[ SECRET POST #3027 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3027 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 099 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[dethtoll]

You're going to have to back that statement up.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

If the will of the people determines what is politically valid & right - which is the basic principle of democracy - then why should speech and expression be shielded from the will of the people? From a democratic point of view, democracy should determine what speech is and is not acceptable.

Free speech is part of the edifice of liberal / republican / constitutional rights and freedom. Which often comes along with democratic governance, to the point that we mostly conflate the two, but on a pretty basic level they're distinct & in some senses conflicting ideas.

I mean, it's kind of a pedantic point and I'm mostly just fucking around, but it is basically true. And in re: your comment, there are a few people on the left who actually do take that line or something like it. Not many, certainly not to the extent that it's a dominant train of thought in the average person on tumblr or whatever, but it's out there.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[dethtoll]

The thing is that democracy DOES determine what speech is and is not acceptable. Not through any established political mechanism but through how people act. This ties in with the concept of social norms, in that what's acceptable to say or do and what's not acceptable are dictated by the people, and can change over time. This is why doing something that goes against the grain, or even disagreeing with the majority, can be considered a revolutionary act.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

What I mean to say is that, from a purely democratic point of view, the will of the people should be able to determine what is acceptable both from a social and a legal point of view. That is to say, there is an argument that if you believe in democracy, then democracy should be able to sanction speech.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

No. Because all you need is one charismatic nut to convince people that [GROUP] is evil and needs to be exterminated.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying that pure democracy is a good thing

I'm not advocating this as a system

There are good reasons we have a liberal constitutional structure on top of democracy

I'm saying there is this theoretical tension between democracy and liberalism, that the two aren't the same, that someone who supported democracy would not necessarily support liberal ideas like free speech, and that this tension does play out in actual political issues

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[dethtoll]

I would argue that that's a failing on democracy's part rather than that of free expression.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

Sure.

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

No. Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for your opinions.

In what world do you live in where people are not judged publicly for shit they say?

Re: A relatively "balanced" article

[(Anonymous)]

I legit don't know what you think I'm arguing

but to be clear here, when I say "acceptable", I mean legally acceptable, not socially acceptable