Ah, yes. Another month, and another round of celebrities getting censored, punished, fired, and/or getting their TV shows canceled because of, literally, two or three words that came out of their mouths.

Ah, yes. Our society has become so pussified and so weak that the mention of a few words on a web site or during a TV monologue sends waves of intense, pulsating terror and anger through millions of people, as well as massive shockwaves through corporate America, executive’s offices, and advertiser’s headquarters.

Ah, yes. All a stupid right-wing or left-wing celebrity has to do is say something like “cunt” or “Planet of the Apes” and nuclear bombs go off in peoples heads all across the land, and out come the outrage, tears, and pitchforks. Someone said a few words I don’t like? HOLY FUCK! SOMEONE SAVE ME! THAT PERSON MUST BE COMPLETELY DESTROYED RIGHT NOW! I CAN’T HANDLE IT! AAAAAAHHHHHHH!

And the slow collapse of the West continues. People weren’t like this 30 years ago.

No one should be surprised at any of this. Let me repeat that: No one should be surprised at any of this. This is because, as I analyzed here, both the left and the right utterly hate free speech. The very concept that you should be allowed to say whatever you want without anyone stopping you fills most normal people with dread.

As always, my view is that anyone should be able to say literally anything they want with zero interference from government, and if what they say actually harms someone in some demonstrable way, they should be civilly sued and/or boycotted. That’s free speech.

And no one wants that (except me and a few libertarians).

Obviously, actually suspending someone, firing someone, or killing someone’s TV show because of a word or two they speak on TV or social media is insane. If someone were to go on constant rants that damage your brand as a company, then perhaps. But a few words? Ridiculous, of course.

But again, very few people in this era agree with that.

It’s always been interesting to me that I am one of the few human beings on the entire planet who has actual free speech. This is because with me, three conditions are true:

1. I am completely self-employed; I own 100% of my own companies. Thus, I can’t be fired.

2. I have no corporate sponsorship nor any individual customers who represent a significant percentage of my income, and never will. Thus, I can never “lose advertisers” or anything like that.

3. My income is not based within any individual platform like YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook. Thus, no one can ban or “demonetize” me.

When all three of those things are true, you can say literally whatever the hell you want without fear of anyone firing you or pulling their business or advertising. Unlike 95% of celebrities or other public figures, I can say anything I want. It’s kinda neat.

The only time I get “censored” is when I censor myself. There are times I don’t say certain things simply because I don’t want to A) dilute my primary messaging/branding and B) pull precious time away from my busy work schedule to deal with any possible fallout that isn’t making me money.

When the only person or entity that can censor you is you, that’s true free speech. Less than 1% of people on Earth who actually have some kind of audience fall into this category. Even people you think are “free” to speak their minds (like Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin) have big-money supporters behind them who won’t be happy if they say certain things… so they can’t.

It really is nice to have real free speech.

Too bad no one else does.

53 thoughts on “I’m One of the Few Humans Who Has Actual Free Speech

  1. 4. You live in USA. Even in western countries like Germany you cannot for example deny holocaust without risking going to jail.

    I mention this because usually what you write applies to the western world (obviously you don’t have free speach in dictatorships etc), but in this case it is even more specific.

  2. FWIW, I’d say you have free speech for now. There are no guarantees about the future. A particularly good example of this is the ranting and raving about net neutrality, which is a nice way of saying “government regulation of the Internet.”

    Many years ago Robert Frietas — a pretty well known Venture Capitalist — wrote an article called “The Crucible of Capitalism”, which in a shocking irony is no longer to be found on the internet. It argued that the Internet, with its freedom and ability to outsmart government, was a foundation that would allow the growth of true freedom and freedom from government — many of the same arguments we hear today in favor of bitcoin — “government can’t control it therefore it will become a free currency for the world” so goes the argument.

    However, reality bites, and governments are good at what they do[*]. Bitcoin is now very much under the control of governments, and net neutrality is a camel’s nose in the door toward government control over the internet. If you doubt this you just need to look to Britain, Turkey, Germany and so forth where government IS cracking down on what individual web sites like yours can say.

    In China, if you want to run a publicly visible web site you need a license from the government. When people hear that they are shocked, after all the new American dream is a web site or youtube channel that will make you rich, Rich, RICH. But consider this. Nobody bats an eye when they are told they need a license to run a grocery store or a printing business or a day care facility. Government licensing of businesses is widely accepted, and it is a small step to licenses for Internet businesses.

    Net Neutrality is step number one down that road, and, much though you are not a fan of our President, this is one of a number of regulations that he has stopped/repealed that make life better.

    [*] Just to be clear, when I say “governments are good at what they do” I don’t mean “governments are good at what they promise you, or claim to do”, no, they are terrible at that. What they are good at is getting their politicians re-elected (something like 95% of the time), and sucking money out of the public’s wallet to fund their bureaucratic empires. In the particular case  here, they are good at controlling dissent, things to prevent us peons from challenging their authority with things like “free press”, “free speech” and “free (as in speech) money”.

  3. The Roseanne thing was a joke.  All these people out of a job now because of a few words.  And I’m not concerned with the actors since they’ll be just fine. It’s the rest of the crew on these shows that get fucked over. But hey who cares about them, justice from this horrific crime has been done hooray!!!  The progressive left is definitely getting more dominant as you have said.  DeNiro getting a standing ovation for saying “fuck Trump”-what a wordsmith.  I don’t give a shit about Trump, I’m libertarian like yourself so don’t like either party, but I can’t imagine people saying that about Obama without getting crucified.

    I’m envisioning a future where that machine from the movie “Demolition Man” fines you each time you say a naughty word.   Land of the free this is not.

  4. 4. You live in USA. Even in western countries like Germany you cannot for example deny holocaust without risking going to jail.

    True.

    I’d say you have free speech for now. There are no guarantees about the future.

    Correct. The Western world is collapsing and there will be more crackdowns on this kind of thing as the collapse continues.

    The Roseanne thing was a joke.  All these people out of a job now because of a few words.  And I’m not concerned with the actors since they’ll be just fine. It’s the rest of the crew on these shows that get fucked over.

    Yup. It’s insane.

  5. Technically, in terms of your websites, there is at least the potential of censorship through Google search results.

    Although it’s unlikely at this point to apply at all to you, it has gotten worse over the years.

    What was once mainly just for ponography, it has increased to include profanity and now even conservative news sources.

    With the way things are heading, I wouldn’t be suprised if they get a lot worse.

  6. Although it’s unlikely at this point to apply at all to you, it has gotten worse over the years.

    What was once mainly just for ponography, it has increased to include profanity and now even conservative news sources.

    Yes, one or two of my little sales sites have already been banned by some of these pornography filters, but the big sites (like my blogs) have not. Yet.

    This is yet another reason I follow the Alpha 2.0 model of having three business instead of just one. If, down the road, what I talk about literally becomes illegal, I’ll still have two other businesses that have nothing to do with sex that will carry me through. (One of these businesses is completely offline.)

    With the way things are heading, I wouldn’t be suprised if they get a lot worse.

    They are going to get worse, as I already said above. The West is fucked.

  7. Your still dependent on your payment processor.  If visa or similar doesnt like you, you cant get money as easily anymore.

    Their conditions are far more lenient and upfront, but its still a dependency much like youtube.

  8. Great read and very interesting to hear your perspective on this. I’ve always had the suspicion that Shapiro, Rubin, TYT and others were being influenced by the traditional left/right

    Are there any popular online personalities that you believe are truly free to speak their minds? To me, It seemed like Scott Adams & Stefan Molyneaux were before he jumped on the Trump train. They’ve since changed their tones greatly 😛

    Cheers, always enjoy reading your stuff  🙂

    Joe

  9. This is the struggles of being Libertarian Caleb..

    We advocate for Free Speech to the 10th Power, but the problem is WE think Free Speech is just doing whatever you want and just not caring what anyone else does and generally going about our day. As our crowd has better things to do like make money, hang with women in an non-platonic manner, our hobbies, ETC.

    The Left and the Right don’t just hate Free Speech.. The LEFT and the RIGHT also have it severely twisted and practice this warped bastardized version of Free Speech that perpetuates drama in the media 24/7, especially post 2016. 

    The more Right Wing takes Free Speech and Purposefully tries to be callous, insensitive, and intolerant.. then goes What?! I’m just being honest! Goading conflict and basically Gas lighting the whole time. Trump basically brought this to a head, Milo would be an extreme example.

