I Don't Understand Why Democrats Keep Calling For Free Speech

[Winston]

Liar!! The constitution never allowed for anything like this to be happening NEVER!!

That is comical. Know anything about the presidential election of 1800? Oh it was terrible. The Federalists, John Adams running for re-election. The Democrat/Republican, yeah, they were one party., Thomas Jefferson the nominee. It got nasty, fast. The Federalists claimed the Democrat/Republicans were dangerous atheist, out to ruin the country. The Democrat/Republicans called the Federalists aristocrats, the Federalists supported England in the French/English war, that was the right of the day. They were opposed to the French Revolution. The Democrat/Republicans were on opposite sides of both those issues.

 

[ChristisKing]

Risks we take to have a 1st amendment and a free society.

Yes but I still think that there should be exceptions. After all it's legal to shoot somebody if you feel like they're a threat to you physically and it falls underneath the second amendment and it's considered self-defense, but we can't just shoot somebody we don't like. That's murder.

 

[MarcATL]

Did Kirk ever advocate murdering someone or celebrate someone being murdered?

Didn't Kirky participate in the "Trayvon Skittles Challenge" and made fun of George Floyd by saying things like "5 years sober" on the fifth anniversary of his death?

 

[martybegan]

Yes but I still think that there should be exceptions. After all it's legal to shoot somebody if you feel like they're a threat to you physically and it falls underneath the second amendment and it's considered self-defense, but we can't just shoot somebody we don't like. That's murder.

Yes, and you can't say "I'm going to kill you" or "people need to kill person X" without repercussions either.

 

[martybegan]

Didn't Kirky participate in the "Trayvon Skittles Challenge" and made fun of George Floyd by saying things like "5 years sober" on the fifth anniversary of his death?

Provide links of what he actually said.

 

[drudge X]

If Charlie Kirk had put a fraction of the effort he did on his main boogieman of "Black on Black crime" towards white on white crime instead, he would have definitely be still alive today.

Hilarious..Did you know that NYC and Chicago can literally defund the police if there are no blacks there?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If I become hostile at my workplace and verbally, but not physically, attack coworkers, my employer can still fire me on the spot.
That doesn't mean my government can prosecute me, although there are even limits in that regard as well.
For example, shouting a threat from across a street may not qualify, but saying the same thing while raising a fist at close range likely would. The focus is on the victim’s reasonable apprehension of harm, not the offender’s intent to follow through.

 

[Hellbilly]

Terrorists need to be prosecuted.

Threatening conservatives by calling them Nazis.

Keep calling liberals communists

 

[drudge X]

Didn't Kirky participate in the "Trayvon Skittles Challenge" and made fun of George Floyd by saying things like "5 years sober" on the fifth anniversary of his death?

Because Floyd was a career criminal. Can you list a crime committed by Kirk?

 

[MarcATL]

Hilarious..Did you know that NYC and Chicago can literally defund the police if there are no blacks there?

What does that have to do w/the price of tea in China?

 

[MarcATL]

Because Floyd was a career criminal. Can you list a crime committed by Kirk?

So it's okay to mock, demean and dehumanize people if you deem them criminal. Is that your argument?

 

[ChristisKing]

If Charlie Kirk had put a fraction of the effort he did on his main boogieman of "Black on Black crime" towards white on white crime instead, he would have definitely be still alive today.

So are you saying that he deserved to die?

No need to regulate. Designate them as terrorists. Use of deadly force is necessary to neutralize terrorists. Problem solved.

Now THIS is the response that I was expecting to get.

If I become hostile at my workplace and verbally, but not physically, attack coworkers, my employer can still fire me on the spot.
That doesn't mean my government can prosecute me, although there are even limits in that regard as well.
For example, shouting a threat from across a street may not qualify, but saying the same thing while raising a fist at close range likely would. The focus is on the victim’s reasonable apprehension of harm, not the offender’s intent to follow through.

Yeah but like drudge said, these are obviously terrorists.

Yes, and you can't say "I'm going to kill you" or "people need to kill person X" without repercussions either.

Yeah but don't you think that it's time for more exceptions to this rule as well when it starts becoming this dangerous?

 

[Unkotare]

...

I'll be er forget one time, I took my family to Cape Cod. We drove up into Provincetown (know for it's gay population and gay entertainment). There were men in leather assless chaps running around slapping each other's butts and making out in the streets. I hauled our asses right out of there. ...

You took your family to P-town without knowing what you were getting into?

 

[Concerned American]

Your post is a perfect example of why this country is in such deep shit trouble. It is because no one wants to listen to the other side, and everyone wants a one-sided conversation.

I think the term is snowflake for someone easily offended.

Honestly, if you don't want free speech, move to an Islamic country, North Korea, China, and a whole litany of other nations where speech is limited.

By the way, and this applies to all those like you, if you don't like free speech, what the hell are you doing on a political board?

It's a shame that free speech has to enter into it. What's worse is that we, as a nation, have lost any semblance of DECENCY.

 

[ChristisKing]

It's a shame that free speech has to enter into it. What's worse is that we, as a nation, have lost any semblance of DECENCY.

I agree but it's getting to look that way though right now unfortunately.

 

[drudge X]

So it's okay to mock, demean and dehumanize people if you deem them criminal. Is that your argument?

Lol... Your side have no trouble mocking Trump now, yes?

 

[JWBooth]

The retards are arriving. A spirited discussion on the merits and limits on speech will now devolve into horseshit.

 

[task0778]

If authorities decide there is a real threat of violence, that has never been free speech.

I believe there has to be some specificity to it, a person or group has to be named and a specific action taken in a threat. An ambiguous threat isn't actionable in a court of law. That's what I think anyway.

 

[ChristisKing]

I believe there has to be some specificity to it, a person or group has to be named and a specific action taken in a threat. An ambiguous threat isn't actionable in a court of law. That's what I think anyway.

Why can't a threat be a threat and be punished as a threat? After all if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[MarcATL]

Lol... Your side have no trouble mocking Trump now, yes?

You don't see me snowflaking up, chimping out and crying about anyone being mocked, do you?