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

[The Irish Ram]

That's easy. I'm talking about the people that are actually making threats.

I don't know, some pretty serious stuff to one and one's family have been made there. But I wonder, did Robinson say he was going to murder Kirk on any social media? Did the two that tried to assassinate Trump, say they were going to murder him? Usually if you are going to commit a crime, you keep it on the down low.

 

[ChristisKing]

But I wonder, did Robinson say he was going to murder Kirk on any social media? The two that tried to assassinate Trump, say they were going to murder him?

From what I've heard about Robinson yes, the others I don't know.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

This Is Why We Need A Limit On Free Speech In This Country​

In the name of freedom we need less limits not more, especially on this matter.

 

[ChristisKing]

Some of you need to go back to the Founding Fathers and understand what the limits to free speech really is. This country has lost its way

Oh and I also want to add that threats of vandalism shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech as well as threats of physical harm.

 

[The Irish Ram]

From what I've heard about Robinson yes, the others I don't know.

Me either. You would think that if he said he was going to murder Kirk, someone would investigate that. 1/2 of this country speaks ill of the President, and say so, it may be hard to determine if they are inciting violence against him <indirect threat as opposed to saying you are going to kill him when he shows up in Butler Pa. <direct threat.

 

[ChristisKing]

Me either. You would think that if he said he was going to murder Kirk, someone would investigate that.

Yep, you would think but I've practically lost faith in mankind. My faith lies in God. Oh and direct threat or indirect threat shouldn't make a difference. When you are threatening violence against another human being you deserve to be locked up period if not worse.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Oh and I also want to add that threats of vandalism shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech as well as threats of physical harm.

While one may not like this freedom, or that, if we let people decide what should or shouldn't be covered, or removed, we would end up with 0 freedoms. We have a government full to the brim who sit down every day and make laws removing our freedoms and make themselves rich deals. I think it was Truman who said, "Show me a rich politician, and I'll show you a crook". Let's not help them by volunteering our liberties to be taken away.
But we do try to protect against harm. Not in the legislating branch, but in the judicial branch. You can alert the police, take someone to court, files charges against someone, buy a gun,< (my personal favorite), get restraining orders. There are options. You are not at the mercy of someone who has said they want to physically hurt you.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some of you need to go back to the Founding Fathers and understand what the limits to free speech really is. This country has lost its way

First of all it's correctly stated ''the freedom of speech.''

And there is a fundamental reason for why Madison was so strict to make sure it was stated in this way.

Clearly you're the one who needs educating on the topic, Gomer.

Stick to TikTok videos and one-liners. That's more your level, observably.

And your mentally and intellectually deficient sidekick, too...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading/learning...

Free Speech and Its Discontents - The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) “Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press ... ”-- First Amendment to the US Constitution…

ronpaulinstitute.org

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The problem is professing Christians who WORSHIP the First Amendment and the modern liberal interpretation of it.

It was intended to protect the individual who criticizes our political and religious leader, never did "free speech" include incitement and threats of violence towards your fellow citizens.

Personally, while I RESPECT our founding Documents and believe they were God Inspired, I certainly don't worship them, as they're interpreted today to include pornography and violence.
The limits of free speech, according to the Founding Fathers, included speech that incites imminent lawless action, constitutes true threats or defamation, involves fraud or obscenity, or infringes on intellectual property rights. While the First Amendment was a commitment to broad free expression, the Founding Fathers, particularly James Madison, acknowledged that this freedom did not protect speech that caused direct, tangible harm or violated fundamental principles of justice and public order.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If anything, we need more champions of liberty. That is sorely lacking these days

Of course you mean "liberty within God's law," right buttercup?

 

[buttercup]

Of course you mean "liberty within God's law," right buttercup?

When it comes to speech? People are going to say things I disagree with, and things I might find abhorrent. They still have the right to say it. As I've been saying repeatedly, when you start restricting speech, it comes back around to all of us when the wrong people are in power. It's extremely foolish to not see or understand that.

If you're talking about liberty in general, I never claimed that liberty means license to do whatever the hell we want. Just laws are laws that align with divine law. Bad laws are laws that invert or go against truth. When I said we need more champions of liberty, I was talking about people who care about protecting the Bill of Rights... our God-given basic human rights.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Every time God chastised Israel, His complaint was, "every man did that which seemed right In his own eyes."

This was not a positive statement. Too many here want to WORSHIP the Founding Documents and use them to excuse anarchy. "Liberty" without God is slavery.

 

[ChristisKing]

Another example of what I'm talking about.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Another example of what I'm talking about.

Infringement on another's "rights" with threats of violence is the very definition of terrorism.

God bless Trump. This lawlessness will no longer be tolerated

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Blocking traffic in the name of "protest" is also not a protected right

 

[Slyhunter]

​

You're saying "they", the Democrats, murdered Charlie Kirk.

Just look at yourself. Guilty of the same ******* bullshit you are whining about.

It is they, the Dems, who keep folks up at night while they in turn try to sleep. It is they, the Dems, who think it's a good idea to set up protests in Restaurants and churches while folks are eating and/or praying, It is they, the Dems, who block roads while you are trying to go to work or go home. It is they, the Dems, who do massive shoplifting spree's and the ***** when they close their businesses for good. It is they, the Dems, who protest public speaking events close campuses, destroy property, beat up Jews and other folks, in the name of Antifa. It is they the dems wh do violence in the name of what they are fighting for while shutting down any form of criticism of their acts. It is they, the dems who fired myself and others for speaking our opinions on public mediums forcing uss to remain silent in order to live in peace and/or keep our jobs.