How to prevent the left from putting an end to free speech

[daws101]

Aw, Daws, thank you for reminding me of the good old days when "sped" was the past tense of a verb pertaining to rate of motion.

off your meds? non sequitur

 

[Billy000]

I don't understand how you people buy into such non sense. What the fuck would democrats have to gain by trying to end free speech?

They say there is no such thing as a dumb question. They lie.

You don't have an answer. Just admit it.

 

[daws101]

I don't understand how you people buy into such non sense. What the fuck would democrats have to gain by trying to end free speech?

They say there is no such thing as a dumb question. They lie.

You don't have an answer. Just admit it.

she won't,

 

[Mr.Right]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

 

[Mac1958]

.

This isn't about Freedom of Speech. This is a cultural issue, a group of people who want to leverage our freedoms against us. What they do is perfectly legal, but it exposes their narcissism and their dishonesty and their cowardice. As long as they can intimidate and control and punish, they can control the conversation.

Freedom of speech? No. They use theirs to intimidate, control, punish. It's obviously against the spirit of the First Amendment, it makes a mockery out of the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", but that's not unconstitutional.

.

 

[Siete]

who doesn't want the lame RW's to stfu ?

 

[daws101]

.

This isn't about Freedom of Speech. This is a cultural issue, a group of people who want to leverage our freedoms against us. What they do is perfectly legal, but it exposes their narcissism and their dishonesty and their cowardice. As long as they can intimidate and control and punish, they can control the conversation.

Freedom of speech? No. They use theirs to intimidate, control, punish. It's obviously against the spirit of the First Amendment, it makes a mockery out of the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", but that's not unconstitutional.

.

that's the right in a nut shell

 

[daws101]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

only if they don't shoot you first.

 

[Mr.Right]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

only if they don't shoot you first.

Ha! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?

 

[daws101]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

only if they don't shoot you first.

Ha! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?

since conservatives are not patriots, that's braggadocio at it's finest

btw the % of democrats that own gun has risen since then

 

[Mr.Right]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

only if they don't shoot you first.

Ha! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?

since conservatives are not patriots, that's braggadocio at it's finest

btw the % of democrats that own gun has risen since then

I really don't care how many libs own guns. Their dinky .380's are no match for what we're packing. They call us gun nuts for a reason. Lol.

 

[koshergrl]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

That's one way of dealing with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Someone donates to an organization that campaigns to stop same sex marriage. Under an FOIA request, an LGBT group acquires the list of donors to that organization and then starts harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth. Thus scaring people into not making any donations to organizations unliked by the mob.

This type of suppression of the exercise of free speech certainly should be addressed.

However, this may all be a giant Trojan horse whose true aim is to make dark donations by large donors even darker under the guise of protecting ordinary people from harassment by crazed hippies.

Discuss.

This doesn't constitute a 'suppression' of the right to exercise free speech, as First Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations; indeed, the state could be in violation of the First Amendment if it sought to preempt the LGBT group from protesting against the organization that campaigns to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

As for “harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth,” these are criminal acts also having nothing to do with the issue of free speech, where members of the LGBT group would likely be subject to criminal prosecution.

One private citizen or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private citizen or organization, only government has the authority to preempt free speech – or not, if that act of preemption is determined to be un-Constitutional by the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Open Carry protests outside of "free speech zones" on college campuses would be the best way.

Why yes, because nothing shows that you love free speech more than threatening to kill other people with a weapon should they open their mouths.

Bravo. Interesting and creative system. I think there is a name for it.

Oh yeah: totalitarianism.

DO this mean all police carrying a firearm on campus are threatening to kill others?

Are you equating trained police officers with gunnutz`?

Seeing they shoot people in the back 5 times and then laugh about it and plant tasers on them, and registered gun owners rarely ever use their firearm to kill anyone, I'd say the police are far more threatening than legal non-police gun owners.

So not, I'm not equating them to "trained police officers," I'm pedestalizing them compared to police.

120,000 paid cops in the USA. 3 to 4 incidents of the type you describe, per year. Incredibly low percentage of cops who do this. Of course, it should never happen. But you blame all of coppery for this?

Correct.

The number of incidents as recently reported in the news of police misconduct represent a tiny percentage of law enforcement overall, where such incidents are in no way 'representative' of law enforcement in general, nor do they in any way constitute a 'police state,' to argue otherwise is ignorant, unfounded demagoguery.