    Then there is the parts where they act like their persecuted and Virtue Signal saying they’re the only ones with values and everybody else is going to hell. This is generally more the religious crowd of the Right.

    The Leftists take it and put the LGBT Community in your face, make up new ways to be offended like microaggressions, so called privilege for every group, and express their right to die their hair colors only unicorns have. Make up new genders and pronouns that you’re a “Bigot” if you don’t follow, all the while it’s speaking improper English. Basically parading inflammatory and outlandish shit in your face and saying we have the right and you better tolerate it.

    Their Virtue Signalling more comes by saying they care about he poor, minorities, and the climate change, all the while they don’t give a fuck about any of it.

    The Left will usually come at you with bitchy sarcasm, the Right usually scolds you from some pedestal of righteousness on top of their lungs. You can literally go through this blogs comments on this site and the BD Blog even on political issues on certain topics and see this. I caught a little flak on the one for Solar Panels a little even lol.

    Note the change for the Left. The Tran sexual Community used to just go about their day and generally not say much. As you’d think the point of the whole idea of changing genders is to blend in.. Kinda like if you got a procedure done for baldness the point would be BLEND IN, not go around talking about balding mens rights.. Say before Caitlyn Jenner that was the case with them.. NOT ANYMORE! Now it’s Trans Rights this and This Unknown Gender Rights that..

    Both The Left and The Right have Delusional Ideas for a Utopia, they just have different ideas of what they want it to look like.

    To be fair if someone is paying you’re Nut, then NO you don’t exactly have Free Speech. Dave Rubin has little more wiggle room than Shapiro being he’s independent, but not much more.  Exactly like you said Caleb.

    This is why the Left and the Right are the same ASSHOLE to us. 
    But I live in California so I tolerate the Republicans to the extent I have to, but I HATE the Democrats. In the Decline of the West we’ll be the first State to go and Hopefully the Union gets it’s act together before we just implode.

  10. Your still dependent on your payment processor.  If visa or similar doesnt like you, you cant get money as easily anymore.

    Incorrect. That’s 2% Rule stuff.

    It’s possible an individual merchant service like PayPal could ban me, but there are many of those companies and I can easily switch whenever I want.

    The Left will usually come at you with bitchy sarcasm, the Right usually scolds you from some pedestal of righteousness on top of their lungs.

    Haha, yes, accurate.

    Hopefully the Union gets it’s act together before we just implode.

    It won’t.

  11. I hate when you’re right Caleb..

    The West won’t get it together. California is on track to be the 1st to go down the drain..

  12. California is on track to be the 1st to go down the drain.

    In terms of the states, you’re probably correct.

  13. I’ve always had the suspicion that Shapiro, Rubin, TYT and others were being influenced by the traditional left/right

    And they are. Which is unfortunate.

    Are there any popular online personalities that you believe are truly free to speak their minds?

    Not any who are popular, since once they star getting popular they start getting the irresistible offers from the Big Money.

    If you poke around YouTube, you can find a few guys who aren’t super popular yet who aren’t corrupted yet. TJ Kirk is one example off the top of my head.

    To me, It seemed like Scott Adams & Stefan Molyneaux were before he jumped on the Trump train. They’ve since changed their tones greatly

    Yep. I used to love them both before they were poisoned by the Trump Kool-Aid. Molyneux is no longer a libertarian and Adams has completely lost his soul, just like Mike Cernovitch (another guy I used to really like pre-Trump).

  14. Caleb you’re right on the money here, I watch all these guys and Yes! It’s most def post Trump that a lot has changed.

    -Shapiro claims to be Libertarian but, he’s clearly influenced by Trad Cons HEAVILY. Check out the other people on The Daily Wire like Andrew Klavan and Micheal Knowles. They’re actually pretty chill especially Klavan he’s into the Bible but very mildly Conservative, I really wish more Conservatives were like him he’s very sarcastic, but very polite.

    They have a new guy on Daily Wire named Matt Walsh he’s so delusionally Trad Con it’ll bring bile to the Back of your Throat/ Boil your Blood. Caleb he is the embodiment of our enemies on the Right.

    -Dave Rubin more Libertarian leaning but there are traces of some sort of agenda. Although it’s more hidden and subtle whatever the agenda is

    – TYT claims it’s Anti-Establishment, but do not be fooled! They clearly have an agenda to push Progressives which are Authoritarian  as hell in terms of taxing the rich, EPA regs, ETC. TYT is entertaining though.

    Although I heard Jimmy Dore on Joe Rogan and I used to hate him, but after I saw him on there I really liked him. So yes, they must be pushing an agenda, because he was far different JR’s show, more realistic and much more of just a guy ya know.

    – Steven Crowder  he’s generally a fun guy although sometimes he pisses me off with sometimes being immature. He’s got an awesome fun talk show. He’s on CRTV though so he’s pushing the Right’s agenda.

    – Mike Cernovich is a cool dude, but he’s hanging out with Alex Jones more now..

    – Alex Jones pure silliness lol

    – Milo Yiannopoulus I read his book Dangerous which I liked, but he’s just off the deep end. He’s currently irrelevant but I’m sure he’ll come back. He can be really funny, but I feel bad for him I feel like he really needs therapy and really is hurting.

    – Joe Rogan every time I watch I like so far.. He maybe the most independent to my knowledge.

    -Sam Harris gotta check out, hear good shit.

    -Jordan Peterson (JBP) – We’ve covered him let’s not let beat a dead horse.

    – Bill Maher claims to be Libertarian, but really he barley qualifies but seriously LOL. Most Def pushing Left’s agenda.

    – Gavin Mccines I really like him, lots of fun, but like Crowder he’s on CRTV so he’s on the Rights agenda for sure.

  15. just like Mike Cernovitch (another guy I used to really like pre-Trump).

    I haven’t followed him in a long time so I just noticed today that he has taken down his old website Danger and Play. Is it really down or is it just blocked in Europe due to the GDPR? I guess he took it down since I can still access Cernovich.com from Germany.

    Back in 2012, he wrote an article called: Obsessing over the Presidential Election is Beta

    Back then he had a really great mindset but when Trump came along he did a 180 and lost me as a reader and a few others I guess. But I’m sure he got 10 times more new readers who just want to rant about the Left.

  16. Shapiro claims to be Libertarian but, he’s clearly influenced by Trad Cons HEAVILY.

    Incorrect. Shapiro is a tradcon. He always has been. The guy doesn’t shave with an electric razor below his chin line because is religion says so (that’s why he often has these big red marks on his neck),  sputters like a idiot whenever you bring up monogamy, and so on.

    Caleb he is the embodiment of our enemies on the Right.

    I don’t consider those on the right my enemies. I consider them my angry brothers. I wish the best for them but they they’d rather be angry.

    Jimmy Dore

    I can’t watch him after he spit tea in Alex Jones’ face. Only a child or insane person would do such a thing.

    Bill Maher claims to be Libertarian

    No, he stopped claiming this several years ago when it was obvious he wasn’t one. A socialist who is for legalizing weed is a European, not a libertarian.

    I haven’t followed him in a long time so I just noticed today that he has taken down his old website Danger and Play.

    He took it down.

    Back in 2012, he wrote an article called: Obsessing over the Presidential Election is Beta

    Back then he had a really great mindset but when Trump came along he did a 180

    Correct. Just like Molyneux who made a fantastic video on how voting is demeaning, one of the best arguments against voting I’ve probably ever seen. Then Trump came along and bam, 180. Pre-Trump Scott Adams has also talked about how voting is stupid (he doesn’t even vote).

    lost me as a reader and a few others I guess. But I’m sure he got 10 times more new readers who just want to rant about the Left.

    He did. As I’ve said before, I could triple my audience in less than 3 months if I picked a left/right side (either side) and sold my soul. I kinda like my soul though.

  17. Psst, your text should read “don’t want to A) dilute my primary messaging/branding” not delude.

  18. As always, my view is that anyone should be able to say literally anything they want with zero interference from government,

    But that’s exactly what we have now. The government is censoring no one in America!

    And no one wants that (except me and a few libertarians).

    I definitely want that. And we have it.

    Obviously, actually suspending someone, firing someone, or killing someone’s TV show because of a word or two they speak on TV or social media is insane.

    Which is exactly why you should join me in calling for laws against time theft!

    When you are:

    1.  Off the company clock on your own private time; and

    2. Completely outside company property

    …it should be illegal for any boss, company, corporation, organization, or for profit institution to fire, or professionally discipline, you in any way, shape, or form. Your time is your private property, and therefore, beyond the control of your employers.

