Liberal City Says First Amendment Doesn't Apply There

[novasteve]

Richmond City Council and residents tackle hate speech Richmond Confidential

perhaps these liberals would be more comfortable in North Korea?

 

[rightwinger]

If you can't behave civilly at a council meeting you deserve to be escorted out

Has nothing to do with free speech

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a city council meeting. Not the place to voice personal grievances. If the guy doesn't like lesbians he could run against her next election.

 

[WinterBorn]

It sounds like some idiots were wanting to use a city council meeting to vent their anti-homosexual views to the public. That is not protected speech. They are perfectly free to say whatever they want outside of the meeting. But if there were no rules to focus the meeting they could last forever and accomplish nothing.

 

[Pennywise]

Richmond is not a liberal city.

 

[rightwinger]

So conservatives complain that they can't call a councilwoman a dyke

 

[Pennywise]

At the same time (I just saw that idiot with the cardboard sign), really the only FREE speech is "hate speech", or offensive speech. That's the speech that needs protecting. I'm not touching the alleged council meeting issue, just the brainless poster.

Fuck these thought police assholes.

 

[R.D.]

I find nothing wrong with trying to maintain civility.

 

[R.D.]

So conservatives complain that they can't call a councilwoman a dyke

Following the conversation, conservatives are wanting to put a stop to it.

 

[Pennywise]

I just read the article and it is not clear exactly what is going on. Are they saying that when the council is open to public comments that certain comments are not allowed because they are "hate speech"? Who determines this? The usual suspects of freaks and losers?

Is there more detail to this story? If it is an open forum and the speaker follows the rules, what the fuck difference does it make what they say? Did they leave their free speech rights when they walked through the door?

Having read the article, I am more confused.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Liberal City Says First Amendment Doesn't Apply There"


This is a lie and fails as a straw man fallacy, as the OP seeks to propagate his lie in an effort to misrepresent his opponents' position.


And nowhere in the article was the city nor any of its elected officials identified as 'liberal.'


Moreover, had the OP bothered to read and comprehend his own cited article, he would have learned that the vote concerned proposed changes only, no final resolution was determined, where a city official advocated that the constitutionality of any proposals be reviewed.


Last, that the OP is a liar and rightwing partisan hack comes as no surprise.

 

[WinterBorn]

So conservatives complain that they can't call a councilwoman a dyke

Following the conversation, conservatives are wanting to put a stop to it.

I can't see it being liberals who want to waste city council meetings to rant about how bad homosexuality is.

 

[R.D.]

I can't see it being liberals who want to waste city council meetings to rant about how bad homosexuality is.

Yeah, I know, right



Following the conversation , here, the liberal town isn't liberal so it is conservatives trying to maintain civility.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you can't behave civilly at a council meeting you deserve to be escorted out

Has nothing to do with free speech

i agree this has to do with conduct at a meeting....

 

[Harry Dresden]

At the same time (I just saw that idiot with the cardboard sign), really the only FREE speech is "hate speech", or offensive speech. That's the speech that needs protecting. I'm not touching the alleged council meeting issue, just the brainless poster.

Fuck these thought police assholes.

if your saying it....then it aint thought no more....just sayin....

 

[shart_attack]

Richmond City Council and residents tackle hate speech Richmond Confidential

perhaps these liberals would be more comfortable in North Korea?

Prolly not.

The only "trannies" there are on Sungri trucks. And they're just barely there, at that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

"Liberal City Says First Amendment Doesn't Apply There"


This is a lie and fails as a straw man fallacy, as the OP seeks to propagate his lie in an effort to misrepresent his opponents' position.


And nowhere in the article was the city nor any of its elected officials identified as 'liberal.'


Moreover, had the OP bothered to read and comprehend his own cited article, he would have learned that the vote concerned proposed changes only, no final resolution was determined, where a city official advocated that the constitutionality of any proposals be reviewed.


Last, that the OP is a liar and rightwing partisan hack comes as no surprise.

Jones calling someone a partisan hack.......

 

[novasteve]

They are saying views they don't agree with are "disruptions". Not that this is about disruptions. About about speech they don't agree with. Lots of insults happen at meetings like this, but only insults they don't approve of are forbidden.

 

[Vigilante]

Commie winger was perhaps the first to use this device....