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

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] [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.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

We can reframe this by changing the crime, and you will understand how the law functions in this case.

Let's say you kill someone on camera, freedom of speech is not protecting you, you are guilty of murder, now let's say someone else films it, and helped stage the murder so that it could be filmed, they are guilty of being an accomplice to the murder, again, freedom of speech is not going to protect them, because they aided in the murder of someone.

But then lets say a third unrelated person comes across the videotape and watches it, you cannot say they killed anyone, nor can you say they aided in the killing, they are uninvolved with the killing, and only involved in the recording of the killing. Thus any laws punishing this viewer are relating not to the murder itself, but to the record of the murder.

Now let's say this third person sells this videotape to a fourth person who was also not involved with the murder, again, neither the third nor fourth person are able to be punished for taking any part in the murder, but only for their involvement with the recording of it.

The recording is not the act, it is a piece of media, and therefore protected by the laws of absolute freedom of speech, so in this case: - The first and second person are able to be prosecuted, for committing murder and for being an accomplice to the commitment of murder. but - The second and fourth person cannot be prosecuted for anything, they had killed no one, nor had they helped anyone to do so.

Also, yes, porn stars are prostitutes, the presence of a camera is inconsequential, or at least it should be, their entire career is having sex for money, and in any society not subverted by ZOG, there would be no distinction being made between a porn star and a prostitute.