    Just like people can’t goof off at work because they need to respect their boss’s time, the boss must be legally required to respect his employees’ private time. Controlling someone against their will, despite them being off the clock, not getting paid a penny for that specific hour, and outside company property represents the literal theft of that person’s time (and may even constitute slavery under the 13th Amendment if government employers do this)!

    People MUST get paid for their time if they are to be controlled in any way. If they’re not, they should be allowed to do anything they want without bosses having the right to steal their time by firing them for making politically incorrect statements on Twitter!

    Exceptions:

    1. The person is on his own time and outside company property, but still wearing the company uniform. An argument can be made that he still represents the company until he takes the uniform off.

    2. The person is on his own time, outside company property, and wearing his own clothing, but he is using company equipment or property to do something politically incorrect, like posting something racist on the company’s official Facebook page, not his own private one.

    3. The person is on his own time, outside company property, wearing his own clothing, and not using any company equipment or property, but he is directly attacking or badmouthing his company to others, thus forcing the company to defend itself, which may involve severe discipline up to and including termination.

    Outside these three exceptions though, time theft should be criminalized immediately, so that all employees may enjoy full Free Speech on their own time and in their own lives!

     

  19. But that’s exactly what we have now. The government is censoring no one in America!

    So I can go on the radio and say the f-word? I can go on television and say the n-word?

    You might want to look up a person named “Howard Stern” and tell him the government “is censoring no one.”

    Your comments get more and more insane. Kinda fun.

  20. So I can go on the radio and say the f-word? I can go on television and say the n-word?

    You might want to look up a person named “Howard Stern” and tell him the government “is censoring no one.”

    Yes, there are laws against “obscenity” which the Supreme Court has ruled are not covered under Free Speech. These “anti-obscenity laws” restrict only (1) radio, (2) television, and (3) newspapers/magazines. Nothing else!

    The Court ruled in 2000 that these laws don’t restrict, or apply to, the internet, for example.

    I fully agree with you that these laws are pure bullshit because, obscenity is, after all, only in the eye of the beholder, or as one dissenting Supreme Court Justice (Oliver Wendell Holmes) put it, “One man’s septic tank is another man’s hot tub.”

    Repeat – I am against these ridiculous anti-obscenity laws!

    However, I can also see the Court’s logic when they say that Free Speech only means – the right to communicate ideas, and you can technically communicate your ideas and spread your message without using curse words.

    Nevertheless, as a libertarian, I’m definitely more persuaded by George Carlin’s counter-argument that part of the message involves proper spice,  or emphasis, which is sometimes done by saying the fuck word or the nigger word.

    But what I meant when I said the government censors no one is that it censors no idea or philosophy, unlike, for example, Europe or Canada, or pretty much the rest of the world.

     

     

  21. You live in USA. Even in western countries like Germany you cannot for example deny holocaust without risking going to jail.

    So sad! In Canada, you can’t use the wrong pronouns or you’ll go to jail for “hate speech” or some garbage like that! Only the USA has Free Speech. In Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, and pretty much anywhere in the West (and non-West) I’d be in a cage just for speaking my mind.

    Thank god for the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution!

     

  22. A particularly good example of this is the ranting and raving about net neutrality, which is a nice way of saying “government regulation of the Internet.”

    What nonsense is this! Net neutrality was precisely about preserving internet Free Speech in the face of private monopolies which are not bound by the First Amendment!

    the Internet, with its freedom and ability to outsmart government, was a foundation that would allow the growth of true freedom and freedom from government

    That is correct! That’s why the bastards repealed net neutrality.

    net neutrality is a camel’s nose in the door toward government control over the internet.

    This is insane! As the U.S. Supreme Court said all the way back in 1990, if the internet is an “instrumentality of government” then it is bound by the First Amendment. If it is purely private, then Free Speech need not be respected.

    Net Neutrality made the internet a utility, like water, gas, electricity, the telephone, trains, and housing. What it did was, for all practical purposes, apply Free Speech protections to internet service providers so that private companies like Comcast can’t stifle politically incorrect opinions.

    Now that net neutrality is gone, anything these private monopolies want, they’ll get, including censorship of all opinions that are not corporate approved!

    There can be no capitalism if there is no competition. And there can be no competition if one or two companies have a monopoly or duopoly in your neighborhood.

    If you doubt this you just need to look to Britain, Turkey, Germany and so forth where government IS cracking down on what individual web sites like yours can say.

    Yes, because those countries………wait for it………………………..DON’T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    In China,

    Oh dear god! Seriously???

    Nobody bats an eye when they are told they need a license to run a grocery store or a printing business or a day care facility.

    Yes, because the job of those businesses isn’t to facilitate speech or communication. Thus, the First Amendment is not implicated. I am, of course, against any “government licenses” for anything, but I concede that this has nothing to do with Free Speech as it applies to those businesses.

    Government licensing of businesses is widely accepted, and it is a small step to licenses for Internet businesses.

    Internet businesses? Sure. But not internet speech!

    Net Neutrality is step number one down that road,

    What?

    and, much though you are not a fan of our President, this is one of a number of regulations that he has stopped/repealed that make life better.

    No dude. What the FCC did was hand the internet over to a group of private businesses who are bound by neither Free Speech nor competition and told them to go nuts!

    Again, like the Supreme Court said, if the internet is an instrumentality of government, the government must acknowledge full Freedom of Speech across the entire web (including Nazi sites, pro-pedophilia sites, etc…). But if the internet is in the exclusive hands of private business, that business may censor anything it wishes. And if that business has no competition because it is a monopoly, it will become as totalitarian as any government that doesn’t have our Constitution, like China!

     

     

  23. The progressive left is definitely getting more dominant as you have said.

    They are called the regressive left. Progressives are classical liberals like Dave Rubin who are against all this cultural authoritarian PC crap!

     

  24. I’ve always had the suspicion that Shapiro, Rubin, TYT and others were being influenced by the traditional left/right

    LOL! Really? What gave it away? Was it TYT’s relentless racism against white people that kinda made you think these idiots might be PC SJWs? Or how about Shapiro bragging that he lost his virginity to his wife and that “men should stop being pigs?” That would definitely give me a clue. Just saying.

     

     

  25. I’m an enormous fan of molyneux and scott adams.  I do get a little bit bored with the mental gymnastics of Trump being right all the time… But I understand what they’re going through.  They’re having a blast watching the liberals fall apart, and I am too.  I’ve always supported abortion, gay marriage, marijuana etc, but it’s more of a “meh” support.  You can do that shit in Venezuela, it won’t make your country great.  I REALLY support free market though.  So I tend to favor anybody who speaks that language.

     

    Milo’s book was great.  He did point out that conservatives were anti-free speech back when they wanted to take violence out of video games, stop cussing, start a war on drugs, etc.  I agree with that.

     

    When it comes to intellectual thought, there’s really no one remaining to talk to.  You can talk to a conservative about culture… until religion comes up.  They won’t even entertain the idea of evolution, simulation theory, other religions, etc.  You can talk to a liberal about that… until racism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism come up lol.  So we’re doomed to living the double life!  I just read Nassim Taleb’s black swan, and I finally feel reassured that doubting yourself is the most scientifically and statistically accurate stance.

  26. @Jack Outside the Box says

    Net Neutrality made the internet a utility, like water, gas, electricity, the telephone, trains, and housing.

    You are aware that ALL these industries are utterly moribund, right? Certainly it is a problem that local governments are not at all good allowing multiple providers to people’s homes over the last mile, but technology is well able to address this. The excuse governments use is to control who digs up the road, but wireless is becoming much more effective and overcoming these limitations, and people are getting more and more choices of service provider. Introduce some government in there and it’ll quickly get locked down to the big boys with lobbyists.

    What technologies am I talking about? Wireless networks, muni wifi, satellite, SDR, UWB, microwave spread and point to point, neighborhood networks. There is so much activity in this space it is mind numbing. When I first got on the net you had to use a phone, and it ran at about 12oo bits per second. Hardly a dying technology with narrowing options.

    The nature of the Internet is that if you can get on to one part of the network you can get everywhere. The standards are designed to guarantee that, so you grossly overestimate the control big companies have. Insofar as they do, they get that power from the granting of local monopolies and oligopolies through government grants of privilege.

