Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

Here is what you would get with that:

  • The following changes will affect all forms of expression and media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet, but not at all being limited to these mediums of expression, these changes will only concern the censorship policies of the government and public forums (in offline and online spaces), and will not impose any restrictions or obligations upon private organizations, groups, institutions, or individuals.

  • It shall no longer be a crime to share information that compromises national security, including classified or top secret information (someone like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, or James O'Keefe and their sources would be protected in all their journalistic activities, even the ones of the most controversy).

  • There shall be no laws regarding obscenity, child pornography, or hate speech (speaking on behalf of anyone who had been on those "anything goes" chat sites on the deep web, you can expect to a lot of all three, at least initially, until the legality of it makes it lose most of it's appeal, even the very worst of CP will lose it's appeal, and you can only say "nigger" so many times until it stops being fun).

  • There shall be no to laws to protect children or other vulnerable groups from accessing material that was formerly restricted to them by law (speaking from personal experience, even being prohibited by law from accessing that material didn't stop me as a kid, I could always figure out my parent's passwords and find a way into seeing what I was curious about, when I was as young as 11 or 12).

  • There shall be no laws to promote or restrict the expression or criticism of political or religious views (meaning that so long as no other laws are broken by them, all religious practice is protected, and blasphemy/heresy/apostasy is given similar protection, all political activities and ideologies are protected so long as no other laws are broken, and the political equivalent of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy, such as the denial of the holocaust or criticism of the current government and it's leaders, is a similarly protected form of expression, and there would be no legal course for prosecuting subversive media as existed under the Hayes' code of decency in the media and the particular restrictions placed on media by the chinese communist party).

  • There shall be no laws to prevent or punish slander, libel, or defamation (meaning that all defamatory claims are to be settled without resorting to the court system, there would be no court case of the hulkster taking money from those gawker jabronies, and a lot of the project veritas cases would not have gone to court).

  • There would be no laws restricting public expression in any way, so long as no other laws are broken by them, this would not only apply to the expression of groups, such as protests, rallies, and demonstrations, but also to individual acts of expression, such as public nudity, as there would also be no decency laws to restrict those who wish to go out in public while nude, even public acts of masturbation or sexual activity may be protected (though the element of social and cultural pressures means that a lot of people may not engage in these activities purely out of the shame and humiliation associated with doing so).

  • There would be no protection of intellectual property, as trademarks, copyrights, patents, industrial design permits, and trade secrets all necessitate the restriction of expression in some capacity, it means that the ownership of non-physical and abstract forms of property would not be able to be recognized, the ability for brands, artists, inventors, industries, and businesses to profit off of their exclusive right to their novel ideas would be limited (however, this may have an upside, items prices becomes more representative of their actual value due to the devaluation of their association to some form of branding, there will be less artists who create for profit, and more for expression's sake, and there would be more room for them to undermine the narratives of each other due to "official canon" getting shredded, severely cutting down on the level of propaganda in our media, etc.).

  • There would be no laws against issuing threats, using intimidating speech (including "fighting words"), committing blackmail, or engaging in speech that incites criminal activities, only the use of coercion (such as forcing someone to do something or else their lives, property, the lives of others, or the property of others may be threatened) may be prosecuted.

Basically, a world that takes freedom of speech to it's absolute extreme interpretation would be very different from the world of today.

