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

[sartre play]

The article doesn't give specific names.

WOW, nameless people? How do you know we should get rid of them?
When we have no information who they are??
So we can look them up & decide based on VETED INFO.

 

[dudmuck]

I don't get your point as Charlie Kirk never threatened to murder anybody but maybe we're somewhat on the same page for once?




Yeah but wouldn't you find this to be extremely threatening? Especially since the people involved have a history of violence?

how is this --> GOP lawmaker calls for Dem congresswoman to be executed for urging Trump protests

threat or nonthreatening?

 

[Foxfyre]

The college can limit what its students place or hang on their property. if the college really thinks the students are being threatened, they can remove the signs. Political speech always makes some people uncomfortable. The founders recognized that and put in place the First Amendment.

The Founders never intended that 'free speech' be used to protect those those use speech in incite panic or violence or other destructive behavior or facilitate/promote lawlessness. They never intended 'free speech' to be used to libel or slander or otherwise violate the rights of other citizens to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to target ICE agents or any other law enforcement or any individual or groups. They never intended 'free speech' to be the excuse to allow lewd, vulgar, obscene images/behavior wherever anyone wants to use that.

"Free speech" as written into the Constitution is intended to restrict the federal government from denying citizens the right to their beliefs and opinions without fear of retaliation from the government. It is not license to violate the rights of other citizens.

And it was not intended to restrict any community, organization, business, or any other public or private entity to set standards for what speech is acceptable. Thus we have strict limits on what speech is allowable in commercial media and rating systems for movies, video games, etc. And certainly schools and universities can set strict rules for conduct/speech and should to command respect and decent treatment for all--liberal/conservative/Christians/Jews/Muslims, everybody.

 

[sartre play]

The thing is, modern Americans interpret their "rights" as being able to say or do whatever they want. Like blasting their music so loud in their car that dishes literally move across the tables in the local eateries as they pass by, while people are trying to relax and eat. Some people really think this is ok, just like some people think it's ok to call for violence against people they don't like, citing "free speech". Some people think it's also ok to flaunt risque behavior in front of children or have sexually explicit content in media which children can access.

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. My son was just 2 but he didn't need to see that. And here's the kicker, I told someone else about that eventually and they actually said "don't go there if you don't like it"! Can you believe it?? Like, how about going to a gay bar if you want to do sexually explicit gay things, instead of being exhibitionistic about it on public streets?!

That liberalism for you.
Liberals think they should be able to say or do whatever they want and everyone else just has to go away. There doesn't need to be any kind of standard that we all have to follow and keep it in our pants and keep it under our hats a little when we are in public. That's actually how America used to be for a very long time until wokeism came about. People generally had respect for each other and no one was really more entitled under the law than anyone else, unless of course corrupt judges were involved or something like that.

Liberalism has rotted our country to the core.

AGREE with the guy who told you if you don't like it don't go there.
NEVER been to a gay parade, not angry, just not interested.
Most (all) of the posts of gay parades here are from people who say their against gays!
You figure it out?

 

[ChristisKing]

WOW, nameless people? How do you know we should get rid of them?
When we have no information who they are??
So we can look them up & decide based on VETED INFO.

Never mind you missed my point. I thought that you and I were on the same page of ending hatred in our country though.

how is this --> GOP lawmaker calls for Dem congresswoman to be executed for urging Trump protests

threat or nonthreatening?

Wow, that's shocking. I'm speechless.

 

[ChristisKing]

The Founders never intended that 'free speech' be used to protect those those use speech in incite panic or violence or other destructive behavior or facilitate/promote lawlessness. They never intended 'free speech' to be used to libel or slander or otherwise violate the rights of other citizens to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to target ICE agents or any other law enforcement or any individual or groups. They never intended 'free speech' to be the excuse to allow lewd, vulgar, obscene images/behavior wherever anyone wants to use that.

"Free speech" as written into the Constitution is intended to restrict the federal government from denying citizens the right to their beliefs and opinions without fear of retaliation from the government. It is not license to violate the rights of other citizens.

This post wins the thread.

 

[MarcATL]

Never mind you missed my point. I thought that you and I were on the same page of ending hatred in our country though.



Wow, that's shocking. I'm speechless.

You're not serious about "ending hate in our country", otherwise you would have criticized the President for stating the hates his political opponents, and on top of that, added that he doesn't wish the best for them either.

However, you've opted to cheer him on doing that.

You're a ******* joke dude, seriously.

 

[ChristisKing]

You're not serious about "ending hate in our country", otherwise you would have criticized the President for stating the hates his political opponents, and on top of that, added that he doesn't wish the best for them.

That's not the kind of hate that I'm talking about wanting to put a stop to. The kind of hate that I'm talking about is violent and got Charlie Kirk assassinated.

 

[MarcATL]

That's not the kind of hate that I'm talking about wanting to put a stop to. The kind of hate that I'm talking about is violent and got Charlie Kirk assassinated.

Based on your own arguments, the President's words and sentiments are hate speech and are inciting violence against his political opponents.

 

[Foxfyre]

This post wins the thread.

Thank you. The concepts should be pushed and defended strongly, emphatically, and that should continue until the cows come home, i.e. the public is thoroughly educated on that.

I added another paragraph to my initial post saying that the Founders never intended that public and private entities could not set standards for what speech would be acceptable in those entities.

 

[ChristisKing]

Based on your own arguments, the President's words and sentiments are hate speech and are inciting violence against his political opponents.

