What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Limits On Speech

MrFritz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
768
Reaction score
49
Points
33
Where is the line drawn? We know that speech has limits. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Other limits are inciting to violence and terroristic threats.

Trump has been inciting violence against supporter on Mrs Clinton and her supporters. The FBI has paid Trump a visit.

CON hero, draft dodger and admitted pedophile Ted Nugent has made death threats against both President Obama and Mrs Clinton. Pedophile Ted got a visit from the US Secret Service.

The US has a sad history of presidents being assassinated and attempts on the lives of our presidents. Inciting violence is NOT protected speech.

One of the more vulgar and criminally actionable displays of incitement to violence against public official was this vulgar animation.

ehtqTpW.gif

Do you think something like this is appropriate for public consumption?

rollins.jpg

What about this one of a baseball player getting beaned with a 100 mph fastball that could result in serious injury or death? Should this be allowed for public consumption?

maxresdefault.jpg

What about the broken face of MMA fighter Ronda Rousey?

hqdefault.jpg

A pro wrestler breaking his neck?

1garner.jpg

Husband and father Eric Garner being choked to death by cops?

200339746e1bb0ddb910e3b871a8a201.jpg

Son and brother Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground?

Jordanian%20pilot.jpg

Syrian Pilot being doused in gasoline and set ablaze by ISIS.

Other than the animation of none of the others incite violence. They depict reality. Athletes sustain serious injury, Blacks get killed by racists, soldiers get captured tortured and killed. None of this incites violence against public officials or women.

Political discussion boards such as this one put certain limits on speech and that is their privilege but like any form of media their right to exist come with certain legal responsibilities. They can legally say that gruesome images cannot be posted but legally the have to do that fairly. They cannot show bias unless they want to face civil lawsuits, loss of their host and deindexing by Google.

Boards like this can place very strict limits on speech BUT... they have to enforce those limits fairly because the same TOS that applies to posters applies to the owner and his moderators. The TOS is a legally binding contract that applies equally to all parties and the rules most be enforced fairly and without bias.

Free speech doesn't have to be a slippery slope. If subjective judgements are removed from the equation then bias would have a tough time existing. This thread an example all the images with the exception of the animation glorifying the beating of a woman would be suitable for prime time news hours.

I am not calling for the censorship of the misogynistic animation of Trump. Actually what it depicts to most people is the depravity of the Trump supporters. I am just interested in your opinions on speech.
 

Grandma

Geezer Chick
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
2,830
Points
360
Location
Under The Sky
My opinion is that people like yourself are a danger to a free society

You can't possibly say that on a board that allows what's in the OP but forbids nipples.

Seriously.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
67,709
Reaction score
25,418
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
Where is the line drawn? We know that speech has limits. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Other limits are inciting to violence and terroristic threats.

Trump has been inciting violence against supporter on Mrs Clinton and her supporters. The FBI has paid Trump a visit.

CON hero, draft dodger and admitted pedophile Ted Nugent has made death threats against both President Obama and Mrs Clinton. Pedophile Ted got a visit from the US Secret Service.

The US has a sad history of presidents being assassinated and attempts on the lives of our presidents. Inciting violence is NOT protected speech.

One of the more vulgar and criminally actionable displays of incitement to violence against public official was this vulgar animation.

ehtqTpW.gif

Do you think something like this is appropriate for public consumption?

rollins.jpg

What about this one of a baseball player getting beaned with a 100 mph fastball that could result in serious injury or death? Should this be allowed for public consumption?

maxresdefault.jpg

What about the broken face of MMA fighter Ronda Rousey?

hqdefault.jpg

A pro wrestler breaking his neck?

1garner.jpg

Husband and father Eric Garner being choked to death by cops?

200339746e1bb0ddb910e3b871a8a201.jpg

Son and brother Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground?

Jordanian%20pilot.jpg

Syrian Pilot being doused in gasoline and set ablaze by ISIS.

Other than the animation of none of the others incite violence. They depict reality. Athletes sustain serious injury, Blacks get killed by racists, soldiers get captured tortured and killed. None of this incites violence against public officials or women.

Political discussion boards such as this one put certain limits on speech and that is their privilege but like any form of media their right to exist come with certain legal responsibilities. They can legally say that gruesome images cannot be posted but legally the have to do that fairly. They cannot show bias unless they want to face civil lawsuits, loss of their host and deindexing by Google.

Boards like this can place very strict limits on speech BUT... they have to enforce those limits fairly because the same TOS that applies to posters applies to the owner and his moderators. The TOS is a legally binding contract that applies equally to all parties and the rules most be enforced fairly and without bias.

Free speech doesn't have to be a slippery slope. If subjective judgements are removed from the equation then bias would have a tough time existing. This thread an example all the images with the exception of the animation glorifying the beating of a woman would be suitable for prime time news hours.

I am not calling for the censorship of the misogynistic animation of Trump. Actually what it depicts to most people is the depravity of the Trump supporters. I am just interested in your opinions on speech.
It’s important to remember that the doctrine of free speech applies solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person cannot ‘violate’ the ‘free speech’ of another private person; only government has the sanctioned authority to place limits on free expression consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

And when government acts contrary to that jurisprudence, unlawful limits and restrictions are invalidated by the courts.

This message board is therefore at liberty to limit or restrict any speech it so desires with complete impunity.

Hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, and that would be the case with the image of Trump ‘beating’ Clinton – although the image more ridiculous and childish than ‘offensive,’ but nonetheless serving as further confirmation that far too many Trump supporters are misogynistic reprobates.