 

[CowboyTed]

Again, how do we protect people who are threatened after making donations to an organization that is hated by the mob? Their names appear on a list of donors. This list can be used to identify targets for harassment.

g5000,

It is illegal to harass, as it should be. Mobs can't break the law. This is simple.

Making public the donations does allow people to to donate. your first amendment right doesn't guarantee your anonymity in making that expression.
So look at it this way, a multibillionaire who has agenda for leagalizing peodiphillie. This would not be popular. But he can pay someone to represent his views and back him private. Should this multibillionaire be allowed anonymity for his actions when he is effectively saying them. He does deserve to be protected by the law and subject to a mob rule.

Therefore no matter what is the reason egging his house or keying his car is against the law... But calling him an asshole is what other peoples rights are too....

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't understand how you people buy into such non sense. What the fuck would democrats have to gain by trying to end free speech?

They say there is no such thing as a dumb question. They lie.

You don't have an answer. Just admit it.

Yepp.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I really don't care how many libs own guns. Their dinky .380's are no match for what we're packing. They call us gun nuts for a reason. Lol.

Indeed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Someone donates to an organization that campaigns to stop same sex marriage. Under an FOIA request, an LGBT group acquires the list of donors to that organization and then starts harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth. Thus scaring people into not making any donations to organizations unliked by the mob.

This type of suppression of the exercise of free speech certainly should be addressed.

However, this may all be a giant Trojan horse whose true aim is to make dark donations by large donors even darker under the guise of protecting ordinary people from harassment by crazed hippies.

Discuss.

This doesn't constitute a 'suppression' of the right to exercise free speech, as First Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations; indeed, the state could be in violation of the First Amendment if it sought to preempt the LGBT group from protesting against the organization that campaigns to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

As for “harassing the donors. Egging their houses, keying their cars, telephonic death threats, and so forth,” these are criminal acts also having nothing to do with the issue of free speech, where members of the LGBT group would likely be subject to criminal prosecution.

One private citizen or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private citizen or organization, only government has the authority to preempt free speech – or not, if that act of preemption is determined to be un-Constitutional by the courts.

Brilliant. And right on target.

Unfortunately, you will have lost most of the RWNJ frothers after about the 5th word, because their concentration spans only go that far...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Folks, we need to keep this thread alive for all eternity! In this way, KG can excercise her 1st amendment rights to gripe and moan all she wants about how she is losing her 1st amendment rights!

And so the circle closes itself.... a 1st amendment solution to a 1st amendment problem!




The next phase of the plan will be to slowly move KG into a nice, white room with padded walls and many round objects, where she can moan and groan and won't even be bothered by others....

I LOVE the 1st amendment. Hooray!

 

[daws101]

We all know that the left is committed to destroying free speech. Democrats are the party of "do what I say, not as I do..." also known as "It's okay for me..but not for you." They claim to embrace individual liberty..while at the same time advocating for government-mandated *equality* that literally forces people to act in ways that diametrically oppose their personal convictions.

"....the ends always justify the means for the leftist movement, principles be damned.
"It’s within this framework that liberals have been making a concerted effort to destroy their enemies—those who support liberty and individual choice."

"For many American liberals, you only have rights if you agree with their causes. If you disagree, you need to be silenced—and quickly."

The cure:

".... the “Free Speech Privacy Act,” would act as a “federalism shield” for free speech, “prohibiting the enforcement [by the states] of any law directly or indirectly conditioning the exercise of the rights of free speech and association on the disclosure of the identity of a person or entity who fears a reasonable probability of social, political, or economic retaliation from such disclosure.”
"The second proposed reform, named the “Publius Confidentiality Act,” would allow any individual to register a confidential identifier for use in political activities. This would make it even more difficult for groups to retaliate using personal attacks against people they disagree with. It was inspired by identity shield laws that protect victims of domestic violence.
"These reforms would ensure people could freely donate funds or engage in political activities without fear of being “exposed” for simply exercising their guaranteed freedoms, a principle that was an essential part of the United States’ founding."

The Left s Hidden Plan to End Free Speech and Two Ways to Stop It - Justin Haskins - Page 2

How about we simply shoot them?

only if they don't shoot you first.

Ha! A patriotic conservative is worth ten liberals anyday. Besides, how many liberals own firearms?

since conservatives are not patriots, that's braggadocio at it's finest

btw the % of democrats that own gun has risen since then

I really don't care how many libs own guns. Their dinky .380's are no match for what we're packing. They call us gun nuts for a reason. Lol.

caliber means nothing if you can't shoot straight.. btw who the fuck is we?
speaking for other people without their permission is pretentious in the extreme.