Depends what you mean by political opponents. Just people who vote for the opposition or the people who want to kill him and take over our country?

 

[sartre play]

Dear Christ, YES agree totally on ending Hate in our country,
How WE get there is a whole different message.

 

[buttercup]

Just remember if restrictions are put in place they apply to the right as well as the left. Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly, and I said basically the same thing to her the other day, but I think it went in one ear and out the other.

Yes, but when do Republicans ever act like this and if they do act like this they most certainly should be prosecuted for it!!

You really don't get it, do you? Your naïveté is showing. You're assuming that conservatives or anyone on the 'right' will only be prosecuted for true, legitimate reasons. What you're not getting is that when corrupt people are in power, they can and almost certainly will abuse that power by going after you and me for false reasons. For example, gun owners and people who have spoken out against the government have been put on lists and called potential "domestic terrorists"... and even people like bible-believing Christians, pro-lifers, anti-immigration and pro-sovereignty people have been viewed as potential "domestic terrorists." The bottom line is, any power you give the federal government to silence speech you don't like is still going to be there when your political opponents get in power, and they can label controversial things you say as a "hate crime" or label you a criminal, for illegitimate reasons.

Another thing you don't seem to realize is that underhanded tactics have been used to trick people into surrendering liberty for "security." I've talked about this many times before on other threads. It's called Problem - Reaction - Solution. I'm not saying that's the case with these flyers, but for the sake of argument.... look how easy it was to get you so emotional and hysterical and react with "We need more restrictions!!!! Make more laws!!!!" Knowing it's that easy, subversive people in government can dishonestly put something out there for the purpose of eliciting a reaction from the public, to get people to cry out for more restrictions, and for the government to "do something!" Again, it's called Problem - Reaction - Solution.

Once again, you're allowing yourself to be manipulated.

 

[MarcATL]

Depends what you mean by political opponents. Just people who vote for the opposition or the people who want to kill him and take over our country?

What do you think Trump meant by that?

 

[ChristisKing]

Thank you. The concepts should be pushed and defended strongly, emphatically, and that should continue until the cows come home, i.e. the public is thoroughly educated on that.

I added another paragraph to my initial post saying that the Founders never intended that public and private entities could not set standards for what speech would be acceptable in those entities.

Yes but shouldn't these people also be arrested too?

Exactly, and I said basically the same thing to her the other day, but I think it went in one ear and out the other.



You really don't get it, do you? Your naïveté is showing. You're assuming that conservatives or anyone on the 'right' will only be prosecuted for true, legitimate reasons. What you're not getting is that when corrupt people are in power, they can and almost certainly will abuse that power by going after you and me for false reasons. For example, gun owners and people who have spoken out against the government have been put on lists and called potential "domestic terrorists"... and even people like bible-believing Christians, pro-lifers, anti-immigration and pro-sovereignty people have been viewed as potential "domestic terrorists." The bottom line is, any power you give the federal government to silence speech you don't like is still going to be there when your political opponents get in power, and they can label controversial things you say as a "hate crime" or label you a criminal, for illegitimate reasons.

Another thing you don't seem to realize is that underhanded tactics have been used to trick people into surrendering liberty for "security." I've talked about this many times before on other threads. It's called Problem - Reaction - Solution. I'm not saying that's the case with these flyers, but for the sake of argument.... look how easy it was to get you so emotional and hysterical and react with "We need more restrictions!!!! Make more laws!!!!" Knowing it's that easy, subversive people in government can dishonestly put something out there for the purpose of eliciting a reaction from the public, to get people to cry out for more restrictions, and for the government to "do something!" Again, it's called Problem - Reaction - Solution.

Once again, you're allowing yourself to be manipulated.

For the time being let's just focus on this incident. Do you find the people in this article to be dangerous and threatening? Especially when they have a history of violence and used words that Tyler Robinson himself used?

 

[ChristisKing]

What do you think Trump meant by that?

I'm guessing that you're talking about people who want him dead and to take over our country so yeah I wouldn't fault him at all for saying that if that's what he meant. Just for simply voting for the opposition of course not but I don't think that's what he was referring to.

 

[Lesh]

A lot of you keep asking me this question. Even some of you being Republicans. Well this is why. Tell me honestly, do you think that any of these people should be allowed to walk free in society?


Second wave of threatening Charlie Kirk flyers found at Georgetown | Fox News Georgetown acts quickly after disturbing flyers reemerge on campus mocking Charlie Kirk: 'Rest in p-ss'

Start campaigning on a repeal of the First Amendment

 

[ChristisKing]

Start campaigning on a repeal of the First Amendment

Having limits and repealing an amendment are two entirely different things. Try again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes but shouldn't these people also be arrested too?



For the time being let's just focus on this incident. Do you find the people in this article to be dangerous and threatening? Especially when they have a history of violence and used words that Tyler Robinson himself used?

Each case should be looked at on its own merits. For instance it is protected free speech to say "I hate (whatever)." To say that (whatever) should be shot or driven out of the country or similar would merit being put on a watch list/investigated/checked out. To say everybody get your guns and let's eliminate (whatever) should be an offense subject to arrest and prosecution.

 

[ChristisKing]

Each case should be looked at on its own merits. For instance it is protected free speech to say "I hate (whatever)." To say that (whatever) should be shot or driven out of the country or similar would merit being put on a watch list/investigated/checked out. To say everybody get your guns and let's eliminate (whatever) should be an offense subject to arrest and prosecution.

I think catch fascist should be included for an arrest considering that it's connected to Tyler Robinson.