    What it did was, for all practical purposes, apply Free Speech protections to internet service providers so that private companies like Comcast can’t stifle politically incorrect opinions.

    Oh really? How come that it arose at almost exactly the same time that the scandal of Google’s biases against right wing activists on search rankings and YouTube happened? I’m not by any means saying  that one is causitive of the other, only that apparently net neutrality didn’t achieve the lofty goals that you apparently expected of it.

    The Internet guarantees free speech because a packet is a packet regardless of what it contains. Certainly Google doesn’t guarantee free speech, but there are a million other places to publish your opinion without the help of Google. Google can only compete for your business, the FCC demands your business, and like all government agencies, has no competitors, no alternatives that I can choose if I don’t like the job they are doing. (Five flags excepted, of course.)

    Now that net neutrality is gone, anything these private monopolies want, they’ll get, including censorship of all opinions that are not corporate approved!

    On their sites, sure. You can run a web server on a raspberry pi for $35. Google doesn’t censor that. You can pipe your content in over a VPN from Canada. Comcast can’t censor that. (Not unless you put the government in charge of the Internet as is the case in China.)

    What net neutrality is really about is that the big ISPs want to be able to charge mega bandwidth hogs like Netflix (which last time I checked sent in the order of 30% of all packets on the US Internet) a bit of a fee for the massive costs the produce. Is that wrong? I think it is something the market should decide, not Elizabeth Warren or some freak like that.

    There can be no capitalism if there is no competition.

    First of all, I hate the word capitalism. It is a horrible word that has all sorts of baggage. I much prefer the term Free Market. Nonetheless, there is only two types of entity in the USA that has no competition, they are first, the government and its agencies, and second those companies who the government have granted a monopoly (or other restriction) to. Almost by definition the only way to create monopolies is by government action.

    If net neutrality guarantees that every packet be treated the same (something that anyone who knows anything about computer networks knows is a spectacularly stupid idea) then, eventually, there needs to be a police mechanism to ensure it. God help us when the government is policing network packets.

    And there can be no competition if one or two companies have a monopoly or duopoly in your neighborhood.

    Right and these monopolies are granted how? By the local government. Thankfully, technological innovation moves faster than government, and people are getting more and more options for going online every day.

    Yes, because those countries………wait for it………………………..DON’T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    So this is the core of your argument — we should give the government control over the internet because they are bound by the first amendment. Let’s be honest, that is what your argument boils down to.

    But I wonder if you are aware that just recently CraigsList took down their hook up pages, that the review site The Erotic Review shut down for America, and the people who run backpage.com (a place that, among other things, had hookers advertised their services) was shut down by the government and the principals are currently in jeopardy of spending a thousand years in jail.

    You might not like hook ups or hookers, but apparently the first amendment doesn’t extend to them.

    So much for your Utopia of the government protecting free speech on the Internet.

    And as to business verses speech, the USSC just handed down a verdict saying that a Christian baker had been unfairly treated by the Colorado Anti Discrimination Agency. They didn’t say he couldn’t refuse to speak endorsing gay marriage, they got him off on a technicality and clearly implied that the law itself was OK, just the administrative procedure was unfair.

    Now of course I think someone not making a cake for a gay marriage is stupid, people should marry whomever they wish (one might argue that it is the word “marriage” rather than “gay” I object to, but that is another matter). But the point is that speech is often deeply tied to business: give the government the right to license your business and you give them the right to take away that license, including for saying things they don’t like. Accept that idea that trade and business, even something as simple as selling a cake, is a privilege allowed by the government, and done so at their discretion, and you have already lost.

    So don’t be so sure that those Chinese style licenses aren’t coming your way.

     

  27. Sorta off topic but Jack, did you ever get your blog started? Waiting with baited breath here, man.

  28. You can talk to a conservative about culture… until religion comes up.  They won’t even entertain the idea of evolution, simulation theory, other religions, etc.  You can talk to a liberal about that… until racism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism come up lol.  So we’re doomed to living the double life!  I just read Nassim Taleb’s black swan, and I finally feel reassured that doubting yourself is the most scientifically and statistically accurate stance.

    Amen lol.

  29. people are getting more and more choices of service provider.

    There are people, especially in rural areas, who have only one choice of provider. Other neighborhoods have only two, and if both of those two choose to censor the internet, those people are screwed!

    I agree that this isn’t a problem if there is genuine competition, but that should have been ensured first before net neutrality was repealed. Despite your claims, we are far from genuine competition in the ISP market.

    you grossly overestimate the control big companies have. Insofar as they do, they get that power from the granting of local monopolies and oligopolies through government grants of privilege.

    Correct! Every time there is a private monopoly, the government always created it. The solution, of course, is to get the government out of the private sector. However, if that’s impossible (and in today’s political climate, it is) then something like net neutrality is the second best option, because the worst option (what we have now) is government-invented private monopolies and duopolies controlling our internet, without being required to respect Free Speech (because they’re private companies), while being shielded from competition by big government, thus giving them the green light to do anything they want without respect for freedom or their customers!

    I’ll take net neutrality over such tyranny any day!

    Oh really? How come that it arose at almost exactly the same time that the scandal of Google’s biases against right wing activists on search rankings and YouTube happened? I’m not by any means saying  that one is causitive of the other, only that apparently net neutrality didn’t achieve the lofty goals that you apparently expected of it.

    Dude, net neutrality only applied to internet service providers that you have to pay every month to gain access to the internet (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc…). Google and Youtube are websites, not ISPs. Individual websites may censor anything they want, even with net neutrality. But you can then just go to another website. It’s impossible for many people to go to a different internet provider (especially in rural communities).

    Note: I personally think it should be illegal for Google, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc… to censor anyone because they are receiving huge money from the government in order to be shielded from competition. In my mind, if you take even one penny of taxpayer dollars, you should be immediately declared an “instrumentality of government,” thus instantly forcing the entire Constitution (including the First Amendment) unto you. These government-paid private websites like Google, Youtube, etc… should be legally declared as “common carriers,” thus criminalizing their censorship, until they renounce all State money, but that’s another discussion!

    The Internet guarantees free speech because a packet is a packet regardless of what it contains.

    If Comcast doesn’t like this blog, it may now block it if it wishes, thanks to the abolition of net neutrality. When you come to this blog, you’ll then get a blank page saying,

    “This site has been deemed incompatible with the corporate values of the Comcast Corporation (LLC) and our affiliated partners who strive for a more inclusive global community. We apologize for the inconvenience. Have a tolerant and diverse day.”

    “P.S. Diversity is our strength and Black Lives Matter.”

    Certainly Google doesn’t guarantee free speech,

    I agree that it should be forced to (because it takes taxpayer money), but, like I said, Google is just a website. If you don’t like it, go on a different search engine, like Yahoo. Until it’s that easy to switch internet service providers, I’ll continue calling for the restoration of net neutrality.

    but there are a million other places to publish your opinion without the help of Google.

    Exactly!

    Google can only compete for your business, the FCC demands your business, and like all government agencies, has no competitors, no alternatives that I can choose if I don’t like the job they are doing.

    Which is why the Founding Fathers gave us a First Amendment – to preempt your concerns about government!

    On their sites, sure. You can run a web server on a raspberry pi for $35. Google doesn’t censor that. You can pipe your content in over a VPN from Canada. Comcast can’t censor that.

    The way I understand it, Comcast can now censor anything it wants that runs over its own private wires, which they installed in your home when they drilled through the walls when you moved in.

    What net neutrality is really about is that the big ISPs want to be able to charge mega bandwidth hogs like Netflix (which last time I checked sent in the order of 30% of all packets on the US Internet) a bit of a fee for the massive costs the produce. Is that wrong? I think it is something the market should decide, not Elizabeth Warren or some freak like that.

    Sure, let the free market decide everything in an atmosphere of open competition where every customer has multiple choices of multiple internet service providers. But in an atmosphere of private monopolies (admittedly created by government), let there be net neutrality.

    The problem is that the FCC did more than just give ISPs the green light to charge more based on the amount of bandwidth. The ISPs can now do ANYTHING! You think they’ll stop at charging gigantic websites like Netflix and Hulu an extra fee for the massive data processing? No! Eventually, they’ll start using Orwellian terminology like “global values” and other hippie nonsense.

    After they’re done with Netflix and Google, they’ll start censoring the pro-pedophilia sites like NAMBLA and then the Nazi sites (sites no one cares about). Then they’ll move on to the homophobic Christian sites and then eventually, they’ll start enforcing political correctness across the board!

