View source for Talk:Free speech

== Interesting articles ==

Interesting article on Poland's president describing how Poland has more transparency than Germany: [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/10/26/polish-president-slams-german-media-being-questioned-polish-press-freedom/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:39, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:Macron has suggested banning people convicted of "hate speech" from using social media for life: [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/22/macron-france-could-ban-hate-speech-convicts-from-all-social-media-for-life/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:14, 23 February 2019 (EST)
::A potential example, but one that seems more self-serving than ideological -- Brazil's supreme court ordered the censorship of an article accusing the court's chief justice of corruption: [https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2019/04/16/brazil-supreme-court-orders-censorship-of-article-accusing-chief-justice-of-corruption/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:41, 18 April 2019 (EDT)
:::This is also an example of left-wing attitudes on feminism and political correctness, but the UK's regulatory agency for advertizements banned ads that promote what it calls "harmful" gender stereotypes: [https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-bans-ads-promoting-harmful-gender-stereotypes-tying-physique-to-romantic-success 1],[https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/32608-you-will-be-absorbed-british-thought-police-ban-ads-with-gender-stereotypes 2] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:32, 14 June 2019 (EDT)
::::This is also an example of the EU's increasing centralization and importance in the eyes of liberals, but a German state wants to ban the burning of the EU flag: [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/06/22/germany-lawmakers-want-three-year-prison-terms-burning-eu-flag/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 22 June 2019 (EDT)
:::::A French court has sentenced some anti-illegal immigration activists for "activities carried out under conditions likely to create confusion in the minds of the public with the performance of a public service": [https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-anti-immigrant-group-members-from-Generation-Identitaire-jailed-and-fined-for-border-actions] This almost seems to give the impression that it's simply because of their activism, though I'm not sure enough to add it to the article. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 09:13, 8 September 2019 (EDT)
::::::This group is somewhat akin to the Arizona Minuteman who patrolled the border.  Their "crime" is something like impersonating a government official and/or intimidating criminals. "Vigilantism". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:19, 8 September 2019 (EDT)
:::::::Germany's upper house passed a bill making it a crime to denigrate the EU's flag or anthem, with three years in prison: [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/27/german-regions-pass-prison-eu-flag-denigration-legislation/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 08:12, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

==Isn't it a bit hypocritical==

If i'm not allowed to post opinionated bits in talk sections please don't ban me, just delete this section.

Claim: Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that that leftists don't support support free speech on a website that bans users for spreading truthful information that doesn't support your agenda? 

Note: This account was created to get around a ban, but I only use it for debate pages, and as of now, talk pages. 

I was banned for saying that marriage existed before most modern day religions, including christianity. That is true, I will give you links below, but you can look it up on your own. That is a true fact, but it doesn't happen to support this sites pro-Christian agenda, so I was banned. You can say that this site was created to more clearly represent the facts and include the conservative Christian POV, but in reality, it is a site that forcefully excludes information to support an agenda. You can't deny that, it's called "Conservapedia", it has an agenda. I'm not saying that this site denies that marriage existed before the bible, it just doesn't want people to acknowledge that. 

https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
https://www.livescience.com/amp/37777-history-of-marriage.html