How far does free speech absolutism go?

The first amendment states the government can't prosecute you for your speech.

If we were logically consistent, then an ISIS supporter would be able to fly an ISIS flag on public property and the government wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

All the free speech advocates didn't say anything when Big Tech censors pro ISIS accounts.  They will defend the free speech of Nick Fuentes, but not ISIS.

I think there needs to be a consistent standard.  Either Fuentes AND ISIS should get free speech on social media platforms and the same amount of vigor should be used to defending the free speech of those with horrible views or neither should.

But Fuentes is a right wing figure, so the right will cheer on his right to free speech.  ISIS on the other hand; they are left wing, so it's not as much of a free speech concern.

I think the standard of, "if you genuinely wish (not tolerate in the pursuit of something else, but wish) the death on somebody whom you believed didn't harm anybody else, then it would be banworthy" may be a good standard.  So you can advocate the death penalty for murderers and rapists and kidnappers (positions I agree with), but if you advocate the death penalty for Jewish people or black people or Christians, then it would get banned and you would face prosecution.

I think from here moving forward that that is a good standard to have.

The death penalty for unwanted unborn babies (pro choice) would be free speech (speech I don't agree with) because that's in pursuit of women's bodily autonomy.

But this also means if I call a black person the N word as a white person, then that is free speech because the N word isn't inheritely calling for the death of someone based on race.

Do DARTers agree with this standard?  Yes or No?

On 2nd thought; I think I'll stick to free speech absolutism; counterarguments made a good point.

Okay, fine. I'll bite.

American supporters of ISIS who aren't actively involved in crimes deserve the same free speech rights as Nick Fuentes or any other American. But since a known criminal would normally be imprisoned and their access to the internet restricted, I don't have a problem with curtailing the social media activity of violent fugitives from the law.

You are trapped in the useless concepts of your own making. Nothing will make sense. You need to stop with the attempt at binary categorization.

As happy as I am that ISIS has tricked dumb liberals into hinking they are leftists. Free speech absolutist is honestly just a code word for child porn advocate. Most free speech people think CP should be banned. Absolutist distinguish themselves from other free speech advocates by adopting the name absolutist. 

This is one of those situations where most of the left wing is good at censoring right wing opi ions they find objectionable and half of conservatives want to widen the definition of porn and ban a ton of free speech stuff as well. .

Most sensible people, which I realize is a mi ority of he right and left these days, would support the free speech of ISIS, Nick Fuentes and Kim Jung Un. 

The reason they see it as being under the guise of defending naziism (which by he way Nick Fuentes is not), is because if they can convince your average person that the right only cares about the free speech of nazis it gets them a free pass to censor any subversive thought or speech. 

The reason the left does this is because quite frankly can't survive a free speech environment where people can actually debate them. It is why all the top debaters on DDO, which included me, Danielle, Roy lathem and Donald Keller, thett, were essentially all libertarian or paleoconservatives. The one exception near the top of the leaderboard was Mikal who got there with rap battles, but was obviously competent outside of rap battles as well. 

The left has noticed that they can't survive in a place where ideals are debated, so they have pushed big tech into censoring everything. 

I will say that, not all of their concerns are unfounded. A lot of heir censorship really is just about suppressing ideals they disagree with but some of the concerns they have about free speech are legitimate.

1. Foreign propaganda campaigns such as the Russian ones

2. Widespread disinformation that threatens public health and order. Vaccines, 5g etc

3. Campaigns of foreign intelligence agencies to him morale (Chinese using tiktok and discord for his type of campaign)

However we shouldn't be betraying our values to combat these threats. We combat them by teaching kids young and throughout life about media literacy, cognitive biases and critical thought. 

We combat them by building institutions that are actually trustworthy. 

We combat it by teaching ethics and leading with Christian values

I think that you guys were tired and therefore rambling a bit.

There is this interesting fact about constitutions.

Apparently, there are situations where one part of constitution contradicts another.

Person cannot be happy if everyone around him is constantly insulting him from early childhood.

While the constitution does guarantee free speech, it also guarantees right to pursuit of happiness and liberty.

Sometimes those end up in contradiction.

Free speech is rarely interpreted as total free speech.

I do appreciate being able to express an opinion, which is something most people didnt have for thousands of years.

I also think there is speech which is greatly harmful, and takes away someone else's liberty, basically.

Of course, it mostly affects young people.

Young people might even be driven to suicide due to people insulting them and humiliating them through speech.

Its not a perfect world, and total free speech isnt perfect either.

It comes with its flaws.

The pursuit of happiness is from the declaration of independence not the constitution 

I didnt know that.

I guess I got them mixed up.

It's interesting, because the rights to life, liberty, and happiness are thought to be based in both nature and the supernatural, so the founding fathers felt no need to include them in the constitution.

My rights don't end where your emotions begin and vice versa.

Otherwise, if I say, "Abortion is murder" and some woman that had an abortion is offended, then I could be put in jail for, "hate speech".  If I say, "Abortion should be treated as murder and women who get abortions should spend the rest of their life in prison" (the logical conclusion of treating abortion like murder), the same thing applies.