    Then, if anyone criticizes them, they’ll just say, “we’re a private company that has a right to enforce its values” while being shielded from competition by big government at the same time, thus ironically, undoing the very definition of what a private company is supposed to be! Basically, full on fascism! Just watch!

    Nonetheless, there is only two types of entity in the USA that has no competition, they are first, the government and its agencies, and second those companies who the government have granted a monopoly (or other restriction) to. Almost by definition the only way to create monopolies is by government action.

    Correct! Fully agree (and psychiatry, which is the only non-government entity with the legal power of physical force without being bound by the human rights enshrined in the Constitution)!

    But anyway, that’s why I believe in net neutrality! If the Constitution can’t keep these private monopolies in check (because they’re private), and competition also can’t keep them in check (because they receive fascist government privileges), then I say net neutrality is the only solution left, which is now off the table.

    If net neutrality guarantees that every packet be treated the same (something that anyone who knows anything about computer networks knows is a spectacularly stupid idea) then, eventually, there needs to be a police mechanism to ensure it. God help us when the government is policing network packets.

    I wouldn’t mind that, since the government, thanks to the First Amendment, can’t censor anything online!

    Right and these monopolies are granted how? By the local government.

    Correct! And that’s the problem. Net neutrality is the solution if we can’t stop monopolies via competition (because of our fascist government)!

    Thankfully, technological innovation moves faster than government, and people are getting more and more options for going online every day.

    This is the key to our disagreement! I hope you’re right!

    So this is the core of your argument — we should give the government control over the internet because they are bound by the first amendment. Let’s be honest, that is what your argument boils down to.

    Correct!

    But I wonder if you are aware that just recently CraigsList took down their hook up pages, that the review site The Erotic Review shut down for America, and the people who run backpage.com (a place that, among other things, had hookers advertised their services) was shut down by the government and the principals are currently in jeopardy of spending a thousand years in jail.

    Yes, because prostitution is illegal in America. Even without net neutrality, the government would still be allowed (and required) to shut down criminal websites operating illegal prostitution rings. Duh!

    You might not like hook ups or hookers, but apparently the first amendment doesn’t extend to them.

    Correct! The First Amendment has nothing to do with prostitution or promoting criminal behavior! That is, and always has been, against the law.

    You’re mixing two things that don’t belong together – Free Speech and crime (such, as prostitution). That’s like saying, “well, I guess the drug dealer doesn’t have Free Speech because he can’t sell cocaine online.” Um…..no. No, he can’t. Free Speech doesn’t mean you’re allowed to break the law. Even without net neutrality, the government would still be authorized to shut down illegal websites facilitating law breaking!

    So much for your Utopia of the government protecting free speech on the Internet.

    What? Dude seriously? Running an organized sex trafficking or prostitution ring is a CRIME!!!! It has NOTHING to do with Free Speech!!!!!!

    And as to business verses speech, the USSC just handed down a verdict saying that a Christian baker had been unfairly treated by the Colorado Anti Discrimination Agency. They didn’t say he couldn’t refuse to speak endorsing gay marriage, they got him off on a technicality and clearly implied that the law itself was OK, just the administrative procedure was unfair.

    Oh for fuck sake! That ALSO has nothing to do with Free Speech. The Christian baker may speak out against gay marriage to his heart’s content! That has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws barring businesses from discriminating against people based on their genetic characteristics (discrimination is an action or an inaction, not speech).

    Note: I am against anti-discrimination laws because, like you, I believe private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want, but that has nothing to do with Free Speech. It has to do with business regulations, because, that insane Supreme Court ruling of Citizen’s United notwithstanding, corporations aren’t people!

     people should marry whomever they wish

    Disagree. Marriage is a government function which has no business existing. It discriminates against asexuals based on their personal lives by refusing to give them a tax break, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment!

    But the point is that speech is often deeply tied to business: give the government the right to license your business and you give them the right to take away that license, including for saying things they don’t like.

    Incorrect! The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to withhold a business license from a corporation exclusively due to the speech or ideological content of that corporation!

    Accept that idea that trade and business, even something as simple as selling a cake, is a privilege allowed by the government, and done so at their discretion, and you have already lost.

    According to our current existing laws, trade and business (even something as simple as selling a cake) is indeed a privilege given at the discretion of government. But speech isn’t. Speech is a human right granted by the Constitution. So the government can’t punish the private sector merely for its speech. But it can punish it for refusing to bake a cake for gay people.

    I agree with you that this is wrong and that business and trade should be written into the Constitution as human rights, but again, this isn’t what we’re talking about. We’re talking about Free Speech, not to be confused with the behavior and actions of a business!

    So don’t be so sure that those Chinese style licenses aren’t coming your way.

    For speech? No. For business, yes.

    But what if your business is entirely predicated on speech? Like selling ebooks on the internet with a particular ideological viewpoint? The Supreme Court already ruled that the government can’t withhold licenses based on undesirable ideological expression (see the porn industry, re: viewpoint discrimination cases). So I’m not worried about that!

     

     

     

  30. Sorta off topic but Jack, did you ever get your blog started? Waiting with baited breath here, man.

    Man, I feel terrible! There are many, many, many people who are waiting patiently, and I am filled with gratitude towards all of them. My sincerest apologies.

    Yes, it’s still in the works, but it’s costing more money than I anticipated and I have had a ton of obstacles thrown at me lately, as I’m juggling politically incorrect activism on multiple fronts right now, including in real life! I know I said that before, but it’s true!

    My earliest release date for the blog is July 4th. My latest is August 1st. I’m pushing hard for July 4th though, for obvious symbolic reasons!

    Again, I can’t apologize enough for this! But it will happen soon! That I promise!

     

  31. @Jack Outside the box

    It is a common failing of people who love liberty to say “oh this part of government is broken, we can’t fix it, so let’s add some more government to compensate.” That is, after all, your argument. It is this attitude that leaves us where we are today with layers and layers of bureaucracy.

    If only the same energy had been put into liberating individuals to have more choices in ISP as has been put into all the empty bluster on Net Neutrality we’d all be in a hell of a better shape.

    Nonetheless, most people have multiple choices of provider (whether via cable, satellite, mobile phone hotspot, or even POTS.) Are some people out in the wilds of Montana or corn country Kansas more limited? Of course. If you live in the boonies you are actively choosing to restrict your choices. Of course most telcos will happly pipe a T1 out to your place for unrestricted access to the Internet. They are expensive, but living in the boonies has certain extra expenses with it, because you chose not to share the costs in a community. So, not having a choice of ISP is for many people in itself a choice.

    However, Comcast, here in Chicago, has to compete against many other options, and so your fears seem unfounded for the large majority of people.

    I think you greatly over-estimate the reliability of the Supreme Court and our politicians to uphold laws. You are mistaken. Selling sex for money is (in many places) illegal for some ridiculous reason. But none of the web sites I mentioned did that. They instead give connections to people who were willing to do so. That absolutely is speech. If a cocaine dealer advertises his number the cops can bust him by calling and setting him up with a deal. Or if they have solved all the real crimes, I guess they can call up sexy Suzie and bust her when she says “$10 for a blowjob.”

    Free speech also encompasses the right to not speak. When a baker is given the choice (as he was) to either Write “Wedding Blessings to Steve and Brian” or go out of business then it is plain as day that speech along with licensure can be used to put people out of business.

    It is common to hear people say “well sure I believe in freedom of speech, however you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.” What most of the people who say this don’t know is that expression comes from a case adjudged by the US Supreme Court, and was a claim made by which the absolute right to free speech could in fact be abridged. What case was this for? Well it was specifically about a group of men who were protesting the conscription of men into the Army to fight in the first world war. That is the “fire” that was being shouted. A protest against a specific government policy — one I might add that I would also protest. The case was unanimous decided against the protesters, and they spent several years in prison.

    To trust our rights to government is nothing short of crazy, it is to deny almost all of history, to trust our rights to corporations who have to compete for our business is a much safer place. It isn’t perfect, but it is a hell of a lot easier to switch ISP (even by relocating, or using a VPN to defeat Comcast’s alleged censoring) than it is to change your government or supreme court.

    So in summary, I just wish all the people advocating for the government to control the Internet via Net Neutrality would instead spend their energies on the much more productive pursuit of tearing down the walls that prevent small ISPs from gaining access on the last mile.

     

  32. We advocate for Free Speech to the 10th Power, but the problem is WE think Free Speech is just doing whatever you want and just not caring what anyone else does and generally going about our day.

