Is the violent supression of opinion ever warranted and/or justified?

[Unome]

Free Speech tends to degenerate into shouting matches, where the ones who shout longest and loudest win.

That said, I support Free Speech in US. But some countries should suppress contrary speech, like Vatican City of Rome. Constricted speech is one of the most effective & efficient means of preserving culture, tradition, and history. So some countries should have free speech… and constricted speech for others.

A cultural center should have constricted speech for the preservation of that culture. The problem is favoring one culture over another.


And I think a lot of Europeans are anti-European, which poses an altogether different problem… (self-hating Europeans who hate their own culture)

My answer for the poll is: "Yes, but not in US."

[Breedingvariety]

There are two ways to win political power: persuasion and coercion. By suppressing free speech one says political power should be won by coercion.

[templumForasticus]

Would you support a state that violently suppressed the voices of those (leftists, communists, queers, Muslims, Jews, Freemasons, Zionists, geoengineers, etc.) that deliberately attempt to damage, disrupt, degenerate and decay western civilization for their own or their associates' benefit, or share similar beliefs to those that do?

The harm this causes would be exclusively to those sharing beliefs akin to those listed, and said beliefs would certainly have to be defined by law. Obviously a nation state would have to be professional, fair, and responsible with such powers, and checks and balances would be set in place to prevent the power from spoiling. It would be treated as a regrettable necessity in order to protect the populace from minorities that share sick views which they intend to act upon and spread.

For example, say Amschel the "French" pro-LGBT Zionist Freemason communist geoengineer creates a blog which he advertizes stylishly and cleverly and attracts a large reader base to. For the last several weeks, he has been writing decrepit material targetted at the youth with the intention of corrupting their instinctive morality and making them susceptible or perhaps even curious about Marxist-Leninism. Should a nation's law enforcement organizations be able to investigate this man, monitering his behavior, and progress through a process that would result in the acquisition of a warrant permitting local law enforcement to break down his door, capture and detain him, and question him?

Of course, to prevent a police-state from formulating this would have to be moderated by forces independent of the administration, such as a strict and logically clear constitution or- God forbid- majority vote. This sort of power is extremely undesired under current regimes, but would be desired provided the masses largely agreed with the protection under a benevolent, "far-right" modernized traditional sort of government. In other words, a benevolent one, safeguarded from spoil, eternally. Something a representative democratic Judeo-plutocracy could and would never achieve.

Essentially, what you are being asked is whether or not you believe in exceptions to the 'freedom of speech' rule- explicitly defined destructive ideologies that have reigned chaos in the past (and present).

"Hero: Vlad Țepeș"

[portusaus]

There are two ways to win political power: persuasion and coercion. By suppressing free speech one says political power should be won by coercion.

The state in mind would win its power via persuasion. There is only a malevolent / exploitative minority that needs to be suppressed by force because they are a threat to everyone else and often know it. That is what this question is about. This power would be strictly limited to use against specifically defined ideologies, Leftism and Islam for example, and would not be able to be used against the average liberty-loving citizen that is anti-establishment for whatever reason(s).

"Hero: Vlad Țepeș"

He was a brave European hero in the struggle against the Turks (what better means to draw a line between man and beast, than with tens of thousands of rotting corpses?), and had a strict and strong sense of morality that I certainly respect. If the punishment for breaking any rule is brutal and grotesque, then who in the right mind would dare break one? He created a potentially perfect society.

[Breedingvariety]

The state in mind would win its power via persuasion. There is only a malevolent / exploitative minority that needs to be suppressed by force because they are a threat to everyone else and often know it. That is what this question is about. This power would be strictly limited to use against specifically defined ideologies, Leftism and Islam for example, and would not be able to be used against the average liberty-loving citizen that is anti-establishment for whatever reason(s).

That assumes persuasion process has been completed and the right conclusion has been reached, so any attempts to persuade otherwise will be met with coercive measures. But people change their mind. And if most people would change their mind to persecuted position, such measure would become oppression of the majority.

[Manifest Destiny]

Anything you empower the government to do to your enemies can also be done to you. Suppressing unpopular opinions sounds like a great idea until it's your opinions that are unpopular.

[Fenrir]

Anything you empower the government to do to your enemies can also be done to you. Suppressing unpopular opinions sounds like a great idea until it's your opinions that are unpopular.

Pretty much this. I still think that it would be possible to suppress communistic ideas in the American McCarthyist tradition, but certainly not in the present and likely future political climate.

[Raven_]

For example, say Amschel the "French" pro-LGBT Zionist Freemason communist geoengineer creates a blog which he advertizes stylishly and cleverly and attracts a large reader base to. For the last several weeks, he has been writing decrepit material targetted at the youth with the intention of corrupting their instinctive morality and making them susceptible or perhaps even curious about Marxist-Leninism. Should a nation's law enforcement organizations be able to investigate this man, monitering his behavior, and progress through a process that would result in the acquisition of a warrant permitting local law enforcement to break down his door, capture and detain him, and question him?

The best prevention is educated and morally healthy society. Does government really have a right to decide what should be morally acceptable? I am very skeptical of social engineering.

[de Burgh II]

I would say the suppression of the destructive affiliates is justifiable enough. Why have respect for associations that are so intent on destroying a countrie's establish culture that their ancestors worked so hard to cultivate in turn for their own pathetic greed. If anything they should be put to death for not only endangering the culture's survival, but also endangering ethic people that reside in that area as well with their pathetic greed and lack of convictions sealed their own fate.

There should be a balance in moderation. If you give people too much freewill; they abuse it for their own selfish gain like the welfare system today. If you give someone too much restrictions; then the government will be too tyrannical and restrictive that would inhibit possible growth within the country itself. Everything is better in moderation.

Now this brings me to the "democratic" example. When it first started out; it had a genuine intent on cultivating a fair and just system that eventually got corrupted and devolved into what it is now. A shell of its former self heading in a direction where it will utter destroy itself in the process. All the politicians being mindless idiots that can't even govern anything, everyone praising idiocy and ignorance, imposing its multi cult mentality on others unjustifiably with its globalization nonsense. Nevertheless, the system itself is not bad; its the people who run it giving it a bad name by corrupting it in return for their pathetic greedy endeavors.

[safinator]

You can't legislate opinions. When people's views and opinions are legislated or suppressed we end up in a totalitarian state.