Which would you prefer?

[TNHarley]

Simple poll!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I would rather let racists open their mouths and reveal their hate, so I know who they are.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Freedom vs Tyranny... pretty simple.

 

[TNHarley]

Freedom vs Tyranny... pretty simple.

Not for some, though :/

 

[TNHarley]

freedom to be a bigot is still freedom... Frankly, the best kind.
We should be able to say whatever in the fuck we want without the govt raping us.

 

[Moonglow]

Why is there never a stripper pole in the threads?

 

[Barton]

Simple poll!

Depends.

Am I the person who decides what is acceptable to say?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I choose.....

 

[Barton]

freedom to be a bigot is still freedom... Frankly, the best kind.
We should be able to say whatever in the fuck we want without the govt raping us.

The truth is, the speech we should all fight hardest to protect is the speech that we most disagree with. It's easy to say "protect speech I agree with" it takes real balls to say "I disagree with that opinion, but I would defend his right to say it"

 

[DrLove]

I wouldn't prefer either one. A bunch of racists - no .. the fewer the better
Don't want my freedom of speech F'd with either

It's a false choice

 

[martybegan]

I wouldn't prefer either one. A bunch of racists - no .. the fewer the better
Don't want my freedom of speech F'd with either

It's a false choice

it's actually a simple choice. if you prevent government from controlling speech, you will get speech you don't like.

If you give government power to control speech via content, there is no real way to limit that power, and like all government power it will be extended if the government can get away with it.

 

[martybegan]

freedom to be a bigot is still freedom... Frankly, the best kind.
We should be able to say whatever in the fuck we want without the govt raping us.

The truth is, the speech we should all fight hardest to protect is the speech that we most disagree with. It's easy to say "protect speech I agree with" it takes real balls to say "I disagree with that opinion, but I would defend his right to say it"

That's the concept progressive just don't get, or refuse to get.

 

[L.K.Eder]

too deep for me.

 

[DrLove]

it's actually a simple choice. if you prevent government from controlling speech, you will get speech you don't like.

If you give government power to control speech via content, there is no real way to limit that power, and like all government power it will be extended if the government can get away with it.

No it is not a simple choice. Their are limits to nearly all the amendments including the first.

BALANCE is the key

And as long as we're on the topic of free speech, why does Trump continue to bully journalists and threaten to revoke broadcasting licenses?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it's actually a simple choice. if you prevent government from controlling speech, you will get speech you don't like.

If you give government power to control speech via content, there is no real way to limit that power, and like all government power it will be extended if the government can get away with it.

...and, racists would still be racist.

 

[TNHarley]

it's actually a simple choice. if you prevent government from controlling speech, you will get speech you don't like.

If you give government power to control speech via content, there is no real way to limit that power, and like all government power it will be extended if the government can get away with it.

No it is not a simple choice. Their are limits to nearly all the amendments including the first.

BALANCE is the key

And as long as we're on the topic of free speech, why does Trump continue to bully journalists and threaten to revoke broadcasting licenses?

What balance? The bullshit our partisans in washington decide on?
The COTUS isnt a living document.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No it is not a simple choice. Their are limits to nearly all the amendments including the first.

BALANCE is the key

And, by "balance" you mean limiting racist speech?

 

[Barton]

it's actually a simple choice. if you prevent government from controlling speech, you will get speech you don't like.

If you give government power to control speech via content, there is no real way to limit that power, and like all government power it will be extended if the government can get away with it.

No it is not a simple choice. Their are limits to nearly all the amendments including the first.

BALANCE is the key

And as long as we're on the topic of free speech, why does Trump continue to bully journalists and threaten to revoke broadcasting licenses?

He bullies a lot of people, link to him threatening to revoke broadcasting license?

 

[MindWars]

freedom to be a bigot is still freedom... Frankly, the best kind.
We should be able to say whatever in the fuck we want without the govt raping us.

Problem is the Gov. didn't nec. have laws against hate until that idiot Obama created that bs " hate crime bill" which became a law then that pos gov. takes it and abuses it way outside of it's original context more often than not. Obama help created that bs using the gays as usual and many gays are to fkn stupid to realize they are and were being used for political motives.

Thank Obama for stripping our VERBAL rights away that is as long as you are not a WHITE, PATRIOT, FREEDOM loving GUN OWNER , and or VETERAN.......................

Obama signs hate crimes bill into law - CNN.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The COTUS isnt a living document.

No yet!