# Free Speech

Freedom of speech means there is no responsibility and absolutely no punishments or obstacles (such as censorship), imposed by anyone (government, corporations, culture, society, technology, ...), against merely talking about anything, making any public statement and sharing or publication any kind of information at all. Adopting free speech is not about increasing the degree of speech tolerance as many erroneously think, it's rather a complete change of values and a switch of mentality, letting go of old, primitive kind of thinking and making the leap to a new intellectual level, to absolutely eliminating the very concept of limiting or punishing any kind of expression, like ridding an animals of its chains instead of just speculating about how long the chain should be, therefore **free speech has to be by definition absolute and have no limit**, otherwise it's not free speech but controlled, limited speech -- trying to add exceptions to free speech is like trying to limit to whom a free software license is granted; doing so immediately makes such software non-free; free speech "with limits" is like free lunch for a low price or vegetarian food with only a little meat in it -- it's not the real thing, it just wants to be called *X* without actually being *X*. **Free speech also comes with zero responsibility** exactly by definition, as responsibility implies some forms of punishment; free speech means exactly one can say anything without fearing any burden of responsibility -- if anyone says "free speech comes with responsibility", he has absolutely no clue what he's talking about, he is not against censorship, he just advocates self censorship (i.e. censorship done internally rather than externally). If you unable to say something or afraid of saying it because of any kind of punishment -- for example sharing someone's private information or a pirated movie, saying that you hate your boss, that you'd like to fuck your cousin, that there is a bomb on a plane, that you'd like to kill someone -- you have no free speech. True freedom of speech is an essential attribute of a mature society, sadly it hasn't been implemented yet and with the SJW cancer the latest trend in society is towards eliminating free speech rather than supporting it (see e.g. political correctness). Speech is being widely censored by extremist groups (e.g. LGBT and corporations, see also cancel culture) and states -- depending on country there exist laws against so called "hate speech", questioning official versions of history (see e.g. Holocaust denial laws present in many EU states), criticizing powerful people (for example it is illegal to criticize or insult that huge inbred dick Thai king), sharing of useful information such as books (copyright censorship) etc. Free speech nowadays is being eliminated by the strategy of creating an exception to free speech, usually called "hate speech", and then classifying any undesired speech under such label and silencing it.

The core principle of free speech states that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**, or, in other words, speech that you hate does not equal hate speech. Free speech is based on the observation that firstly limiting speech is extremely harmful -- both to society as a whole (consider e.g. journalism, revealing corruption, informing about history, ...) and to individuals (preventing humans from expressing their true feeling with what's almost defining them as a species, i.e. language, may equate psychological torture) -- and secondly that **speech itself never harms anyone**, it is only actions that harm and we should therefore focus on the actions themselves. A though itself is never harmful and speech is just shared thought; to limit speech is to limit sharing thoughts and therefore **thought control**. Of course thoughts can have good or bad consequences, but we should be focused on learning to derive good consequences from whatever thoughts occur rather than restricting thinking. A death threat or call for someone's murder doesn't kill -- sure, it may lead to someone being killed, but so may for example playing sports. If any kind of speaking leads to people dying, you have a deep issue within your society that definitely does NOT lie in not applying enough censorship; trying to solve your issue with censorship here is like trying to solve depression by physically deforming the depressed man's face into a smile and pretending he's OK. Offending someone by pointing out he's an idiot also doesn't count as speech causing harm, it's just a sad case of someone who is unable to bear hearing truth (or a lie), in which case he shouldn't be listening to people any more than someone with epilepsy should be watching seizure inducing videos.

**How can we possibly claim speech can't harm anyone?** This question in particular is possibly the one most likely to be come up in response to the previous paragraph. Can't we hurt people with insults, spoilers, lies, doxxing etc.? No, but a bad society can make it so that others get punished for your speech, that people FEEL hurt by speech or that they unnecessarily hurt themselves in reaction to speech. Speech coming from others is just a stream of data without any warranty or guarantee of accuracy or truthfulness, it should be treated as such and can always be simply ignored. Should someone receive information KNOWN to potentially be false but subsequently treat it as truth and get hurt in result, in principle he did the same as if he took a gun and shot himself. Getting "offended" by insults is just a result of chimpanzee culture, insults don't physically hurt anyone and can simply be ignored. But what about doxxing for example? Doxxing itself doesn't hurt anyone, it's the shitty society that raises lunatics who attack anyone whose whereabouts they get to know. Should we be allowed to breathe freely? Imagine capitalism ten years from now establishing breathing quotas for households and any extra breathing resulting in extra fees in your family's rent. If a child of a poor family refuses to do daily breath holding to save on rent, it hurts its parents who will have to work more in order to pay the extra money. Would you say breathing hurts others? No, but it can be made to look as if it does so that it can be regulated, monitored and made subject to business.