    False! Libertarians are simply against government censoring speech. But we do care what other people say. We, of all people, believe that the solution to undesirable or disagreeable speech(especially speech that we disagree with passionately) is more speech, not less.

    Therefore, if you say something idiotic, a libertarian is probably the first person who will call you out!

    As our crowd has better things to do like make money, hang with women in an non-platonic manner, our hobbies, ETC.

    Oh please! Most libertarians can walk and chew gum at the same time. Not all of us are alike, by the way. The only thing that unites us as libertarians on the Free Speech issue is that we believe that the government must acknowledge that Free Speech is an inalienable human right and may not censor us in any way! We are Free Speech absolutists as far as the government is concerned.

    But that doesn’t mean we don’t like a good verbal fight. Quite the opposite, actually!

    The Left and the Right don’t just hate Free Speech.. The LEFT and the RIGHT also have it severely twisted and practice this warped bastardized version of Free Speech that perpetuates drama in the media 24/7, especially post 2016. 

    That has nothing to do with hating Free Speech. The only evidence you can produce that the left and the right hate Free Speech is when they call for censorship, which admittedly, both the left and the right do all the time!

    But causing drama isn’t “bastardizing Free Speech.” Quite the opposite, actually!

    The more Right Wing takes Free Speech and Purposefully tries to be callous, insensitive, and intolerant.. then goes What?!

    Good. Fragile snowflakes deserve to be triggered until they grow up! Otherwise, they’ll try to force us to live in a protective bubble in order to spare their feelings. Fuck that!

    Goading conflict and basically Gas lighting the whole time. Trump basically brought this to a head, Milo would be an extreme example.

    And that’s how you fuck up political correctness. Show no mercy! Smash the safe spaces! And commit as many “micro-aggressions” as you can!

    Then there is the parts where they act like their persecuted and Virtue Signal saying they’re the only ones with values and everybody else is going to hell. This is generally more the religious crowd of the Right.

    Dude, you’ve been listening to too much Matt Walsh. Seriously, stop it! Why do you listen to these authoritarians?

    The Leftists take it and put the LGBT Community in your face, make up new ways to be offended like microaggressions, so called privilege for every group, and express their right to die their hair colors only unicorns have.

    Yup. They’re now saying that the alphabet people are no longer oppressed. They are happy now. Therefore, they are enemies to social justice.

    Make up new genders and pronouns that you’re a “Bigot” if you don’t follow, all the while it’s speaking improper English. Basically parading inflammatory and outlandish shit in your face and saying we have the right and you better tolerate it.

    They don’t want us to tolerate it. They want to force us to join against our will. In Canada, they already passed a compelled speech law. Use fictional pronouns or go to jail! Insane!

    Their Virtue Signalling more comes by saying they care about he poor, minorities, and the climate change, all the while they don’t give a fuck about any of it.

    No, they’re just narcissists!

    The Left will usually come at you with bitchy sarcasm, the Right usually scolds you from some pedestal of righteousness on top of their lungs.

    The right makes counter-arguments. The left just goes ad-hominem, saying that counter-arguments are beneath them.

    I caught a little flak on the one for Solar Panels a little even lol.

    Well, excuse me, but if you’re going to spew nonsense like “climate change is real,” get ready to be called out! I’m not being anti-libertarian. Quite the opposite. We love calling out bad ideas. It’s precisely social justice brats who think debate is beneath them.

    Say before Caitlyn Jenner that was the case with them.. NOT ANYMORE! Now it’s Trans Rights this and This Unknown Gender Rights that..

    What they want is for the world to act as if they are 50% of the population, instead of 0.3%. They’re pissed that our culture isn’t centered around them, causing them to feel left out. This problem is literally unsolvable, because human nature won’t allow us to pander to microscopic elements. It’s in our nature to form a culture reflecting the majority. The minority is only represented in proportion to its numbers, not 50%.

    That’s what these narcissists don’t like – the fact that our culture is organic and geared towards what the majority can relate to. They want Marxist dictatorship, not an organic, natural culture that panders to the majority of human nature the majority of the time.

    Both The Left and The Right have Delusional Ideas for a Utopia, they just have different ideas of what they want it to look like.

    Exactly!

    To be fair if someone is paying you’re Nut, then NO you don’t exactly have Free Speech. Dave Rubin has little more wiggle room than Shapiro being he’s independent, but not much more.  Exactly like you said Caleb.

    But you can eventually quit. Only the government and psychiatry have a monopoly on physical force.

     

     

  33. -Shapiro claims to be Libertarian

    No he doesn’t. He never claimed this. Shapiro has always been a super prudish “no sex before marriage” tradcon. He even believes that local city governments should criminalize pornography! He brags that he lost his virginity to his wife, constantly tells men to “stop being pigs,” and pines away for the 1950s like a nostalgic old man. Not a red piller at all!

    Klavan he’s into the Bible

    Next!

    but very mildly

    I said, NEXT!!!!

    They have a new guy on Daily Wire named Matt Walsh he’s so delusionally Trad Con it’ll bring bile to the Back of your Throat/ Boil your Blood. Caleb he is the embodiment of our enemies on the Right.

    Pathetic! Next!

    Dave Rubin more Libertarian leaning but there are traces of some sort of agenda. Although it’s more hidden and subtle whatever the agenda is

    Dave Rubin is a classical liberal, not a libertarian. He’s culturally libertarian (anti-PC, anti-SJW, anti-white bashing, etc…), but an economic authoritarian (pretty much a socialist).

     TYT

    Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me! Seriously dude? They are nothing but the internet’s SJW headquarters – viciously PC, scandalously anti-white, obsessed with trigger warnings (this video may be disturbing, wah, wah, wah…). They are the most popular channel for the regressive/authoritarian PC left!

    claims it’s Anti-Establishment, but do not be fooled!

    Ha! It’s a little hard to be fooled when everything that comes out of their mouths is anti-white and pro-Islam! And don’t even get me started about their “reporting” on Milo!

    They clearly have an agenda to push Progressives

    Regressives.

    which are Authoritarian  as hell in terms of taxing the rich, EPA regs, ETC. TYT is entertaining though.

    They trash white people way too much to entertain me.

    Although I heard Jimmy Dore on Joe Rogan and I used to hate him, but after I saw him on there I really liked him.

    What? Dude, Jimmy Dore is even more PC, more anti-Free Speech, and more anti-white than the rest of TYT are!

    So yes, they must be pushing an agenda, because he was far different JR’s show, more realistic and much more of just a guy ya know.

    Jimmy Dore is an authoritarian Marxist! Period!

    Steven Crowder  he’s generally a fun guy although sometimes he pisses me off with sometimes being immature. He’s got an awesome fun talk show. He’s on CRTV though so he’s pushing the Right’s agenda.

    Oh for fuck sake man! You really need to do your research before you talk like this! Steven Crowder is a fundamentalist Christian and a super tradcon! He brags that he is a virgin and demands that everyone else “stay pure” until marriage! Fuck him!

    Mike Cernovich is a cool dude, but he’s hanging out with Alex Jones more now..

    Don’t know too much about him, but I understand that he’s a tradcon.

    Alex Jones pure silliness lol

    Alex Jones is CIA/controlled opposition. His name used to be Bill Hicks.

    Milo Yiannopoulus

    Ah, see now we’re talking! Milo is, more or less, agnostic on economic issues (he’s prepared to be swayed either way, although he’s in favor of a regressive tax, which is good), but he’s accurately described himself as a “culture guy.” He’s a fierce cultural libertarian who wants to smash political correctness. He is probably our most powerful ally.

    He has flaws, of course, such as promoting Catholicism (he describes himself as a “cultural Catholic,” not a religious one), thinks that religion (even if false) is a stabilizing cultural principle so he promotes it, and he’s tragically in favor of male genital mutilation because, in his words, “you don’t have to have these things in your mouth, I do.”

    But flaws aside, he’s the best famous person we have thus far!

    I feel bad for him I feel like he really needs therapy and really is hurting.

    What makes you feel that way? It’s exactly the opposite!

    Joe Rogan every time I watch I like so far.. He maybe the most independent to my knowledge.

    To my understanding, Joe is a true libertarian and a great guy!

    Sam Harris gotta check out, hear good shit.

    A classical liberal who coined the term “regressive left” for the PC SJWs. A great man, but authoritarian on economic issues, sadly (and he doesn’t believe in free will, which made me lose tons of respect for him).

