MrFritz
Active Member
- Sep 2, 2016
- 768
- 49
- 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.
Do you think something like this is appropriate for public consumption?
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?
What about the broken face of MMA fighter Ronda Rousey?
A pro wrestler breaking his neck?
Husband and father Eric Garner being choked to death by cops?
Son and brother Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground?
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.
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.
Do you think something like this is appropriate for public consumption?
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?
What about the broken face of MMA fighter Ronda Rousey?
A pro wrestler breaking his neck?
Husband and father Eric Garner being choked to death by cops?
Son and brother Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground?
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.
