“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my dying day your right to say it”

[OldFlame]

Is not government actively silencing opposing views of concern to you?

Try not to think about Trump when you reply.

It's not a concern for them at all when it's silencing their 'enemies', they've already made that very clear on here. These people are not Americans who believe in the Constitution, they seek to destroy it.

 

[OldFlame]

They call themselves leftists. Generally these viewpoints are considered on the left, but not exclusively so. There is plenty of overlap with political viewpoints.

And many call themselves liberals as well when they couldn't be farther from that. I refuse to call them liberals, so leftists it is. They are also not progressives because they want to take the human race backwards, not forwards. They are power and money hungry leeches on society who want everyone to follow their 'rules' and supposed 'morals', when they actually have none.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, I want communists executed.

It's not tyranny to rid the body of a cancer, even if that body is the body politic. Indeed, one of the functions of government is to protect its citizens from evildoers.

The cancer is exemplified by your ilk, Leroy.

 

[gipper]

So you are saying that the OP is right and that people who hold communist views should be jailed?

So you want to jail people for expressing their views? So you support tyrannical government telling what you can and cannot say...

Gipper (OP) you are right their are people who want to impose tyrannical government restrictions on speech, fortunately the are far right and are not close to power as long as we have Democrats in power.

Clearly you’re uninformed.

Are you unaware of what O did to Manning and Assange? Are you also unaware of what Ds in Congress said to Taibbi?

 

[gipper]

You are 100% wrong here. Defending free speech is not an automatic default in defending Trump. Sadly it seems that is how you see it.

He defends silencing speech because he hates Don. Not an intelligent position to take, but most Ds and libs “think” this way.

 

[pknopp]

He defends silencing speech because he hates Don. Not an intelligent position to take, but most Ds and libs “think” this way.

The one issue I have here and I've not said anything but it has been twisted to mean something else. Liberals have NO problem with free speech. Now many who would curtail it have grown to call themselves Liberal for one reason or another.

lib·er·al

willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

No, that doesn't describe many who call themselves liberal.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Free Speech does not, ever, cover criminality.

 

[CowboyTed]

Lol. Ever heard of Julian Assange or Eugene Debs or the hundreds of citizens imprisoned by Dishonest Abe?

Julian Assange is not getting indicted for expressing his political views... He is being accused of breaking the Espionage Act of 1917 and alleging he had conspired with hackers. They are saying he stole information, Julian can defend himself in counrt.

Eugene Debs died in 1926... He was in jail over a hundred years ago... BTW @[B]LeroyDumonde[/B] would want him executed today... So you could be right there?

Tell me where I stated Americans have recently been imprisoned for offensive speech?

This is from your own OP
"We now have government, media, and tech colluding to silence free speech. How long before hate speech and thought crimes will result in long prison sentences? Will the American people continue allowing the destruction of their right to free speech?"

Media or Tech doesn't stop free speech but they have the right to not give you a platform if they want. You have no right to force a social platform to host speech that they don't want to host especially if they think your words are dishonest (they think, not you think) and harmful to society. You can get your soapbox and scream from the nearest corner...

So how does the Government stop free speech, laws, so show the government curbing free speech, show the court cases..

 

[gipper]

The one issue I have here and I've not said anything but it has been twisted to mean something else. Liberals have NO problem with free speech. Now many who would curtail it have grown to call themselves Liberal for one reason or another.

lib·er·al

willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

No, that doesn't describe many who call themselves liberal.

Many people who call themselves liberals are nothing but liberal. They have become closed minded authoritarians supporting a corrupt oligarchy.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

gipper, trying using your Free Speech defense, if you are tried for telling some bozo to kill Cowboy Ted.

You guys are truly desperate.

 

[gipper]

Julian Assange is not getting indicted for expressing his political views... He is being accused of breaking the Espionage Act of 1917 and alleging he had conspired with hackers. They are saying he stole information, Julian can defend himself in counrt.

Eugene Debs died in 1926... He was in jail over a hundred years ago... BTW @[B]LeroyDumonde[/B] would want him executed today... So you could be right there?


This is from your own OP
"We now have government, media, and tech colluding to silence free speech. How long before hate speech and thought crimes will result in long prison sentences? Will the American people continue allowing the destruction of their right to free speech?"

Media or Tech doesn't stop free speech but they have the right to not give you a platform if they want. You have no right to force a social platform to host speech that they don't want to host especially if they think your words are dishonest (they think, not you think) and harmful to society. You can get your soapbox and scream from the nearest corner...

So how does the Government stop free speech, laws, so show the government curbing free speech, show the court cases..

Again you prove you’re uninformed. If you were informed you’d know what the Twitter Files exposed.

Assange is a journalist who reported wrongdoing by the powerful. For this, he is imprisoned. You may think this appropriate but intelligent people don’t.

 

[CowboyTed]

Clearly you’re uninformed.

Are you unaware of what O did to Manning and Assange? Are you also unaware of what Ds in Congress said to Taibbi?

Manning was charged with:
Stealing Government property
Multiple fraud charges
then giving that to a third party
That's not free speech... If I work for someone I can't tell their business on the internet...

As for Tabbi, enlighen us... Match it with evidence...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Manning was not charged with speech criminality.

 

[gipper]

Manning was charged with:
Stealing Government property
Multiple fraud charges
then giving that to a third party
That's not free speech... If I work for someone I can't tell their business on the internet...

As for Tabbi, enlighen us... Match it with evidence...

No. Manning was falsely imprisoned by O for refusing to shit on Assange. I believe she was tortured too.

Get informed on Taibbi. Not my ******* job to educate you.

 

[pknopp]

Manning was charged with:
Stealing Government property
Multiple fraud charges
then giving that to a third party
That's not free speech... If I work for someone I can't tell their business on the internet...

As for Tabbi, enlighen us... Match it with evidence...

Assange, Snowden.

 

[CowboyTed]

No. Manning was falsely imprisoned by O for refusing to shit on Assange. I believe she was tortured too.

Get informed on Taibbi. Not my ******* job to educate you.

Manning was not about free speech... It was about releasing protected information breaking his employment contract.

You illuded accusation concerning Tabbi... Can't help you if you made no accusation...

 

[CowboyTed]

Assange, Snowden.

Again not about free speech...

I agree there is a case to be made on both side but neither Assange or Snowden want to show up to a court...

 

[Kondor3]

You are 100% wrong here. Defending free speech is not an automatic default in defending Trump. Sadly it seems that is how you see it.

Agreed that defending Free Speech is the sacred task of every loyal American... and I will stand alongside you in lock-step to fulfill that sacred obligation.

Positing that "If you come after me, I will come after you" (in the face of multiple indictments) is a Free Speech issue, is an insanity that will not succeed.

Ditto for trying to associate basic Free Speech principles to some of the rhetoric used by Trump in connection with the January 6, 2021 Insurrection.

Attempts by The Right to shield Trump under that time-honored and sacred banner will not succeed... he was (and is) yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

And he is not going to be allowed to get away with it this time.

 

[pknopp]

Again not about free speech...

I agree there is a case to be made on both side but neither Assange or Snowden want to show up to a court...

And one cant blame them.

 

[pknopp]

Agreed that defending Free Speech is the sacred task of every loyal American.

Positing that "If you come after me, I will come after you": in the face of multiple indictments is a Free Speech issue, is an insanity that will not suceed.

Ditto for trying to associate basic Free Speech principles to some of the rhetoric used by Trump in connection with the January 6, 2021 Insurrection.

Attempts by The Right to shield Trump under that time-honored and sacred banner will not succeed... he was (and is) yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

His right or not it shows he is not qualified for the highest office of the country.