    Jordan Peterson (JBP) – We’ve covered him let’s not let beat a dead horse.

    A deceitful tradcon using anti-SJW activism as a Trojan horse for sexual purity nonsense. Sadly, a lot of tradcons are infiltrating anti-PC spaces in this way.

    Bill Maher claims to be Libertarian,

    Nope, not anymore. He’s a classical liberal (libertarian on culture, authoritarian on the economy). This means he’s against cultural authoritarianism, like social justice and PC, and he speaks out against the anti-white blue haired freaks on a regular basis, so I count him as an imperfect ally.

    Gavin Mccines I really like him, lots of fun, but like Crowder he’s on CRTV so he’s on the Rights agenda for sure.

    I know the least about him. I heard he has tradcon tendencies though. But he did publicly make out with Milo after the Orlando shooting just to trigger Muslims, so that was awesome!

     

     

     

  34. It is a common failing of people who love liberty to say “oh this part of government is broken, we can’t fix it, so let’s add some more government to compensate.” That is, after all, your argument.

    I never said “we can’t fix it.” I agree with you that competition in the market is the ideal solution to internet censorship. I simply believe that net neutrality is the second best solution, and the worst situation is what we have now – no First Amendment protections online + private monopolies.

    The Founding Fathers sought to limit government power with the Constitution. They sought to limit private power with competition. Without competition and without a Constitution, you get private tyranny, or fascism.

    If only the same energy had been put into liberating individuals to have more choices in ISP as has been put into all the empty bluster on Net Neutrality we’d all be in a hell of a better shape.

    I may actually agree here. You’re right, competition is the best solution possible! The problem is that we’re living in a corporatist/fascist system, not in a capitalist free market.

    Nonetheless, most people have multiple choices of provider (whether via cable, satellite, mobile phone hotspot, or even POTS.)

    I hope you’re right in practice.

    However, Comcast, here in Chicago, has to compete against many other options, and so your fears seem unfounded for the large majority of people.

    Once I’m convinced that the American people can have 12, 13, or 14 different choices of ISP (like they do in France, I believe), I’ll abandon my support for net neutrality and go back to my default position, which is that the free market will take care of itself.

    My only fear (which is driving my support for net neutrality) is that we don’t have a free market.

    Selling sex for money is (in many places) illegal for some ridiculous reason. But none of the web sites I mentioned did that. They instead give connections to people who were willing to do so. That absolutely is speech.

    Hold on a minute: Encouraging criminal activity with your speech is itself a crime, and has been since forever. It violates the Supreme Court’s “bad tendency rule.”

    If these websites were giving connections to prostitutes, it means that they were facilitating law-breaking, or “aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise.” That could even be prosecuted under the RICO statute theoretically.

    Nothing to do with Free Speech. You can’t encourage criminality, which shouldn’t be confused with encouraging the laws to be changed, which is protected under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Petition.

    If a cocaine dealer advertises his number the cops can bust him by calling and setting him up with a deal. Or if they have solved all the real crimes, I guess they can call up sexy Suzie and bust her when she says “$10 for a blowjob.”

    Right, but if you aid and abet the hooker by setting up a website for her, or conduct any affirmative activity in furtherance of her criminal actions, you may be charged as an accessory. That’s basic law, which has nothing to do with Free Speech. So yeah, the site could be properly shut down for facilitating an illegal operation.

    Free speech also encompasses the right to not speak. When a baker is given the choice (as he was) to either Write “Wedding Blessings to Steve and Brian” or go out of business then it is plain as day that speech along with licensure can be used to put people out of business.

    Except corporations aren’t people. Was the baker forced to do this in his personal life, or as a professional business man whose business is subject to anti-discrimination laws and federal civil rights protections?

    Again, as a libertarian, I think these laws are horseshit. As John McAfee said, “In a free country, just as the buyer may choose not to buy, the seller must be allowed to choose not to sell.” However, anti-discrimination laws covering only professional settings don’t implicate Free Speech, since the baker writing that would be classified as a “business action” not as “speech” for legal purposes.

    It is common to hear people say “well sure I believe in freedom of speech, however you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.”

    That is correct, and there are laws against lying if your lie causes, or has the strong potential to cause, physical or financial injury. That is also not covered under Free Speech. Free Speech is about communicating ideas and opinions only.

    What most of the people who say this don’t know is that expression comes from a case adjudged by the US Supreme Court, and was a claim made by which the absolute right to free speech could in fact be abridged. What case was this for? Well it was specifically about a group of men who were protesting the conscription of men into the Army to fight in the first world war. That is the “fire” that was being shouted.

    And future Supreme Court cases overturned that horseshit and admitted that that was an invalid analogy.

    A protest against a specific government policy — one I might add that I would also protest. The case was unanimous decided against the protesters, and they spent several years in prison.

    Which is horrible. Fortunately, future Court decisions completely overturned that insanity and the Court today counts so called “seditious speech” as Free Speech because it communicates an idea.

    To trust our rights to government is nothing short of crazy, it is to deny almost all of history,

    Courts can get things wrong. But with well organized and well funded organizations like the ACLU and other legal groups, the judicial branch has been rather excellent (especially since the 1960s) on the issue of Free Speech and the First Amendment. That’s what the Founding Fathers wrote it for.

    to trust our rights to corporations who have to compete for our business is a much safer place.

    Correct! The key words are “who have to compete for our business.”

    Like I said, once this becomes a reality to my satisfaction, I will abandon my support for net neutrality!

    It isn’t perfect, but it is a hell of a lot easier to switch ISP (even by relocating, or using a VPN to defeat Comcast’s alleged censoring) than it is to change your government or supreme court.

    If an ISP has a monopoly, it is easier to go to the courts and demand Free Speech if net neutrality is the law. If the ISP has to compete, then you’re right, it’s easier to just switch ISPs then go to the courts and battle the government.

    So in summary, I just wish all the people advocating for the government to control the Internet via Net Neutrality would instead spend their energies on the much more productive pursuit of tearing down the walls that prevent small ISPs from gaining access on the last mile.

    That’s a very valid point and I agree. I just think you overestimate the power of the free market in the corporatist economy we have today. But I’m with you in principle and I hope you’re proven right!

     

  35. It really is nice to have real free speech.

    Too bad no one else does.

    So Caleb, you plan on keeping your Free Speech when you move to New Zealand? Does that country have the equivalent of our First Amendment? Have you researched New Zealand’s “hate speech” laws, if any?

     

  36. @ Jack Outside the Box

    You would be a Milo fan LOL. Nah dude he really has issues, as a guy who attends therapy and has issues I can tell he does.

    I can seriously feel his pain, not sound all Emotional and shit, but I think he’s Very smart and needs a little help. Tony Soprano needed therapy lol, Napoleon was a moody motherfucker too. I really do hope to see Milo come back, he hasn’t posted on YouTube for over a month!

    If you like Milo than you will most def LOVE Gavin Mccines. He made the term FILF (Feminist I’d like to Fuck). There is a reason Milo and Gavin are friends dude.

    I will check out Sam Harris now! I had no idea he coined the term Regressive Left. I heard he hooked/jabbed in a debate with Cenk Uygur (TYT’s Patriarch) and smoked him.

    I’ve got to applaud you on answering me, that shit had to take over an hour. I sincerely think you need your own Blog. I’m saying this in Honesty by the way, not as some bitchy passive aggressive insult.

    And Yes I know Steven Crowder is a TradCon and very Bibly, I just think he’s entertaining lol.

  37. Yes, it’s still in the works, but it’s costing more money than I anticipated

    You can host your own blog for like $300, and that’s with a whole bunch of subdomains. My main domain lasts until 2020. And I probably got hosed. What gives?

    If all else fails, just go to badnet and have them make a blog for you. Its free I believe.

  38. So Caleb, you plan on keeping your Free Speech when you move to New Zealand?

    I’m not moving to New Zealand. I will be spending 5-6 months per year there as a tourist.

    Does that country have the equivalent of our First Amendment? Have you researched New Zealand’s “hate speech” laws, if any?

    NZ’s hate speech laws, if any, do not apply to American tourists / bloggers who own companies outside of NZ. You really need to re-read my five flags articles because clearly you don’t understand the concept.

  39. @Jack in the box

    Just a quick follow up to your comment about Net Neutrality. In all honestly I think we mostly agree. However, a few things for you to think about.