Here is what you would get with that: - The following changes will affect all forms of expression and media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet, but not at all being limited to these mediums of expression, these changes will only concern the censorship policies of the government and public forums (in offline and online spaces), and will not impose any restrictions or obligations upon private organizations, groups, institutions, or individuals. - It shall no longer be a crime to share information that compromises national security, including classified or top secret information (someone like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, or James O'Keefe and their sources would be protected in all their journalistic activities, even the ones of the most controversy). - There shall be no laws regarding obscenity, child pornography, or hate speech (speaking on behalf of anyone who had been on those "anything goes" chat sites on the deep web, you can expect to a lot of all three, at least initially, until the legality of it makes it lose most of it's appeal, even the very worst of CP will lose it's appeal, and you can only say "nigger" so many times until it stops being fun). - There shall be no to laws to protect children or other vulnerable groups from accessing material that was formerly restricted to them by law (speaking from personal experience, even being prohibited by law from accessing that material didn't stop me as a kid, I could always figure out my parent's passwords and find a way into seeing what I was curious about, when I was as young as 11 or 12). - There shall be no laws to promote or restrict the expression or criticism of political or religious views (meaning that so long as no other laws are broken by them, all religious practice is protected, and blasphemy/heresy/apostasy is given similar protection, all political activities and ideologies are protected so long as no other laws are broken, and the political equivalent of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy, such as the denial of the holocaust or criticism of the current government and it's leaders, is a similarly protected form of expression, and there would be no legal course for prosecuting subversive media as existed under the Hayes' code of decency in the media and the particular restrictions placed on media by the chinese communist party). - There shall be no laws to prevent or punish slander, libel, or defamation (meaning that all defamatory claims are to be settled without resorting to the court system, there would be no court case of the hulkster taking money from those gawker jabronies, and a lot of the project veritas cases would not have gone to court). - There would be no laws restricting public expression in any way, so long as no other laws are broken by them, this would not only apply to the expression of groups, such as protests, rallies, and demonstrations, but also to individual acts of expression, such as public nudity, as there would also be no decency laws to restrict those who wish to go out in public while nude, even public acts of masturbation or sexual activity may be protected (though the element of social and cultural pressures means that a lot of people may not engage in these activities purely out of the shame and humiliation associated with doing so). - There would be no protection of intellectual property, as trademarks, copyrights, patents, industrial design permits, and trade secrets all necessitate the restriction of expression in some capacity, it means that the ownership of non-physical and abstract forms of property would not be able to be recognized, the ability for brands, artists, inventors, industries, and businesses to profit off of their exclusive right to their novel ideas would be limited (however, this may have an upside, items prices becomes more representative of their actual value due to the devaluation of their association to some form of branding, there will be less artists who create for profit, and more for expression's sake, and there would be more room for them to undermine the narratives of each other due to "official canon" getting shredded, severely cutting down on the level of propaganda in our media, etc.). - There would be no laws against issuing threats, using intimidating speech (including "fighting words"), committing blackmail, or engaging in speech that incites criminal activities, only the use of coercion (such as forcing someone to do something or else their lives, property, the lives of others, or the property of others may be threatened) may be prosecuted. Basically, a world that takes freedom of speech to it's absolute extreme interpretation would be very different from the world of today.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Your grouping a lot of shit into speech that isnt speech you jew. Raping kids isnt speech.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

Indeed, Raping kids is not speech. That's why it isn't listed above. Where in my post did I so much as imply that child rape was a form of speech? I can't find it.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

You cant film child porn without kid raping. And masturbating in public isnt speech either.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

Someone who rapes a kid is not speech, it is breaking the law, someone who films it is also breaking the law, as they are accomplice to the rape. under a system of absolute freedom of speech, both would be arrested, the presence of a camera does nothing to alter the illegality of rape.

It's not referring to either the rapist being filmed, or the accomplice recording it, they are not protected under freedom of speech, the rape being filmed is still very much a crime that will be prosecuted and falls far outside the purview of speech, being a crime against a person.

But, what I AM referring to is the film produced in the act, the recording of the crime and the crime itself are two separate entities, anyone who interacts with the film resulting from the crime would be protected, such as one who watches it, or shares it with others, these people were not involved in the crime, which is not protected, merely with the recording of it, which is protected.

think of it this way, there's a distinction to be made between owning a shrunken head, and making one, one involves murder or at the very least corpse desecration, the other only involves making a strange purchase or otherwise coming into the possession of the disturbing tribal fetish.

As for masturbating in public, I'd have to disagree, decency laws are a restriction on free expression, anything that does not affect the person or property of others (anything the NAP doesn't touch upon) has to fall within the grounds of expression, masturbation is a bit extreme, a less extreme example may be something like littering, or spitting on the sidewalk.

