Support NeoGAF

[MasterCornholio]

Is there any reason in particular this thread is still up?

It’s a money maker.

 

[Mozza]

That makes no sense. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean no consequences for the shit you say. Everyone should be accountable for the shit they say.
Yeah, you’re free to say whatever you want. that doesn’t you shouldn’t face consequences.

But who sets the rules, as just because people get offended by something, does not mean it's offensive.

 

[Arun1910]

Hi Elon Musk,

May I also get gold.

Thank you.

Elon is among us thank you v much

 

[Redneckerz]

Man, now I need to rewatch Scrubs! Love that series so damn much. Would love to see them return, but also worried that they woudl be ruined in modern culture.

I just binged all seasons on Disney+ and it was worth it.
But fear not, J.D and Turk have a podcast where they discuss all Scrubs episodes! Still going strong - Fake Doctors, Real Friends with Zach & Donald -

 

[Swift_Star]

But who sets the rules, as just because people get offended by something, does not mean it's offensive.

That’s now how it works.
Society deems what it’s acceptable or not.
Just like it’s not acceptable to insult everyone in a forum, it’s not acceptable to say a group of people should die for whatever reasons.

People should be hold accountable for the shit they say.

 

[dr_octagon]

"When everbody is Gold, then nobody is"
Sun Tzu

"Everybody wants to be a gold member but nobody wants to be a gold member"
Aristotle

 

[Mozza]

That’s now how it works.
Society deems what it’s acceptable or not.
Just like it’s not acceptable to insult everyone in a forum, it’s not acceptable to say a group of people should die for whatever reasons.

People should be hold accountable for the shit they say.

Society sets the rules, or as you say deems what is acceptable or not, sounds a little more complex and nuanced then you are admitting.

 

[Swift_Star]

Society sets the rules, or as you say deems what is acceptable or not, sounds a little more complex and nuanced then you are admitting.

But it is complex and nuanced and that doesn’t change the crux of the argument:
People are free to say whatever they want and are/should be hold accountable for what they say.

 

[mansoor1980]

INSANE THREAD

 

[dr_octagon]

I'll raise you (not parentally, I mean like in a game of cards).

 

[Mozza]

But it is complex and nuanced and that doesn’t change the crux of the argument.
People are free to say whatever they want and are/should be hold accountable for what they say.

In certain instances if it could be classed as hate speech in legal terms, but again where is this rule book we are all supposed to be following, and who defines what is hate speech in the first instance. We can't all just fall back on the old it's society and some sort or unwritten code of conduct.

 

[mansoor1980]

I'll raise you (not parentally, I mean like in a game of cards).

gold reserves of secret gold donor....................

 

[dr_octagon]

gold reserves of secret gold donor....................

These are the dinner parties the gold elite hold

 

[Clear]

That makes no sense. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean no consequences for the shit you say. Everyone should be accountable for the shit they say.
Yeah, you’re free to say whatever you want. that doesn’t you shouldn’t face consequences.

As I wrote, FOS is specifically a protective right. It safeguards the ability to express dissent which of course is the cornerstone of a free society. Because if you lose that, you cannot organize against an unjust authority and hence tyranny looms large.

The fundamental error you are making is assuming that free speech is the only right ever in play, when obviously it isn't. There are other basic human rights in law that may take primacy depending on circumstance. So, for instance the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not a free speech issue, its primarily one of health and safety. Irresponsibly creating a stampede is the crime, not actual speech used.

This is where I fault the argument; because when somebody says "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" its misrepresenting what freedom of speech is, and omitting the actual cause of the consequence.

For example, not being "free" to lie and deceive a vulnerable person into giving me all their money and wordly goods is not an impingement of my right to free speech. Because were I to commit that crime it would be a matter of fraud, and punishable under that law.

When you isolate down to the consequences of speech and speech alone, you're getting on shaky ground.

 

[Beer Baelly]

We're almost at 24 karat pages

 

[Swift_Star]

As I wrote, FOS is specifically a protective right. It safeguards the ability to express dissent which of course is the cornerstone of a free society. Because if you lose that, you cannot organize against an unjust authority and hence tyranny looms large.

The fundamental error you are making is assuming that free speech is the only right ever in play, when obviously it isn't. There are other basic human rights in law that may take primacy depending on circumstance. So, for instance the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not a free speech issue, its primarily one of health and safety. Irresponsibly creating a stampede is the crime, not actual speech used.

This is where I fault the argument; because when somebody says "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" its misrepresenting what freedom of speech is, and omitting the actual cause of the consequence.

For example, not being "free" to lie and deceive a vulnerable person into giving me all their money and wordly goods is not an impingement of my right to free speech. Because were I to commit that crime it would be a matter of fraud, and punishable under that law.

When you isolate down to the consequences of speech and speech alone, you're getting on shaky ground.

That means that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

 

[dr_octagon]

We're almost at 24 karat pages

 

[chromhound]

Waiting for that diamond membership

 

[adamsapple]

But who sets the rules, as just because people get offended by something, does not mean it's offensive.

The terms of service of this website sets the rules when you're posting on it

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

www.neogaf.com

C. Although we cannot review every messages posted, and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to edit or delete any message for any reason. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold NeoGAF LLC harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).

