What are the Limits of Free Speech?

[miketx]

Condemn what exactly?

Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.

This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.

I think you've posted "Fallacy" more times than you have posted "Trump". What's up with that girl?

tI be perfectly fair to Clayton, though, those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by his use of the terms "racist", "bigot" and "conseevatives are all big meanie poopooheads."

there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names.

"there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names"

and this is different from the typical conservative?
every trump supporter?

march in lockstep with THEIR EXTREME IDEOLOGY or be called;
libtard
libernazi
liberscum
LIEberal
LIEbeRATS
DEMONcRATS
scum
nazis
commies
god haters
christian haters
America haters
flag burners
traitors'teasounous
satanists


kinda like that?

But that's what you are. It's not name-calling when you are that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I
have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?

Free speech does not include speech that harms others - libel/slander - or speech that places others in a state of clear, present and immediate danger.

“There is going to be violence in America if Trump is impeached and removed from office." does not do any of this.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Condemn what exactly?

Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.

This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.

I think you've posted "Fallacy" more times than you have posted "Trump". What's up with that girl?

tI be perfectly fair to Clayton, though, those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by his use of the terms "racist", "bigot" and "conseevatives are all big meanie poopooheads."

there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names.

"there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names"

and this is different from the typical conservative?
every trump supporter?

march in lockstep with THEIR EXTREME IDEOLOGY or be called;
libtard
libernazi
liberscum
LIEberal
LIEbeRATS
DEMONcRATS
scum
nazis
commies
god haters
christian haters
America haters
flag burners
traitors'teasounous
satanists


kinda like that?

It looks like you live in a world just as simple-minded as Clayton's

 

[sparky]

Consider the concept of evolving standards of human rights.

Objectively, and i mean from a very broad objective, the more humans, the less freedom, and by proxy rights we'll have PP

~S~

I can't say that I understand you very well . Can you please speak human?

apologies ,my adhd, etc etc.... PP

Yes there are 'evolving standards' of human rights, in fact they've always been in flux

We could ring up any given point in time, and debate just how 'free' we were in terms of rights, laws, or even in the case of the lack of them

Historically , we could consider any given point in our history , from the Magna Carta on forward a millennium to current times.

And as our rights are also synonymous with our freedoms , a metric can be delineated. No need to re invent that wheel either, as we can find various groups on line who's aspirations are just that.

BUT, one factor is undeniably population density

This is one sore subject when it comes to 'rights' , because individual rights decline , when one has little chance to actually exist as an individual alone

~S~

It’s not so much a matter of standards or rights ‘evolving’ – it’s more a discovery of rights and protected liberties which have always existed.

As Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Founding Generation had the wisdom to recognize the fact that they did not have a finite, comprehensive understanding of all rights and freedoms, that a full accounting of our rights and freedoms would be realized through the political and judicial process, safeguarded by the principles codified in Constitutional case law.

Well that's a lofty concept Clay

here i am whining about a metric , and you pull out this ditty claiming we should, given due constitutional course of actions, figure it out for ourselves

and here i was so willing to foist blame on someone, or something else....

i'm gonna go eat worms!

~S~