Hello fellow consumers,
As always thank you to everyone that participated in the last weekly and remember you are Operation MONKE!
NOTE:
Use and bookmark:
* https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct
* https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct
* https://arete.network/b/ConsumeProduct/
***
# This Weeks Discussion Theme: [Consoom fREEEEE speech]( https://arete.network/polls/c4557a52-9584-4aef-9c75-4ad963065cf2/)
In this weekly, we consooom fREEEEEE speech. Most rationally-minded people see the importance of free speech. So much so that many countries consider it a God-given right or argue it is a fundamental human right. Ideally, free speech means no limitations on what can be said. We know that ideal comes with many ‘buts’ some examples of this include “shouting fire in a crowded theater”, the use of “fighting words”, the use of misinformation (fake news), denial or historical revision of certain events, “indecent use or expressions of speech” like pornography or “hate speech”. There are two prime regulators of speech, that is people (what is socially acceptable) and the Government (what is by law legal or illegal). These two censors sometimes align but often feel at odds with one another. The internet is largely seen as the circumventor of both censors enabling the idealistic form of free speech. In recent years the internet has strayed far away from the idealistic form of free speech largely due to the centralization of the internet where big tech actively works with Governments to combat and censor what they deem not acceptable forms of speech. Some see this censorship as a good thing and in some cases it is. However arguably most of this censorship truly appears malevolent. In this weekly we ask where is the fine line between free speech and unacceptable speech? Should all speech be allowed in the idealistic form of free speech or is it truly a complicated matter where we can’t have free speech in its idealistic form?
Discussion ideas:
* What does “free speech” really mean, what does it look like, and how is it supposed to work in society?
* Do you consider yourself a free speech absolutist?
* Where do you draw the line on what “speech”, or “forms of speech” shouldn’t be allowed? In otherwards when should speech not be free of consequence?
***
# Weekly Polls:
* ▶ [What do you want next week’s theme to be? (02-05)](https://arete.network/polls/809d4e00-6e66-406f-be8f-61672b0e5c19/)
* [Suggest a new weekly themes to be added to the list](https://take.supersurvey.com/QW20VXWHK)
***
# Previous Weeklies:
* [Master List](https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/wiki/ConPro-Weekly/)
But when I say speech (and the founders as well), I mean it. Paintings are not speech. Writing is simply recorded speech, and that is protected as well. Pictures, though useful, are not speech. Videos are not speech. Speech is speech. Committing debauched acts is not speech.
These are all things that jews and degenerates (but I repeat myself) have been trying to argue are speech, when they by definition can never be. Whether it's child pornography, Hollywood propaganda (which does not fall under "the press" btw), or accusations of "hate speech", the judaizer knows no bounds to his 1st amendment related pilpul.
The only thing I'd have to give up on to remain ideologically consistent is some sort of gross novel. I think the obvious way to deal with that is basic Christian morality. Luckily my Christianity does not require me to remain ideologically consistent, so I can just infringe on my liberal ideals for the sake of being based, and it's no problem. So let's just ban that kind of writing. Lol, lmao.