[–] • 0 pt

Whaddabout being able to encourage people to wipe their ass instead of cleaning it with a bidet?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

That's protected speech as well, if you are the pajeet referring to my manifesto, i never said you couldn't use toilet paper to clean your ass with, I merely said that all toilets that would be installed from then on would have to have bidets installed in them, so that people could use them to clean themselves if they so wished.

[–] • 0 pt

OHHHHHH here we go with his goberment regular-a-shuns!!!

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

What's wrong with them? Japan's washrooms were fucking perfect, ours haven't undergone significant changes since the Roman era!

You want to scrape shit our of your crack with the thinnest and softest of papers, you go ahead, but the rest of us would prefer we not have facilities that are as pig disgusting as 3D womyn.

I don't want particles of shit and piss getting all over my sink and stinking up the whole room whenever I flush, so we should mandate that toilets be placed in a separate room. I don't want to be "washing" myself by wading in some pool of my own filth, so I want a room with a separate place for showering before the bath. I want my laundry to get done while I'm cleaning myself, so the laundry machines should be integrated into the previously mentioned room just before the shower and bath.

The Japanese have put a lot of thought into the design of their facilities, and with this plandemic and it's lockdowns winding out into an opportunity for political changes, we have a very good chance at adopting these incredible designs into our country's future, but we would need a mandate for it if it is ever going to catch on here.

[–] • 0 pt

...these changes will only concern the censorship policies of the government and public forums (in offline and online spaces), and will not impose any restrictions or obligations upon private organizations, groups, institutions, or individuals.

So if individuals living in a small geographic area settled upon a form of local government to act on behalf of the group then decided to outlaw any of the items you listed, they'd be unable to? Isn't that limiting the rights of the individuals?

[–] • 1 pt

This raises the problem of monolithic superstates, rather than localities. Absolute free speech, much like socialism, can work on small and intimate scales with personal accountability. However, once the state exceeds the capacity of human interpersonal relationships, roughly a few hundred people, then it loses the capacity to govern due to the impersonal nature of those governing. This is why tyranny is so easy in large nations and densely populated cities.

[–] • 0 pt

Absolute free speech, much like socialism, can work on small and intimate scales with personal accountability. However, once the state exceeds the capacity of human interpersonal relationships, roughly a few hundred people, then it loses the capacity to govern due to the impersonal nature of those governing.

The more absolute a right, the fewer people can exercise it without imposing on someone else. You hit the nail on the head regarding the impersonal nature of government.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

it means that these laws against restriction of expression only prohibit the federal government from prohibiting these forms of expression, they say n nothing about anyone else.

Meaning that people who join a collective where they agree to some rules regarding limitations on speech are fully free and able to do so, but as for enforcing those rules, they would not be able to do something like imprison someone against their will, as they lack the legal authority to do so, aand that would be a crime against the person.

However, you could also be talking about this in a different sense, people getting together and forming their own government on land that already falls under the territory held by an existing government, which is secession and the establishment of autonomous zones.

If you are instead meaning to talk about smaller levels of government passing their own set of laws that apply locally within that territory, what you are referring to falls under the section of either state or municipal rights to make their own local laws, which differ from the laws at the federal level, though they exist within that framework, basically the USA.

[–] • 0 pt

only prohibit the federal government from prohibiting these forms of expression,

Like the original intent of the US Constitution. Got it.

but as for enforcing those rules, they would not be able to do something like imprison someone against their will, as they lack the legal authority to do so

My town has its own municipal code and can arrest people for violating it.

However, you could also be talking about this in a different sense, people getting together and forming their own government on land that already falls under the territory held by an existing government, which is secession and the establishment of autonomous zones.

No, I was referring to small towns like the one I live in.

If you are instead meaning to talk about smaller levels of government passing their own set of laws that apply locally within that territory, what you are referring to falls under the section of either state or municipal rights to make their own local laws, which differ from the laws at the federal level, though they exist within that framework, basically the USA.

Correct. Or, at least, the intent of the USA.