I don't think freedom of speech should be axiomatic, though. Firstly, I take a realist stance -- it isn't treated that way by the world, there are some things you could say that would make your life much worse. Second, it seems that freedom of speech is a good heuristic due to how awful the alternative is: forcibly inflicting silence on people. But there are many degrees between speech and glorified, internationally accessible scum, and that's often what ends up on the internet -- I'm not sure it deserves much more glorification.

You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at the same time, so I guess there are plenty of people who don't mind the openness of the site.

Freedom of speech IS axiomatic, in the bill of rights they didn't write..."freedom of speech, except when it disagrees with our beliefs", all the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights are not there to protect the opinions of the majority, they are there to protect the opinions of the minority.

Sure its not treated this way in the real world, and that's where the hypocrisy lies. All these people being proud of "the freedoms we enjoy in America", are usually the same people who then go around and start telling everyone what they can or can't do.

Internet really is the last standing bastion of actual freedoms. I can call you a little bitch when you act like one, and you won't run to the boss crying about getting your feelings hurt.

No there aren't any degrees, when you start applying degrees and stop giving a shit because it doesn't apply to you that's when you start helping others to strip away your own rights. The key is to set precedent, and when you have one its much easier to go for the bigger fish.

And here is a good quote for you: "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."

So you may disagree with whats being said, but you really need to take the approach of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." because if you don't, it won't be long before it affects you.

There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent.

When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become.

One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.

b) And I would hardly call 4chan a big firefight either. Its not like its stormfront, its not like the site is only about racism. That's the whole point of the site, everything that is not illegal goes. And who are you to impose your morality on other people?

c)You can run your site however you want, you have the freedom.Like I said, if you don't like it, stop your bitching, close your browser, and move on with your life.

d)Like I said thats the whole point of freedom of speech, its not there to protect "not intrusive" speech, its there to protect the speech that makes religious zealots like you, bitch and moan about, like video games, just because the main characters uses the word fuck. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

e) There you go again selectively choosing which rights people should have. Ok I'll play your little game, we aren't allowed to use freedom of speech about published content that people can see(even though if you read this wiki entry it specifically talks about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet). But then using your distorted view of the bill of rights, we can then use the freedom of the press to justify keeping the speech on the internet free. f) Yet this is EXACTLY what you are doing, you want to deny other people their freedom of speech, just because you disagree with what they say. Calling someone a bitch does not intrude on their freedom of speech, they can call you a faggot right on back.

[eye roll]

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not sure how "intrusive speech" isn't a subset of "speech".

And if something is published here legally, what's the objection to it being "internationally accessible"? Modulo "munitions" (e.g. encryption).

At the time he wrote it, if I ran a publishing house, I wouldn't have printed it. However, if I were a politician, I wouldn't have blocked it from being published.

Words on a page don't hurt people, people do. By all means, punish the people for their actions, but silencing them does nobody any good. They'll find a way to be heard anyways, and then all you've done is give them notoriety.

(I'm not using a sock puppet to post this -- if someone takes this the wrong way it's their own damned fault)

You couldn't have been a politician to block it unless you were a part of the Nazi party, or an opposition party who I think were outlawed anyway.

Thoughts lead to words lead to actions. If you sanction the words then you sanction the action to a great degree - especially when the this flow on effect is rapid. If you feel the strong should survive, then give them free reign, but to stand there in smug glee saying, "I let them publish Mein Kamp, but didn't do so myself" to me resembles the same evil as doing nothing in front of the cattle trucks as they were being loaded.

The difficulty is that at the time, you couldn't really speak out.. and if you did, you might join the rank and file of those destined for death. In this environment, people's souls are silenced and one can become spineless.

History is reoccuring, Iran is building nukes to take out Israel and eventually other non-Muslim countries who don't cower to Islamic ideals. Hiding this latter reality is what assists Iranian nuclear development. This freedom-for-all line of thinking says "Everything's hunky dory, as long as Israel has anti-ballistics, then it's fair game. As long as I can throw abuse back at you then great." But it is not the case that freedom is always 'good' and restriction is not, because evil must be ruthlessly exposed and curtailed for there to be any evolution, and for higher states of hapiness to be experienced.

My point is that Mein Kampf did not kill 50 million people; Hitler and his regime did. To argue causality between words and actions is to argue against free will of people, and therefore against personal responsibility.

Yes it did. And not totally correct.

Mein Kampf represented the essence of the Nazis just as America's Bill of Rights relates to the USA. So too this board has its rules and the influence of its founder.

Banning a text that left unchecked will lead to mass murder and untold suffering throughout generations shows a huge expression of free will, and a pretty good use of it, if you may. Writing it shows next to none but rather a purging of one's hate and malice, with this internal line of thought then ready to be spread to the minds of others.

This is where you're not listening to me: The text did not cause mass murder and untold suffering. People did that; books are just inanimate objects.

Texts in the hands of people can have a great power at influencing the behaviour of their readers. When the author and readers are strongly prone to certain thoughts and actions as a result of a particular book, then short of education, banning a text may be an effective thing to do to avert a particular reality from occurring that a text may propose.

The fact that books are inanimate objects makes censorship possible in this way, rather than putting someone in prison. Sometimes people lose their freewill and are drawn to books... and meglomaniacs.

Well I guess if you're a Nazi then it's okay, if you're me I'd rather ban Mein Kamp.

I agree with the sites policy: ban child porn...and just about nothing else. Maybe I'm being closed-minded about child pornography, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. At any rate, vaksel, you're totally right. May I add that freedom is not about being able to say what others want you to say, but being able to say what they don't want you to say. (except for "fire!" in a crowded theater and the like")

It's beautiful in its own little twisted way.