In the current year, that means pissing off the people who want to RESTRICT the extent of your speech. (see below)
That one fucking retarded XKCD comic about free speech
Why is it so retarded? Where to begin? Firstly, this XKCD comic keeps getting dragged up like a forced meme in literally any argument about freeze peach wherever someone has an unpopular opinion or gets b&. The argument being made is robust enough: "An individual might invoke the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees, among other things, free speech to any entity or person subject to the legal jurisdiction of the US. It expressly specifies that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.". As the persons preventing your speech from being heard are not under the banner of congress and are instead private individuals, they can do what they want and they don't have to offer you a platform."
Well there you go, it's a private company doing what it wants so they're allowed to do it... right?
Practicing censorship isn't illegal for companies hosting public platforms like Twitter, the problem comes when their rules are being enforced arbitrarily. When rules from big tech platforms that would otherwise get someone from Group A banned, where someone from Group B enjoys freedom from that same rule-break, then that platform is acting as a publisher editorializing opinions that it approves en masse, as opposed to existing as a platform protected by the first amendment. With Twitter as the case in point, they have allowed ISIS terrorists and antifa members to own accounts and radicalize others on the platform, while handing out bans at random to literal nobodies who weren't that big a deal to begin with. You'd think that silicon valley tech companies would work tirelessly to combat the spread of AIDS on their websites, but not only do they not care, they actively collude with each other to carry it on. And when someone decides to make the next big killer app that actively rivals their userbases, they pull their strings to shut it down.
The problem isn't the fact that someone is restricting your speech, it's that every platform is so oppressively restricted by design. Because if another platform isn't, it becomes a problem for the ones that are.
We at Encyclopedia Dramatica LOVE the idea of freedom of posting whatever the hell we want, even if the consequences eventually lead us to being hosted in Ukraine. But the fact that we say words like nigger or kike, or have extremely biased opinions on current events or joke about human tragedy means our voice is under constant threat of being silenced. Some of the topics that do crop up are about people who rightly deserve to be trolled because they're a never-ending source of amusement, and we love shit that's funny, who doesn't? But these are topics that would be considered taboo on silicon valley's exponentially growing list of things you can't even mention even in passing, because it might offend someone. That's why everyone hates this comic, because it's basically giving validation for big tech to censor certain opinions as part of some nigger loving special pleading
Do you want a shortcut anon? Just use ED:XKCD-FS
Who hates it?
Traditionally, the majority of conservatives considered themselves to be the sole arbiters of the Constitution, believing our founding document to be divinely inspired and intended to be taken and read literally. They also unilaterally oppose any form of extrapolation from, or alternate application of, the principles set forth therein and consider these efforts to be little more than an illegal, extra-constitutional excess. Essentially, their arguments revolved around special pleading in order to justify censoring opinions which favorably portrayed anyone unfortunate enough to exist above crude oil. Also, with the absolute turd that was the Patriot act having passed through congress like a massive kidney stone, it allowed law enforcement to perform downright Orwellian-style surveillance. This included the ability to tap domestic and international phones, indefinite detainment of immigrants without trial, and granting police the right to enter properties and take records without a warrant and without the consent or knowledge of the individual in question.
Lately the conservative party have realised that, among other things, giving your rival party the power to censor anything not appropriate for the narrative you want to push is a retarded idea, and thanks to figureheads like Trump leading the charge against the brigaded masses, the conservative party is well on its road to recovery. Be wary though, because there are still big blubbering asshole never-trumpers like Glenn Beck deeply rooted in the party, who just don't see the bigger picture.
British conservatives on the other hand have no such qualms over squashing dissenting masses from complaining about silly things like the growing number of rapefugees in the norf of Engerlund, largely due to their weak mealy-mouthed leadership. If anything, their soft-balling of this topic only serves to fan the flames of unrest as the britfag police continue to arrest its ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE citizenship over their shitposting of BLM or LGBT degeneracy. The police will even investigate tweets and record it as a "non-crime hate incident", which is essentially newspeak for "we're butthurt about this".
These nutty fuckers love distorting every aspect of the Bill of Rights, anything that threatens the value of their hollow, atheistic, contradictory pandering in order to get a cushy tax-paid salary for doing nothing all day is a threat to them. They love to preach how much they care for the little people of society, but they know that the second they cut any slack for a dissenting opinion they will lose their oh so delicate narrative. Since they control the currently dominant monoculture of hating whitey, the list of subjects they will consider taboo grows exponentially due to the narrowing of their overton window, and the widening of their anuses thanks to Tyrone. They will quickly throw free speech under under the bus if:
- The speech is "ZOMG! Hateful!" or "Offensive" towards anyone except for Conservatives or Christians.
- The speech suggests that certain US laws be enforced, or imply that certain minority groups are anything less than wholesome and pure.
