Freedoms are crucial for a democracy to function.
Not an argument & how is this relevant, and how did you come up with this claim?
whatever the case, this claim doesn't make much sense, because democracy is something that's practiced; what do you mean by "function"? Are you trying to claim that freedoms are crucial for a democracy to be
practiced?
That in fact would be false, if you think the US has democracy, since there are many freedoms that are being deprived by the US government.
But there is still lines that should not be crossed, especially when there's a conflict between liberties.
This definitely doesn't make any sense; there's no such thing as a conflict between liberties.
If some supposed liberty is in conflict with a liberty or another supposed liberty, then at least one of them isn't actually a liberty.
A liberty is basically something that doesn't result in a crime victim; if there is a crime victim, then it was never a liberty to begin with & the word for that would be a crime.
For example free speech allows all sorts of expression of ideas, but it that includes saying false things about gays (for example) and as a result gays are targeted and harmed, how do the rights of gays get protected?
Your use of saying false things about gays as an example has at least 3 potential fallacy problems - appeal to emotion, cherry picking, false analogy, faulty generalization, false cause, and bandwagon.
It's potentially cherry picking because you leave out "straights" & maybe you ought to use "gays or straights" instead of just "gays", everywhere you use the word "gays" - like this:
For example free speech allows all sorts of expression of ideas, but it (sic)
that includes saying false things about gays or straights (for example) and as a result gays or straights are targeted and harmed, how do the rights of gays or straights get protected?
It's potentially appeal to emotion because of the choice of cherry picked example's historically contentious nature of widespread oppression against gays & the overall LGBTQ+ community that has actually been subjected to oppression, here in the US (and throughout the rest of the world in many places), and that in recent times progress has been made to eliminate such oppression.
BTW, I'm not a member of the LGBTQ+ community, but if I were, I'd consider it as a bit of a mockery to use the historical oppression as an excuse to advocate for censorship; I can justify this because as a member of the straight community and with a thought experiment, I can evaluate whether I'd see it as a mockery in a hypothetical situation where straights have been subjected to historical and widespread oppression.
It's potentially false analogy, because that would be an attempt to exploit that oppression to equate the type of source of that oppression with the type of source of false statements.
It's potentially faulty generalization, because you might be implying that all cases of false statements about gays might automatically result in all gays being targeted and harmed.
Along with that, it also might be implying that straights wouldn't be targeted and harmed by false statements about straights.
It's potentially false cause, since the targeting and harm wouldn't necessarily be attributed to the making of the false statement itself. The individual believing the false statement about gays who targets and harms is really the one who's responsible.
It's possible that someone who wants to target another individual who happens to be gay might use such a false statement as an excuse to harm them for an unrelated reason.
Targeting and harming someone is already a crime, for false statements, even for true statements. If you want to advocate for censoring false statements on the grounds that it does or might lead to targeting and harming, then you'd have to say the same about
true statements too; otherwise, you're pretty much just advocating for a double standard (never mind for advocating banning freedom of speech in general).
I think the LGBTQ+ community has a 2nd Amendment right to protect themselves (just like everyone else does) against being targeted and harmed from statements (true or false) in such a way that calls for & necessitates the use of arms, but in many cases - whether it's gays or anyone else, anyone subjected to false statements can resolve things by simply pointing out that they're false.
Who decides whether a statement is true or false, anyways? Does this include subjectively false statements?
Subjectively false statement maker: "Gays are ugly."
Person who targets and harms: "Let's get'em!"
You (maybe?): "We need censorship."
Is that how it is?
Like in most all areas of living in a society there have to be compromizes, and no one will get to do everything they want. To my mind hate speech offers no value to society, and creates harm to those targeted, and should be limited by law.
That's similar to what the anti-porn crowd says about pornography; I've heard them make the false claim that it's not art (it's a very notable example of art, good/bad/ugly, effective art has an influence on people, and pornography definitely has a strong influence on many people), and follow that with a leap in logic that it therefore has to be banned on the grounds that it's not art.
You can say that hate speech in itself offers no value to society, but it would be a strawman argument to say that the worthlessness of the hate speech in itself makes having hate speech worthless. I think people having the right to express hate speech is valuable, because it lets me know who hates me; I want to know this so I know who not to associate with, who to avoid, who not to do business with, who to warn others about, etc. How can I do that if they're going to conceal their true identity because they can't express themselves?
By advocating for censorship of hate speech, you're advocating for me and others to subject ourselves to harm. This is real for me, not hypothetical; I'm hispanic, and as such I'm in a minority class here in the US (although that may change if Kamala Harris becomes POTUS and she continues to let in the flow of illegal aliens).
Yeah, imagine no public schools,
Schools don't have to be "public"; they can still exist privately, and there are advantages of private schools over public schools. Public schools are like a monopoly, and as such don't have an incentive to provide their students with a good-quality education like private schools that compete with each other and can be fired if they don't do a good job with their education programs.
Public schools in general don't have a reputation for having good STEM (or STEAM) educational programs, teaching things like good financial management skills, or how to think (only what to think), maybe how to get a menial or minimum wage job, or to join the military to be cannon fodder. There are some good public schools out there, but odds of finding them outside of wealthy suburban areas are quite low.
Do you support school choice and credit voucher programs?
George Floyd would probably still be alive today, and in more recent news, another white cop who killed a black unarmed man was found not guilty on the manslaughter charge, yesterday:
no fire and rescue services,
Do you think only the state can provide fire and rescue services? Some are private, and some are volunteers.
Laws pertaining to things like contracts and property are not socialism, and almost all of the US doesn't have "civil codes", and even in the only US state that is based on it (Louisiana), it's a watered down hybrid.
What's "managed anarchy"? This sounds like an oxymoron.
Aint going to work. Civiliztions for thousands of years understand there has to be pooled resources and laws that manage individual behavior.
Managing behavior isn't what laws are supposed to be for; they're for protecting rights, and laws that manage individual behavior has nothing to do with rights other than depriving or denying rights.
That's correct, gun grabbing stuff.
I don't see anything you write here that reflects reality.
Then you have a perception problem, or something - is your problem with this also my problem?
