Shooting and jailing people for free speech does not protect society from degeneracy. It only results in retarded dictatorships that inevitably implode.
Then you'll be able to show a comparable nation to USA that imploded. Let's see what you've got (and let's just conveniently ignore that if these SJWs were sent back in time to push their shit in the 1700's they have been killed, not just have their speech restricted, and yet, curiously, America didn't implode simply because it didn't have enough child mutilation advocates free to speak and take over our institutions).
They don't have free speech as a value in the Middle East and yet Muslim nations are rampant with world record levels of bestiality & animal abuse, child rape & child sex slavery (though to be fair they try to be egalitarian in their child abuse), murder, drug addiction (poppy fields baby!), kidnapping & extortion, suicides etc.
Care to prove a lack of free speech is why they have all of that? Not that the comparison is at all similar, it should be outright dismissed, but I'll still hear you out.
China also shoots and jails people for free speech and their society is currently collapsing because they murdered all of their female children in the 80s and 90s which means they are incapable of reproduction without kidnapping women from Korea, Japan, etc. Anyone who tried to warn them about their one child policy was jailed because, you guessed it, no free speech so they couldn't course correct while that was a viable option. China is also riven with degeneracy, lots of pedophilia and incest and porn addiction, not to mention Chinese males are too fat to pass physical tests to join the Chinese army which means they can't invade anyone for World War 3.
Abortion is bad, yes. All you're proving is killing babies and preventing life is bad. Control is good when it's in the right hands, as I said, obviously it can be used for evil and stupid reasons too in the wrong hands.
And as above, please prove their societal degeneracy is caused by a lack of free speech.
"Based" Russia suppresses free speech to the point where Putin can assassinate journalists and murder civilians in the street and its only gotten them a dogshit economy, men dying of alcohol poisoning while in their 30s, chronic male joblessness and made them the laughing stock of the entire world because they invaded Ukraine with rotting Soviet tanks. Oh, and they're so free of degeneracy that Russia has the highest rate of abortions for whites in all of Europe if not the world.
I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump crucified the entire CNN staff, so you're not really making a point I care about by saying Putin kills journalists.
I'm sure if only they had more SJWs in Russia men would stop drinking themselves into early graves and they'd steamroll Ukraine, yeah...
And again, bad things are bad, I know. Abortion should be banned, and speech promoting it punished harshly.
Where exactly has suppressing free speech gotten these countries? Lmao.
They have a lot of problems and circumstances causing and exacerbating their issues, and a lack of free speech ranks very low on any issue you cited. The only one that really sticks out was China not letting people speak out about their 1 child policy, but that's not a free speech issue, it's a case of evil being in power. I know you'll cry about evil and good being subjective but that's a pointless debate.
First Amendment makes perfect sense if you want a successful society. Authoritarian countries where they claim they've try to solve degeneracy by suppressing free speech are total basket cases that are rampant with pedophilia, drug abuse, and other degenerate practices. The US having these problems is an example of how our society no longer values 1A and refuses to stand up for it anymore. Because lefties and righties are so desperate to "win" their retarded game that they have happily turned American society into a shitty and ineffective authoritarian state where free expression is hated and suppressed and replaced with retarded knock offs.
Let's see your argument for that, I don't see how you can back such an assertion.
We need more 1A, not less.
We had less in the past and we were better off. Care to explain your reasoning as to how that would solve any issues? I do agree it would temporarily help since the right's correct and true speech is suppressed currently, but if we gain power we should return their suppression 10x.
Free speech is an idealist's value, in a vacuum it sounds good if you don't consider the consequences it has. Rather, in practice, promoting what is good and suppressing what is bad works much better for a prospering society. You don't keep weeds in your garden bud.
