Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?

[Gracie]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

 

[Gracie]

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.

So....are you going to rant and scream and argue with the blacks holding signs saying KILL WHITES? Or are you just for blacks cuz it's all that peer pressure on ya? How about DON'T KILL ANYONE? Nah. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

 

[BULLDOG]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

I'm sure most were disapproving of the people in that video, but only the right wants to paint every person protesting, or even concerned about improper behavior of some cops as advocating the execution of cops.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've won every single argument I've had with you.

ROFLMNAO!

Ain't DELUSION Grand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've won every single argument I've had with you.

ROFLMNAO!

Ain't DELUSION Grand?

You probably think your brand of trolling is original, lol.

Now where's the list of things you're accusing me of ruining.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that hate speech can be deemed a crime. That is also part of the Constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

I'm sure most were disapproving of the people in that video, but only the right wants to paint every person protesting, or even concerned about improper behavior of some cops as advocating the execution of cops.

What 'the right' wants, is to simply point out the truth, which is that the Ideological Left is subversive to sound principle. That as Relativist, the Left rejects the objectivity required for a sustain a viable individual... thus they reject the principles which can only be observed through objectivity, which sustain a viable culture.

ANd while it is HYSTERICAL that the Ideological Left would claim to have some respect for Law Enforcement... despite their LONG AFFILIATION with their jargon that describes the Poh-poh as PIGS!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers:

MAC1958 SAID:

“You fan the flames, you are responsible for the consequences.”

What's sad and telling is that many of your fellow rightists agree with you, and have also sought to propagate your lie.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've won every single argument I've had with you.

ROFLMNAO!

Ain't DELUSION Grand?

You probably think your brand of trolling is original, lol.

Now where's the list of things you're accusing me of ruining.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[BULLDOG]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

I'm sure most were disapproving of the people in that video, but only the right wants to paint every person protesting, or even concerned about improper behavior of some cops as advocating the execution of cops.

What 'the right' wants, is to simply point out the truth, which is that the Ideological Left is subversive to sound principle. That as Relativist, the Left rejects the objectivity required for a sustain a viable individual... thus they reject the principles which can only be observed through objectivity, which sustain a viable culture.

ANd while it is HYSTERICAL that the Ideological Left would claim to have some respect for Law Enforcement... despite their LONG AFFILIATION with their jargon that describes the Poh-poh as PIGS!

I'll break my own rule this one time and directly interact with an extremely crazy teabagger like you, but only to remind you that your stupid thoughts might sound reasonable to you, but are just more of the same crazy shit to everybody else.

 

[Gracie]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that hate speech can be deemed a crime. That is also part of the Constitution.

Then the SC better get on some black asses screaming for deaths to whites, eh?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers...

That is simply an incontrovertible fact... of the non-debatable variety.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

No. You're wrong.

There's a LEGAL difference between free speech and hate speech.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.

So....are you going to rant and scream and argue with the blacks holding signs saying KILL WHITES? Or are you just for blacks cuz it's all that peer pressure on ya? How about DON'T KILL ANYONE? Nah. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

If you're talking about the Fox stories, they've been proven to be LIES.

But yes, signs calling for the deaths of whites is probably LEGALLY hate speech.

Do YOU rant and scream and argue about tee potties' signs calling for the deaths of blacks, including the president of the US.

No, you don't.

 

[Gracie]

Speaking of....did they ever arrest asshole convict M Brown's step dad yet? No? Why not? Was it considered free speech to BURN THIS BITCH DOWN?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that hate speech can be deemed a crime. That is also part of the Constitution.

Then the SC better get on some black asses screaming for deaths to whites, eh?

But not whites wanting blacks killed.

Look at racist RW and tee potty signs.

You're okay with that, right?

All should be treated equally. Period.

 

[Gracie]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

No. You're wrong.

There's a LEGAL difference between free speech and hate speech.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.

So....are you going to rant and scream and argue with the blacks holding signs saying KILL WHITES? Or are you just for blacks cuz it's all that peer pressure on ya? How about DON'T KILL ANYONE? Nah. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

If you're talking about the Fox stories, they've been proven to be LIES.

But yes, signs calling for the deaths of whites is probably LEGALLY hate speech.

Do YOU rant and scream and argue about tee potties' signs calling for the deaths of blacks, including the president of the US.

No, you don't.

Unlike you, I don't watch news sources that lean one way. Kinda like Fox News. But you watch, dontcha? And I also don't hang around people in real life that call for the death of blacks or the POTUS. I guess you do? How else would you know about it?

 

[Gracie]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that hate speech can be deemed a crime. That is also part of the Constitution.

Then the SC better get on some black asses screaming for deaths to whites, eh?

But not whites wanting blacks killed.

Look at racist RW and tee potty signs.

You're okay with that, right?

All should be treated equally. Period.

The problem is...YOU don't agree with everyone being treated equally. All I see from you is ranting about the po' black folks being so abused by racist whites..and calling for CK to shut people up you don't agree with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

You're wrong, as usual.

Free speech refers only to the relationship between the government and citizens, placing restrictions on government to seek to preempt or restrict the free expression of citizens.

It does not apply to the relationship of private persons in the context of a private venue such as an online message board, where it's perfectly appropriate to denounce the hate speech of racists, and for message board administrators to edit or delete speech determined offensive or inappropriate.

Private citizens in the context of private society, therefore, determine what is or is not appropriate speech, and set the rules and boundaries accordingly.

This, then, is the fundamental nature of a truly free and democratic society, where private citizens alone determine what is or isn't appropriate speech – absent unwarranted interference from politicians, bureaucrats, and the courts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

I'm sure most were disapproving of the people in that video, but only the right wants to paint every person protesting, or even concerned about improper behavior of some cops as advocating the execution of cops.

What 'the right' wants, is to simply point out the truth, which is that the Ideological Left is subversive to sound principle. That as Relativist, the Left rejects the objectivity required for a sustain a viable individual... thus they reject the principles which can only be observed through objectivity, which sustain a viable culture.

ANd while it is HYSTERICAL that the Ideological Left would claim to have some respect for Law Enforcement... despite their LONG AFFILIATION with their jargon that describes the Poh-poh as PIGS!

I'll break my own rule this one time and directly interact with an extremely crazy teabagger like you, but only to remind you that your stupid thoughts might sound reasonable to you, but are just more of the same crazy shit to everybody else.

Your instincts are correct... you're unworthy of debate, due to your stark intellectual limitations.

Despite the certainty that you're incapable of comprehending, I'll try to help ya through it.

The simple truth is that your 'feeling' that popularity correlates to validity, right or truth, is false. In reality, there is absolutely no potential correlation to how popular an idea is, and if that idea is true, valid or viable... . I truly wish you possessed the means to understand. I truly do... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

You're wrong, as usual.

Free speech refers only to the relationship between the government and citizens, placing restrictions on government to seek to preempt or restrict the free expression of citizens.

It does not apply to the relationship of private persons in the context of a private venue such as an online message board, where it's perfectly appropriate to denounce the hate speech of racists, and for message board administrators to edit or delete speech determined offensive or inappropriate.

Private citizens in the context of private society, therefore, determine what is or is not appropriate speech, and set the rules and boundaries accordingly.

This, then, is the fundamental nature of a truly free and democratic society, where private citizens alone determine what is or isn't appropriate speech – absent unwarranted interference from politicians, bureaucrats, and the courts.

True... but within the context of the private citizens, one does not have a right to deceitfully or to intentionally, inaccurately describe another who denounces the policy advocacies of a racial minority, representing that person as a racist. As this impugns the person, seeks to damage their credibility, thus represents the attempt to injure an innocent.