- The speech in question is critical of valuable artistic expression.
- The speech criticizes their lacklustre performance, and promotes how an opponent did everything they're trying to do better
- The speech is drawing grassroots attention from normies who would otherwise be bluepilled as fuck
- The speech is telling people it's okay to lack skin pigmentation
- The speech is asserting dominance over an elected official
- The speech is pro-gun
- The speech is anti-abortion
- The speech is red
- The speech is in cursive
- THE SPEECH IS SHITPOSTING LOUDLY
You get the idea, the modern neo-lib is the incarnation of no fun allowed, so troll them until the fucking cows come home.
Socialists, much like Democrats, believe free speech gets in the way of their utopian drivel. They argue that free speech in the sense used in bourgeois capitalist 'democracies' means the right to undermine social justice and erode the social solidarity of the working class. But they're socialists, so what the fuck do they know about free speech? In fact, all you have to do disprove a socialist is point them to a country that actually enacts socialism. Prepare for more butthurt as they claim that it's not true socialism, and that their platonic daydreaming nonsense is the REAL way it should be done, only for them to ape the mistakes from your example.
See above for all the shit they don't like because they're literally just liberals in denial, cucking out for that party whenever election season comes around. Don't forget to drink those berniebro tears the next time you bring him up, because the stupid boomer is too old to run again lol.
The Americunt government continues to to weasel it's way around the First Amendment in order to regulate the flow of information from the media, even colluding with biased media outlets themselves for profit. Is this some sort of conspiracy theory? Reptilians? The Illuminati? No, it's something far simpler: press passes. A press pass is a document that shows an individual is permitted to enter an area that they would not otherwise be allowed to visit, checked on by defacto government-funded hall monitors. It allows reporters to attend Press Secretary briefings and other press activities at the White House. So, while the mainstream media supports the government by being significant corporate interests that help fund those politicians' campaigns for office, individual reporters are kept in check via press passes. If a reporter asks the Press Secretary or a politician a tough question that puts them on the spot or is "out of bounds", they will have their pass for those events revoked. Usually this will be the beginning of the end of that reporters career since all major media outlets are owned by a handful of conglomerate corporations, and they will likely become an hero like Epstein.
Take for example the war in Iraq. Everyone howls for the blood of the Neo-Cons and W for entering a war under false pretenses. Bull-fucking-shit! The Republican Party may be nasty enough to do it, but they couldn't generate a single braincell if their lives depended on it. The true culprit is the cucked media, and being hosed with things like press passes makes reporters frightened of their careers and futures, preventing them from confronting our overlords with difficult questions. Questions like "Can we see the facts that justifies going to war before millions of people suffer and die?"
Or what about the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, where every major media outlet was so heavily biased against Trump that they a) focused so hard on the few retarded things he said years ago like pussy jokes, or Chinese whispers of what he said about Mexicans. And b) they refused to report on the reality on his chances of winning, and won by a fucking landslide. The same thing fucking happened in britain the same year with Brexit, the BBC lied, the normies died, the anon lulz'd.
And this is why people think Infowars makes more sense.
Social Justice Warriors
As a subset of liberals (to an even more ridiculous extreme), they want to demonstrate at all costs how wahmen, LGBTQ communities, and PoC are still suffering from a system that they believe only benefits white heterosexual men, and the only way to achieve equality is by enforcing a set of illogical rules whose sole goal is to have all of the privileges and rights that modern society provides without performing any of its duties. In short: silence anyone who has seen through their immature tactics and preposterous demands by shielding themselves against valid criticisms, portraying themselves as victims of unwanted bullying while doing the same thing themselves. They will classify any dissenting comments as death threats, racist, sexist, transphobic statements, or rape attempts. They will also demand the inalienable right to say whatever the fuck they want (no matter how absurd, idiotic, or foolish it may seem), but they will refuse to recognize the same right to anyone who dares to criticize them. They will also conveniently ignore those same rights to any person who dares to criticize them
Unique to the Jew is an uncanny ability to combine Arab xenophobia of the Conservatives with the Liberal's sensitivity towards offending other types of minorities, easily making Jews the ultimate First Amendment hypocrites. Should any goyim have the gall to post a joke at their fragile expense, they will immediately cry antisemitism and try to ruin your life.
Much like the Niggers, Arabs also take a very narrow view of the freedom the First Amendment guarantees. While generally supportive of their own right to assemble, speak freely and the freedom to choose Islam as their religion, Arabs can become violent (and even spontaneously combust!) when other groups attempt to assert the same rights for themselves.
