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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

According to the FBI, the biggest terrorist threat domestically are white national extremists.

What you posted comes nowhere close to that.

You just seem to be suffering from the lack of ability to take a joke.

That's not what she's suffering from. Or at least the only thing she's suffering from.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If you read my article in the OP it isn't just about saying horrible and disrespectful things. These are violent dangerous people who are writing catch fascist on their flyers. They're terrorists.

Can you define the word "terrorist" in the United States Code including "domestic terrorism"?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I have no intention of looking through your racist posts again I have to read them in current threads that is enough. The board knows what you have posted in the past and yes you have attacked whites in general and MAGA too.

Not whites in general, racist whites and any of MAGA to which this applies covers them as well.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The article doesn't give specific names.

Oh I thought they were asking for the people here on the message board you want silenced and executed.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

I can't say with certainty because I haven't reviewed the original documents in a long time, but while that may not have been their intention, SCOTUS rulings in the interim had no problem letting the Ku Klux Klan terrorize Black people with cross burnings, claiming that was their protected right of freedom of expression.

So let's not act as if society has always been so sensitive to the feelings and sensibilities of all of the people of the U.S.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

Why?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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?

He didn't say "enemies", he said "opponents" - that's anyone who doesn't support him & his administration which could be half of the voting population. And he added "and I don't want the best for them". Yeah tell us something we don't already know.

Why would you or anyone else expect people of the United States to show deference to a president who openly expresses his contempt and hatred for some of us. He's supposed to be working on behalf of all of us but we knew better and that this was going to happen before he even got in office.

We just didn't know how extreme it would be.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't say with certainty because I haven't reviewed the original documents in a long time, but while that may not have been their intention, SCOTUS rulings in the interim had no problem letting the Ku Klux Klan terrorize Black people with cross burnings, claiming that was their protected right of freedom of expression.

So let's not act as if society has always been so sensitive to the feelings and sensibilities of all of the people of the U.S.

I was not arguing anything whatsoever re the really REALLY bad SCOTUS decisions that have come down over the years or the really REALLY good ones. And will choose not to participate in an attempt to derail the discussion by bringing those in.

I was arguing the Founders' intent. Argue that is you can.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Please read a history book.
The very start of the nation was by the use of speech that you would criminalize.
The founding fathers certainly didn't want the actions that started and fomented their revolution to be illegal.
So they wrote into the Constitution, protections to do it again should it become necessary.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

You're wrong because Trump did say his opponents, not his enemies. His would be every one who did not vote for him, does not support him or his administration's actions.

Nonetheless, in the event that anything were to happen to Trump "those people who want him dead" will NOT be able to take over the country because the office of the presidency would then be taken over by the current Vice President J.D. Vance.

Here’s a (non-exhaustive) version of the current presidential line of succession under U.S. law (Presidential Succession Act) as of now:

1. Vice President — J.D. Vance Wikipedia+1
2. Speaker of the House — Mike Johnson Wikipedia+1
3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate — Chuck Grassley Wikipedia
4. Secretary of State — Marco Rubio Wikipedia
5. Secretary of the Treasury — Scott Bessent Wikipedia
6. Secretary of Defense — Pete Hegseth Wikipedia
7. Attorney General — Pam Bondi Wikipedia
8. Secretary of the Interior — Doug Burgum Wikipedia
9. Secretary of Agriculture — Brooke Rollins Wikipedia
10. Secretary of Commerce — etc. USAGov+1
11. Secretary of Labor
12. Secretary of Health & Human Services
13. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
14. Secretary of Transportation
15. Secretary of Energy
16. Secretary of Education

Are these the people you're worried about who want Trump dead so that they can take over the country?!? Aren't they all "your people"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Please read a history book.
The very start of the nation was by the use of speech that you would criminalize.
The founding fathers certainly didn't want the actions that started and fomented their revolution to be illegal.
So they wrote into the Constitution, protections to do it again should it become necessary.

My dear I have TAUGHT that history again and again including at least most of the founding documents that went into the final version of the U.S. Constitution that was ratified. You won't win a debate on my knowledge of that so don't even try.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Then why stand up for Floyd? The guy was a piece of shit sorry as human being but yet, your side worship him at the altar.

BECAUSE the United States Constitution does not allow the police to KILL people just because in their opinion the person is a "piece of shit" or has a criminal record.

George Floyd was murdered by his own government, yet somehow you think that's okay?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion context is everything. Specific words/phrases are not in themselves 'criminal.'

For instance if we object to something someone did, an expression 'they ought to hang him/her' is most likely just an expression and not an offense.

But to say, 'let's get a rope and hang him' is far more sinister and should be looked at more closely as to intent.

Did you see all of the excuses made for the J6ers for chanting "Hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence" and all of the excuses of why that allegedly was not a real threat and that no violence occurred there that day?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So tell me, if I disparage Charlie Kirk, how am I violating the rights of others? If I claim the Republican party, and Trump in particular, are becoming more authoritarian, maybe even use the word "Fascism", how am I violating the rights of others?

Furthermore, how is this mob mentality of people scouring the internet for comments that "make light" of Kirk's killing in order to get people fired NOT violating the rights of others.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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

I'd rather we Gitmo'd your ass for wanting to murder people, *****.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What would you classify this as?

The video title is propoganda 101.
"White people attacked"
"Black racism!"

Both statements are false. I guess communist Russia isn't the only place this happens as we were taught in school.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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'

Was listening to Tim pool today he said he has sources....take that as you will...that say there is going to be a major false flag soon. When he said major, he means apocalyptic, as in, like the entire internet being shut down..on that scale

Now, take that with a grain of salt, I dont watch tim pool regularly so i dont know his track record on predictions, but, there have certainly been a ratcheting up of violence lately.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Conservatives should not speak at HBCs?

Black Students Shutdown Charlie Kirk Event

 

[ChristisKing]

Was listening to Tim pool today he said he has sources....take that as you will...that say there is going to be a major false flag soon. When he said major, he means apocalyptic, as in, like the entire internet being shut down..on that scale

Now, take that with a grain of salt, I dont watch tim pool regularly so i dont know his track record on predictions, but, there have certainly been a ratcheting up of violence lately.

This might be a stupid question but who is Tim Pool?

 

[Robert W]

Trump's a criminal

Not really but he was never sentenced. Comey has a far better chance to be sentenced.