As long as the Trump ‘beating’ Clinton image is not advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence against Clinton, it’s safeguarded from government regulation.
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
43,232
Reaction score
33,138
Points
3,605
Where is the line drawn? We know that speech has limits. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Other limits are inciting to violence and terroristic threats.

Trump has been inciting violence against supporter on Mrs Clinton and her supporters. The FBI has paid Trump a visit.

CON hero, draft dodger and admitted pedophile Ted Nugent has made death threats against both President Obama and Mrs Clinton. Pedophile Ted got a visit from the US Secret Service.

The US has a sad history of presidents being assassinated and attempts on the lives of our presidents. Inciting violence is NOT protected speech.

One of the more vulgar and criminally actionable displays of incitement to violence against public official was this vulgar animation.

ehtqTpW.gif

Do you think something like this is appropriate for public consumption?

rollins.jpg

What about this one of a baseball player getting beaned with a 100 mph fastball that could result in serious injury or death? Should this be allowed for public consumption?

maxresdefault.jpg

What about the broken face of MMA fighter Ronda Rousey?

hqdefault.jpg

A pro wrestler breaking his neck?

1garner.jpg

Husband and father Eric Garner being choked to death by cops?

200339746e1bb0ddb910e3b871a8a201.jpg

Son and brother Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground?

Jordanian%20pilot.jpg

Syrian Pilot being doused in gasoline and set ablaze by ISIS.

Other than the animation of none of the others incite violence. They depict reality. Athletes sustain serious injury, Blacks get killed by racists, soldiers get captured tortured and killed. None of this incites violence against public officials or women.

Political discussion boards such as this one put certain limits on speech and that is their privilege but like any form of media their right to exist come with certain legal responsibilities. They can legally say that gruesome images cannot be posted but legally the have to do that fairly. They cannot show bias unless they want to face civil lawsuits, loss of their host and deindexing by Google.

Boards like this can place very strict limits on speech BUT... they have to enforce those limits fairly because the same TOS that applies to posters applies to the owner and his moderators. The TOS is a legally binding contract that applies equally to all parties and the rules most be enforced fairly and without bias.

Free speech doesn't have to be a slippery slope. If subjective judgements are removed from the equation then bias would have a tough time existing. This thread an example all the images with the exception of the animation glorifying the beating of a woman would be suitable for prime time news hours.

I am not calling for the censorship of the misogynistic animation of Trump. Actually what it depicts to most people is the depravity of the Trump supporters. I am just interested in your opinions on speech.
04-trigger-warnings.w536.h357.2x.jpg
 
OP
MrFritz

MrFritz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
768
Reaction score
49
Points
33
Limits? As few as necessary. Get thick skin.

I agree but the sticky part comes to necessary. That is a subject for debate.

Take movie censorship. I agree with the rating systems and I think theaters should have the right to not let kids into see certain films without parental permission.

Kiddie porn should never be legal.
 

Frank'sRules

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
664
Reaction score
25
Points
18
Limits? As few as necessary. Get thick skin.

I agree but the sticky part comes to necessary. That is a subject for debate.

Take movie censorship. I agree with the rating systems and I think theaters should have the right to not let kids into see certain films without parental permission.

Kiddie porn should never be legal.
That's complicated. There's making it, obviously illegal, there's possession of it, a harder call, and then there's the virtual stuff, which is legal. Free speech is always a balancing act.
 
OP
MrFritz

MrFritz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
768
Reaction score
49
Points
33
My opinion is that people like yourself are a danger to a free society

You know what they say about opinions.

What I think is more dangerous is an online forum that allows and even encourages death threats and violence against public officials such as President Obama and Mrs Clinton.

ehtqTpW.gif

Like this one.

Another danger is to the FBI agents who serve arrest warrants on the people involved in allowing and encouraging those threats and failing to report them.

The other danger would be when the people who know better are sentenced to prison. Generally, weasels don't do well in prison and when they come out their asses don't make any noise when they fart.
 
OP
MrFritz

MrFritz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
768
Reaction score
49
Points
33
Limits? As few as necessary. Get thick skin.

I agree but the sticky part comes to necessary. That is a subject for debate.

Take movie censorship. I agree with the rating systems and I think theaters should have the right to not let kids into see certain films without parental permission.

Kiddie porn should never be legal.
That's complicated. There's making it, obviously illegal, there's possession of it, a harder call, and then there's the virtual stuff, which is legal. Free speech is always a balancing act.

There are some obvious limits like incitement to riot, libel, slander, terroristic threats and threats like the ones Trump made against Mrs Clinton.

Trump Could Face Five Years In Prison For Death Threat Against

FBI Contacted As Trump Could Face Criminal Charges For Violen

FBI Contacted As Trump Could Face Criminal Charges For Violen
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
59,182
Reaction score
25,360
Points
2,330
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
My opinion is that people like yourself are a danger to a free society

You know what they say about opinions.

What I think is more dangerous is an online forum that allows and even encourages death threats and violence against public officials such as President Obama and Mrs Clinton.

ehtqTpW.gif

Like this one.

Another danger is to the FBI agents who serve arrest warrants on the people involved in allowing and encouraging those threats and failing to report them.

The other danger would be when the people who know better are sentenced to prison. Generally, weasels don't do well in prison and when they come out their asses don't make any noise when they fart.

tumblr_nwlu5sJV6n1r4o9xho1_500.jpg
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top