ME NO RIKEY! NO RIKEY YOUR BAD THOUGHTS! YOU RIKE DEAR READER, YOU RIKE YOUR HOUSE, YOU RIKE YOUR FAMIRY, YOU RIKE SWEATSHOP, YOU RIKE YOUR GOVERMENT OR YOU SHALL FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. DO NOT MENTION HONG KONG, DO NOT MENTION TAIWAN, DO NOT MENTION TIBET, DO NOT MENTION CENTURY OF MISFORTUNE, AND ESPECIARY DO NOT MENTION TIANANMEN SQUARE MASSACRE! DO YOU SERIOUSRY THINK YOUR FUNNY? DO YOU WANT TO END UP RIKE THE MUSRIMS THAT WE'RE GASSING IN CONCENTRATION CAMP? NO? WELL YOU BETTER START BEHAVING.
JUST FOR READING PAGE YOU HAVE SOCIAL CREDIT ADJUSTEDDU! ENJOY NOT GETTING HIGH SPEED TRAINU FOR A MONTH! YOU BERRER NOT STEP OUT OF RINE AGAIN, OTHERWISE DING DONG BANNU! DING DONG BANNU TO DEATH!
The Church of $cientology, under the leadership of LRH proposed very early on to infiltrate sections of government under Operation Snow White, and they did with quite some success. However Anonymous used their free speech with Project Chanology to prove to the world they're nothing more than a sleazy, money hoarding cult brainwashing and destroying millions of lives around the world while cashing in on free money. The SCIENTLOLOGISTS didn't like this however, and decided to try and shut these raids down by claiming that these brave anons were their SPs, and the irl trolling of their "church" was hate speech.
For niggers, the First Amendment exists solely to prevent anyone except niggers from using the term "Nigger", or to prevent anyone other than niggers to poke fun at them for being niggers. While this may appear hypocritical at first, keep in mind that Niggers are little more than a lightly evolved ape-species that is largely illiterate. As a result, their faulty grasp of the Constitution can be traced to the peculiarities of their biology.
There are some niggers like Dave Chappelle who have turned this around, and based their entire career on saying nigger over and over again as part of their comedy, at the expense of the censors on either Comedy Central or HBO. However, he did get in trouble for saying faggot, because while he is allowed to say nigger, because he was told that word should only be used by other faggots. What we see here then is a never-ending circlejerk of "oppressed minority groups" gating others (especially whitey) from using a bunch of words like they have exclusivity over them.
Much like the Niggers, Arabs and the Jews, autists hate it when people use their disability as an insult or a joke, they end up going to extreme cases as bitching and moaning on the internet by saying that autism isn't an insult or a joke, not knowing that their words aren't being heard. Considering that we just hear screeching instead. Truth be told, most autists don't actually have freedom of speech. Because they can't fucking talk.
- So I can rule internets nao? Cuz mootie banned me and stole my first amendment?!
- ED Help Desk:
- LOL! No, Virginia... Here, on the interbutts, the First Amendment is a complex thing!
How to explain it to you... Hummm...
Ok, try this!
Now pay attention Virginia, because this is key - That's our coffee table, in our living room!
(BTW, we had our pets stuffed because they were poor listeners.)
(Except he stuffs his pets with cock instead.)
Nor, does he have a right to talk to my coffee table.
(Like it could hear him anyway.)
The Constitution says we aren't obligated to provide a venue for any of this retard bullshit.
I hope that helps, dear...
- ED Help Desk:
Yes... that's the Constitution, Virginia.
The First Amendment is what made this country great!
Long live our First Amendment!
Kramer, doing it right
- Free Speech Crowd Muslim.jpg
- The Encyclopædia Dramatica and ED Forums, Last bastions of Freedom of Speech EVAR
- It's Okay To Be White - an A* example of trolling mediacucks with FOS lulz
- 1 for all
- You vs. ED
- United States
Groups that abuse Freedom of Speech
- White People
- Right-Wing in general
Groups with no Freedom of Speech
- A Documentary on Media Manipulation - An hour long documentary on media manipulation without normal conspiracy theory bullshit like the NWO and Alex Jones. Very plain and easy to see in simple terms for the average idiot.
|Freedom of speech is part of a series on Language & Communication|
|Freedom of speech
is part of a series on serious business
Free Speech • Identity theft • Irony • Internet asshole • Internet Celebrities • Internet disease • Internet drama • Internet humanitarians • Internet Law • Internet lawsuit • Internet lawyer • Internet stalking • Internet tough guy • Internet Vigilante Group • Operation Falcon Punch • Swatting • Vandalism • World Wide Web Consortium
People & Organizations
2cash • Alan Turing • Casey Serin • David Hockey • Dear Cis People • Doxbin • Fast Eddie • Grace Saunders • Hallcats Squadron • Jessi Slaughter • Mary Bell • Meek Mill • Kittens • Maja Schmidt • Missy • Niggest Crook Force • Psychopath • Vloggerheads • WEB SHERIFF
Freedom of speech is part of a series on
Visit the Trolls Portal for complete coverage.