As I wrote, FOS is specifically a protective right. It safeguards the ability to express dissent which of course is the cornerstone of a free society. Because if you lose that, you cannot organize against an unjust authority and hence tyranny looms large.

You're conflating a few different things here. Let's get this out of the way first, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You can have an opinion, that is your freedom of speech, but if you express that opinion in a way that can provoke violence (as an example), then that is not covered by law under freedom of speech.

There have been a few cases and rulings about this very thing. You should check it out.

 

[Mozza]

The terms of service of this website sets the rules when you're posting on it

http://[URL]https://www.neogaf.com/help/terms/

[/URL]






You're conflating a few different things here. Let's get this out of the way first, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You can have an opinion, that is your freedom of speech, but if you express that opinion in a way that can provoke violence (as an example), then that is not covered by law under freedom of speech.

There have been a few cases and rulings about this very thing. You should check it out.

I was replying in a general sort of way, yes all sites will have their own rules and conditions etc.

 

[Catphish]

You can't give gold to someone who already has it!

Muhahah!

 

[Clear]

That means that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

No. You miss the crucial element, the actual specific cause of the consequence.

That's where the rubber hits the road.

Because if that cause is simply a matter of what is said being judged to be disagreeable, and does not directly impinge upon other people's rights and freedoms... Then that should be considered protected speech.

 

[PhaseJump]

Waiting for that diamond membership

 

[Kssio_Aug]

Edit:

 

[Celcius]

Welcome to the Gold Club

Golden
Age
Forum

 

[Ristifer]

Imma slap the blue out of you

You surely slapped it hard, thank you very much (I’m assuming it was you - if not, thank you to whomever)!
Obligatory

 

[elbourreau]

That thread is a ...

Gold...

Mine...

 

[Chronicle]

 

[plushyp]

Edit: Thanks for the gold Kuranghi !

 

[OmegaSupreme]

So much gold. I'll take some more if one of you whale's is feeling generous. I'm cool aren't I?

 

[Swift_Star]

No. You miss the crucial element, the actual specific cause of the consequence.

That's where the rubber hits the road.

Because if that cause is simply a matter of what is said being judged to be disagreeable, and does not directly impinge upon other people's rights and freedoms... Then that should be considered protected speech.

Read what adamsapple said. I rest my case.

 

[Kdad]

Wow.

Logged in and saw a pulsing *live* icon so I unzipped and got ready for fun....

Then I realized its a *live* thread from last week still going strong

Holy shit! I invited my neighbour over to join me in front of the flames. GG guys!

 

[Clear]

Read what adamsapple said. I rest my case.

I already covered all that with not one but two examples showing how prosecution ultimately rests upon connecting intent and the committal of criminal/antisocial acts. Neither are to do with the fundamental right to free speech.

The reason I dislike the bluntness of the statement that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" is because taken at face value that validates the sort of state control favoured by the CCP.

Are you ok with that?

I'm not. And the scary part is that its the logical end-point for what happens when freedom of speech is not protected, and instead of the speaker's rights being of paramount concern it becomes about offence and grievance on the part of those who are able to wield power.

People really don't want to connect the dots and realize that there's really no difference between protecting the feelings of vulnerable minorities and all-powerful elites once legislation is enacted to enforce severe penalty based on perception alone.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[Elder Legend]

At this rate EviLore with all the gold NeoGaf is making when are you sending over your private jet to have me flown over to you so we can go chill at the bar and get some hot escorts after?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Great work by the mods on this.
This is how you treat a ban request thread.

 

[-MD-]

The thread with the golden gun

 

[Beer Baelly]

First post on the next page gets gold

 

[Kdad]

Doing my part for the gold rush.

 

[01011001]

what is this thread at this point even? xD

 

[Pallas]

I already covered all that with not one but two examples showing how prosecution ultimately rests upon connecting intent and the committal of criminal/antisocial acts. Neither are to do with the fundamental right to free speech.

The reason I dislike the bluntness of the statement that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" is because taken at face value that validates the sort of state control favoured by the CCP.

Are you ok with that?

I'm not. And the scary part is that its the logical end-point for what happens when freedom of speech is not protected, and instead of the speaker's rights being of paramount concern it becomes about offence and grievance on the part of those who are able to wield power.

People really don't want to connect the dots and realize that there's really no difference between protecting the feelings of vulnerable minorities and all-powerful elites once legislation is enacted to enforce severe penalty based on perception alone.

Leave it to you to bring serious discussion in a otherwise meme-worthy, laid back thread.

 

[jigglet]

what is this thread at this point even? xD

What's the point of anything? There is no point. And that there - is the point.

 

[01011001]

What's the point of anything? There is no point. And that there - is the point.

 

[Kamina]

Still not 24 Karat thread?

 

[Pallas]

The thread with the golden gun

Doing my part for the gold rush.

 

[Kamina]

 

[jigglet]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if, off the back of this thread alone, Evilore is offered $10m for the site.

The new owners ban all new posts and keep this one post alive.

They bring this forum public and raise billions on IPO day.

Let's do it bitches.

 

[Kamina]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if, off the back of this thread alone, Evilore is offered $10m for the site.

The new owners ban all new posts and keep this one post alive.

They bring this forum public and raise billions on IPO day.

Let's do it bitches.

 

[01011001]

 

[Beer Baelly]