Some idiots (like that xkcd #1357) say that free speech is only about legality, i.e. about what's merely allowed to be said by the law or what speech the law "protects". Of course, **this is completely wrong** and just reflects this society's obsession with law; true free speech mustn't be limited by anything -- if you're not allowed to say something, it doesn't matter too much what it is that's preventing you, your speech is not free. By the twisted logic of "free speech with consequences" you always have free speech, even in North Korea -- you aren't PHYSICALLY prevented to speak, you just have to bear responsibility for your speech, in this case a bullet. A bullet is a bullet, be it from a government gun or a drug cartel gun, a gun pointed at one's face always makes one not want to talk, no matter who the gun belongs to. If for example it is theoretically legal to be politically incorrect and criticize the LGBT gospel but you de-facto can't do it because the LGBT fascist SJWs would cancel you and maybe even physically lynch you, your speech is not free. It is important to realize **we mustn't tie free speech to legal definition** (also considering that a good society aims to eliminate law itself), i.e. it isn't enough to make speech free only in legal sense, a **TRUE free speech plainly and simply means anyone can literally say what he wants without any fear at all**. Our goal is to make speech free culturally, i.e. teach people that we should let others speak freely, even those -- and especially those -- who we disagree with.

**Free speech extends even to such actions as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.** In a good society with free speech people don't behave like monkeys, they will not trust a mere shout without having a further proof of there actually being fire and even if they suspect there is fire, they will not panic as that's a retarded thing to do.

Despite what the propaganda says **there is no free speech in our society**, the only kind of speech that is allowed is that which either has no effect or which the system desires for its benefit. **Illusion of free speech is sustained by letting people speak until they actually start making a change** -- once someone's speech leads to e.g. revealing state secrets or historical truths (e.g. about Holocaust, human races or government crimes -- see wikileaks) or to destabilizing economy or state, such speech is labeled "harmful" in some way (hate speech, intellectual property violation, revealing of confidential information, instigating crime, defamation etc.), censored and punished. Even though nowadays just pure censorship laws are being passed on daily basis, even in times when there are seemingly no specific censorship laws and so it seems that "we have free speech" there always exist generic laws that can be fit to any speech, such as those against "inciting violence", "terrorism", "undermining state interests", "hate speech" or any other fancy issue, which can be used to censor absolutely any speech the government pleases, even if such speech has nothing to do with said causes -- it is enough that some state lawyer can find however unlikely possible indirect link to such cause: this could of course be well seen e.g. in the cases of Covid flu or Russia-Ukraine war. Even though there were e.g. no specific laws in European countries against supporting Russia immediately after the war started, government immediately started censoring and locking up people who supported Russia on the Internet, based on the above mentioned generic laws. These laws work on the same principle as backdoor in software: they are advocated as a "safety" "feature" and allow complete takeover of the system, but are mostly unused until the right time comes, to give the users a sense of being safe ("I've been using this backdoored CPU for years and nothing happened, so it's safe"); unlike with software backdoor though the law backdoor isn't usually removed after it has been exploited, people are just too stupid to notice this and governments can get away with keeping the laws in place, so they do.

The **Ultimate Act of Free Speech**, commonly referred to simply as UAOFS, is a hypothetical art work, published publicly and very visibly, which would put free speech under heavy stress test by challenging each and every thinkable "limit" of free speech. As such it would try to break every possible law and offend as many extremist groups as possible, and so it should definitely include at least the following offenses: the word NIGGER and every similar no-no word, highly classified state secrets (see what they did to Snowden), most extreme gore, hurtcore [child porn](child porn.md) ending with the child's murder, violation of highly valued copyright and patents, degrading portrayal of the prophet Muhammad (ANY portrayal of Muhammad is forbidden by Islam and is commonly punished by death, see e.g. Charlie Hebdo), as in for example having gay sex with Jesus, denying and simultaneously promoting the Holocaust, spreading misinformation and panic, inciting violence and other crime, provoking and advocating nuclear war, threatening murder and terrorism, advising suicide, desecration of state symbols, triggering and dangerous media (fast flashing lights, loud noise, war sounds to trigger veteran PTSD, ...), doxing, blackmailing, insulting and defamation of the most powerful men, insults and intimidation addressed to the most extremist groups etc. Performing UAOFS nowadays equates suicide and is therefore not advised, but this fact alone at least undeniably demonstrates beyond any doubt we indeed do not have free speech yet. We can only wonder why no one has done this before committing suicide.

## See Also

- nigger
- censorship
- loquendo