    1. If you look at your comments there is a lot of “this isn’t free speech” and “this isn’t free speech”. It is a litany of things that you think that the government should be able to regulate in people’s speech, whether it is commercial speech, or speech that might lead to criminality, or a few others that I forget. I actually believe in free speech. I think people, and the tools that people use such as corporations, should be able to say whatever the hell they like or not say whatever the hell they like (unless they have some voluntarily agreed commitment not to, such as an NDA.) Anything else is the “abridging the freedom of speech” that is forbidden the Federal Government, and via the 14th to the states.

    2. Again, I’d point out that it is a “big government” way of thinking to imagine that the fix to a government created problem is by creating a different government solution. The solution is to tear down the government controls that caused the problem in the first place. Is that hard? Yes. But adding another government “solution” doesn’t fix the problem. It sometimes offers temporary relief, but quickly comes back to bite you in the ass, and is immediately followed by a cascade of other problems that always follows giving the government more control.

    3. By your own comments (with regards to the “fire in a theater” case) you acknowledge that the US Supreme Court certainly isn’t a reliable protector of our First Amendment rights. For sure sometimes they are better than at other times, but tell that to the men who spent a couple of years in jail for speaking out against the government. Would you really trust your right to Free Speech to people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Do you honestly find it hard to imagine that “hate speech” could be added to the list of things you already acknowledged were exceptions to the right to free speech? Imagine that a future supreme court enforced the first amendment in the same manner they enforce the second. If a right to an abortion can be found in the 4th, then is it so hard to imagine a right “not to be offended” can be found in the nest of complexity in the 14th? Is that really so far fetched to your thinking?

    Net neutrality comes under the heading “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

  40. Net neutrality comes under the heading “I’m from the government and I’m here to make sure only we get to decide what networks are allowed and how much they cost and how much people get to access it.”

    Fixed. hehe.

    I’d point out that it is a “big government” way of thinking to imagine that the fix to a government created problem is by creating a different government solution. The solution is to tear down the government controls that caused the problem in the first place. Is that hard? Yes. But adding another government “solution” doesn’t fix the problem.

    Nailed it. Going back in history, the only thing big governments have done is determine what narrative people should follow and tell people how to live their lives or how to spend their money. This narrative of “I don’t like the current form of big government, I’d rather have a form of big government that fits my ideals” is pretty toxic. At least I’m self aware enough to know that Anarcho-Capitalism is indeed utopian thinking; I’m not one to tag any statist who disagrees as a bad person or anything. That’s against my “live and let live” principle.

    Is some government necessary?  I suppose, having no infrastructure isn’t the best idea. But I still believe we have all the tools necessary to begin governing ourselves, whether its Anarcho Capitalism where everything is voluntary or Anarcho Communism where there is a consensus where everyone is forced to share, but you can leave whenever you want.

  41. Ah, yes. Our society has become so pussified and so weak that the mention of a few words on a web site or during a TV monologue sends waves of intense, pulsating terror and anger through millions of people

    It’s the more power/speed that communication now has to, well, better than ever before make people behave as what they really are.Dave Eggers authored a great novel on human nature, and its potential as it is unleashed by tech (The Circle).

  42. Do you think there should be limitation on free speech (causing it not to be free anymore, of course) if it talks about (tries to convince other people) harming another person’s natural laws, like law to live or be treated as a human?

     

    I’m talking any thing like racism, nazism, etc. where some group of people or an individual are deemed subhuman and thus not worthy of their natural laws.

  43. Do you think there should be limitation on free speech (causing it not to be free anymore, of course) if it talks about (tries to convince other people) harming another person’s natural laws, like law to live or be treated as a human?

    I’m talking any thing like racism, nazism, etc. where some group of people or an individual are deemed subhuman and thus not worthy of their natural laws.

    No.

  44. Do you think there should be limitation on free speech (causing it not to be free anymore, of course) if it talks about (tries to convince other people) harming another person’s natural laws, like law to live or be treated as a human?

    What? Dude, it’s already a crime to encourage law-breaking. But encouraging the laws to be changed so that putting babies into ovens (for example) can become legal is absolutely protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee to Free Speech AND Freedom of Petition.

    I’m talking any thing like racism, nazism, etc. where some group of people or an individual are deemed subhuman and thus not worthy of their natural laws.

    What the fuck? Where do you think you are now? This isn’t Tumblr! Get that PC horseshit out of my fucking face, pal!

    Newsflash – Free Speech protects everyone in the expression of all ideas! This includes Nazis, Klan members, pedophiles who think child rape should be legal, white supremacists who want genocide, and yes, even Hillary supporters! EVERYONE!!!!!

    FUCK YOUR FEELINGS!!!!!! 

     

  45. I don’t think I’ve got your point. Could you state it without screaming and just put it simply?

  46. Because limiting free speech with hate speech laws is a slippery slope.

     

    What is happening in the UK is a good example of this, where people are getting fines and jail time for Facebook posts or teaching your dog a Nazi salute.

     

    Sure, I find the Nazi rhetoric of “Kill all the jews” or Imam speeches about “throwing gays of tall buildings” just as vile and disgusting as most people.

    But the weapon to censor their right to spout all this hateful nonsense, I effectively give others a weapon to silence me.

     

    In a crazy world where everything is racism, sexism, islamophobia and a microaggression, censorship is about the last thing that should be incentivized.

     

    On the subject of libertarian and/or conservative shows, I would like to add the Tom Woods as a suggestion. The show covers a varied range of subjects from a libertarian angle and wide cast of guests. It is somewhat dry compared to some of the other entries on the lists though.

     

     

     

  47. I don’t think I’ve got your point. Could you state it without screaming and just put it simply?

    What was unclear? Free Speech belongs to everyone, not just to those who would refuse to hurt your little feelings.

     

  48. I agree with that, I couldn’t get your argumentative attitude though, because I wasn’t arguing in the first place – just asking questions. I don’t have a definitive opinion on this matter. Right now I think free speech should be just that – free. Asking others to harm someone is already limited by law as you said.

     

    I also agree on the slippery slope that feel-protecting laws are. In my country, Poland, there’s a law that states that you can get prosecuted for hurting someone else’s “religious feelings”. I was always like, how are “religious feelings” any better than my feelings of being a taxi driver? I’ve heard the opposition that they’re not measurable. But I don’t see why that should be a reason for feelings to be somehow worth protecting. And if we’re talking taxi drivers, there’s no scientific measurement of being a good taxi driver either.

    Protecting feelings is stupid coz every time it is done it is a new precedent. Now it’s religious feelings, after a year I can’t critique Bible anymore, the next year my sole existence as an agnostic is suddenly offensive.

    But you guys all know it.

  49. It’s the more power/speed that communication now has to, well, better than ever before make people behave as what they really are.

    That’s what it is truly about. Being hateful and malicious is part of our nature: No one is truly a good person and using people, triggering people and making them mad for our own amusement is part of our nature. And most of all, acquiring lulz is part of our nature. Because communication became so widespread, it has awakened the edgy internet troll in all of us but because we have all been trained to believe that ruling classes should decide what is best for us, those same people who just want to acquire lulz will be punished for it. Its kind of stupid, but it doesn’t affect me too much as my edgy days are over.

    Before communication became this widespread, it did not need to be micromanaged as much as it needed to be, and that’s why we have all of these laws against “free speech” being taken away. But there’s a difference between being “silenced” from places on the internet by being banned on social media and stuff and actually getting fined etc for it.

    I don’t mind someone on a comment board such as this or a message board or social media banning someone for being an asshole online (If I had my way I would ban people for being a try-hard when getting lulz instead of actually getting lulz but that’s just me), but there should be no physical laws against any of it.

    We’re always gonna have free speech, but other people also have the right to “silence” others who they do not like. That’s part of free speech. But we don’t have actual free speech because there are still consequences. I’d rather have there be no consequences but its whatever.

    For example, if I tell another commenter here to kill him or herself (a temptation that I need to resist almost all the time when I’m online), then Caleb has the right to ban me. If I go on stormfront and post a link to interracial porn (which I have done), they have the right to ban me. If I go on tumblr and post something from Jordan Peterson (another thing I have done), they have the right to ban me too.

    I should still be able to do all that stuff without being afraid of being fined or jailed or whatever.

    I like what George Carlin said about it in his final HBO special (before was murdered three months later, that’s my theory about it anyways): “I have the right to say whatever I please. But if I say something you don’t like, you have the right to kill me. Where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?”

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.

Back To Top