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

[JGalt]

If in the future if you actually have something relevant in the way of a reply, I'll reply.

How is that not relevant? You blamed Republicans for the fact that you got the jab, and I blamed you for your own lack of asserting your independence.

I'm a Republican myself, but I don't do something just because some Republican tells me to. What kind of fool would do that?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Criminal Speech by Mr. Trump in furtherance of criminal activity is not Free Speech.

Define "criminal speech" and cite the section of the Constitution that prohibits "it"!

 

[pknopp]

How is that not relevant? You blamed Republicans for the fact that you got the jab, and I blamed you for your own lack of asserting your independence.

I'm a Republican myself, but I don't do something just because some Republican tells me to. What kind of fool would do that?

I could open the state? It was noted that Democrats shut them down and I noted it was also Republicans.

I have no idea why some are so intent on blaming one party for things their party also does.

 

[pknopp]

Define "criminal speech" and cite the section of the Constitution that prohibits "it"!

ie: Charles Manson.

He didn't commit the crimes, he only instructed others to do so.

 

[gipper]

Please give an example of first amendment being denied.

The entire Twitter Files, as I referenced in the OP.

Ever heard of them?

 

[JGalt]

I could open the state? It was noted that Democrats shut them down and I noted it was also Republicans.

I have no idea why some are so intent on blaming one party for things their party also does.

Well that's easy: Because Democrats suck worse than Republicans.

 

[Blues Man]

When have we recently heard anyone in power or in media and among the elite say those words? Rather a quaint idea in the current environment. It even sounds a bit subversive in an era of visceral hatred for free speech. 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?

I'm more of the mind that if I don't agree with what you say I'll ignore you.

 

[DudleySmith]

When have we recently heard anyone in power or in media and among the elite say those words? Rather a quaint idea in the current environment. It even sounds a bit subversive in an era of visceral hatred for free speech. 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?

We never hear you saying those words either; you just snivel like the typical Burb Brat about 'warmongers n stuff' and cry when our foreign policy does just that. lol people who won't fight thugs overseas aren't going to do squat here either.In fact we've seen that for the last 60 years and more.

 

[Moonglow]

/---/ No 9 year old has.

I wouldn't know since I don't hang around with 9-year-olds.

 

[pknopp]

Well that's easy: Because Democrats suck worse than Republicans.

They both did the same thing.

 

[22lcidw]

"You are either with us or against us" preceded Obama.

And W's buddy Obama saying elections have consequences. And you have a psychopath in Garland using the totalitarian laws enacted and expanded from both these men against the citizens.

 

[BULLDOG]

The entire Twitter Files, as I referenced in the OP.

Ever heard of them?

Twitter was a private company, and made their own decisions about what to allow on their site. Which government agency do you want to determine what a private business allows or disallows.

 

[JGalt]

They both did the same thing.

Well I just happen to like one of them better than the other.

So there.

 

[pknopp]

And W's buddy Obama saying elections have consequences.

They do. Again that has nothing to do with the topic.

And you have a psychopath in Garland using the totalitarian laws enacted and expanded from both these men against the citizens.

The laws could have been addressed under Trump.

They were not so now he can deal with them.

 

[forkup]

Define "criminal speech" and cite the section of the Constitution that prohibits "it"!

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

Freedom of speech does not include the right.
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

 

[22lcidw]

They do. Again that has nothing to do with the topic.




The laws could have been addressed under Trump.

They were not so now he can deal with them.

They are globalist ghouls.

 

[struth]

ie: Charles Manson.

He didn't commit the crimes, he only instructed others to do so.

what the F are you talking about? Of course he committed crimes...murder is a crime, he conspired with others to commit numerous numbers....he literally broke into the house of the LaBianca's and tied up the couple, he provided them weapons....like really?

Murder is a crime.

Disagreeing with the outcome of an election is not a crime...well maybe in leftist utopia's like Saddam's Iraq, Castro's Cuba, Putin's Russia, and Xiden's America

 

[gipper]

Twitter was a private company, and made their own decisions about what to allow on their site. Which government agency do you want to determine what a private business allows or disallows.

Do you not know government was controlling Twitter and FB and others?

Please stop posting.

 

[struth]

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

Freedom of speech does not include the right.
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

This is true, but Trump hasn't been indicted for that, they found no evidence he did that.

 

[JGalt]

Define "criminal speech" and cite the section of the Constitution that prohibits "it"!

The left believes the rights guaranteed in the Constitution can be litigated and re-defined through the court system, which is a fallacy. Even the Supreme Court has reversed some of their own decisions, while the rights granted on the Constitution remain unchanged.