Is free speech important?

You can't see this going terribly wrong? I mean, I imagine Kim Jong Un believes in this tripartite too, his own version of it.

This is the problem with anything: for example, a democracy could give you Obama or Hitler. It's all about the implementation and you can't abandon an idea just because one country thinks the universe came into existence when Kim Il-sung was born. It's an outlier.

It's not an outlier though, is it? Pretty much the whole of the Mid-East and Africa are ruled by dictators/theocrats who are against free speech, North Korea, the whole of Europe up to the 20th century. Hitler didn't rule through democracy or free speech. So if anything, tackling free speech seems to be correlated with people like Trump and Kim Jung Un.

My favourite country Singapore is an ideal model of a country which combines censorship and social restrictions with great economic and technological progress. I imagine the PRC is also going to be a big player soon. Free speech is not correlated with intellectualism, in fact I would say it's the opposite. The point about Trump is inverted: the entire campaign was an attack on left wingers who were perceived as attacking free speech. The supporters of free speech are the gun-toting, anti-intellectual Trump supporters.

I don't know much about Singapore to be honest so I can't comment. However, what kind of censorship are you talking about? Ideological censorship? Artistic censorship? Offensive censorship?

For me ideologically I'm talking about being against socialism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism and the emotional furore of fascism. Permitted art would be esoteric that incorporates the aforementioned values of knowledge, beauty and power. I would say nothing is offensive as long as there's a valid point being made. Being offensive for the sake of being anti-social is not needed.

But since speech is the way ideas propagate, and you're regulating speech, you're regulating propagation of thought. Which is, if one reads a single page of a history book would know, is very detrimental to the future of countries. Such regulation creates turmoil, hinders creativity, reduces problem solving capabilities of nations and reduces integration between the different sections of society.

Now as for art, some of the greatest pieces of art know were once dubbed 'Entartete Kunst' or degenerate art. That was art that either belonged to hated minorities, i.e. Mendelssohn and his piano trio which is the greatest ever, or art that just challenged the chains and shackles that bound society to the past. It was art that was new and challenging, but didn't necessarily have a point. Stuff like Jazz or even modern forms of paintings.

Being offensive for the sake of anti-socialism is already banned to a certain extent. So that's not much of a problem.

What you fail to understand is that any regulation has to be done by people. People are naturally subjective, and also imperfect. Thus any regulation will have to be imperfect and subjective and thus will end up isolating a portion of society that prefers a different kind. Lack of regulation is the best thing because it allows any one to experience whatever they enjoy. It's also easier to do, costs less and is much more productive in terms of creativity and variety.

Theoretically experimentation is acceptable as long as dangerous ideologues are not associated with the work, and this can be achieved by social engineering from birth. One could look at a constructivist piece of artwork and see only the state value power if the word communism does not exist. The point is the minor aleteration with regard to the value system would still allow a lot of experimentation. However, for art worthy of classical appreciation I would argue there should be a certain amount of labour required. This would lead to a resurgence in futurist Baroque style art and high culture.

Overall though I'm more of a computer person than an arts person so in my opinion functionality will become its own aesthetic so beauty will occur as a byproduct of technological determinismm. I also think eventually computers will move into the subjective sphere so we could have a close-to-objective standard for appreciating art.

Experimenting can't be acceptable if it is limited from producing whatever someone calls "dangerous". The dangerous ideologies are ideas that endanger the state, and if the state isn't perfect, which I bet it won't be, then those ideas are needed. So you can see that prohibiting and regulating ideas will only lead to reduction of the potential of society to improve.
Minor alterations do allow for experimentation, but no great process or product are produced from 'minor' alterations. Einstein didn't revolutionise physics nor did Tesla revolutionise electricity through 'minor alterations'. Schoenberg didn't reinvent the musical wheel through 'minor alterations', but through major changes that prompted someone like Hitler to kick him out of Germany.

You see, in essence, people are free to create and experience what they want as long as it is not in damage of others. That's the true meaning of freedom, your prohibitions limit that and thus I find it disgusting and unacceptable. Live free or die, that's my motto.

I am only talking about art: scientists can do whatever they need to do because a minority of the population will see, nevermind understand, the research, and therefore it won't affect the political climate. I am at heart a technocrat so the idea that I would want to limit technological progress is absurd: it's the core of my ideology.

Is free speech important?

Was the second option in the poll a serious one?

Free speech means that people can call you racist because of wanting to talk about immigration.

Free speech means people can express their support for the IRA or Hezbollah.

Free speech means people can make jokes on facebook about British soldiers being killed and say they deserve it.

Free speech means people can say that infidels should be beheaded and Israel should be wiped off the map.

The first could be considered slander and thus wouldn't necessarily be protected under free speech. This is an area I would say might justify some form of legal action depending on the situation. You can't just spread lies about people to hurt their careers and reputation.