The Limits of "Free Speech"

[Marener]

I wouldn't kill anyone over speech. That seems to be a leftist thing.

Sadly leftists seem to support it

No, but plenty on the right are okay with imprisoning them for speech.

Seems a little, dare I say it, fascist.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Evidently some thinking Charlie Kirk being assassinated over speech is ok.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander might play in

Elon Musk is going to assassinate Twitter posters?

Again, they both have a Constitutional right to say what they said, neither is a public official, I don’t agree with what they said but in my country, we have free speech to say what we want. I will defend that.

There you go.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No American should fear being killed at any political rally, or anywhere for that matter.

Indeed.

Loved this on a thread here.
Civility Action Plan
Practical Steps to Reduce Division Without Compromising Principles

1. Listen to Understand
   Focus on the why behind someone’s view, not just the words. Ask clarifying questions instead of preparing rebuttals.
2. Respect People, Even in Disagreement
   Disagree with ideas, not identities. Say: “I respect you, even though I don’t share that view.”
3. Practice Charitable Interpretation
   Give others the benefit of the doubt. Assume passion or lack of clarity, not malice.
4. Lead with Shared Values
   Start conversations with common ground—family, safety, fairness, freedom. Build from what unites rather than what divides.
5. Reject Absolutism
   Avoid words like always, never, everyone, no one. Use phrases like “In my experience…” to invite nuance.
6. Model Humility
   Admit when you don’t know something. Recognize flaws in your own side. This builds credibility.
7. Encourage Critical Thinking
   Ask why instead of preaching what. Promote reflection, not conformity.
8. Build Communities of Respect
   Strengthen civility in your family, workplace, church, or neighborhood. Small circles of respect ripple outward.
9. Respond Calmly to Heat
   Refuse to match anger with anger. Calm tones and respectful words de-escalate tension.
10. Lead by Example
    Every interaction is leadership. Set the tone you want America to follow.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No, but plenty on the right are okay with imprisoning them for speech.

Seems a little, dare I say it, fascist.

So what is assassinated over speech?

Mariner sits there totally flummoxed

 

[BackAgain]

There was free speech for both.

You know — upon seeing armed and masked Antifa thugs trying to attack ICE Agents attempting to arrest some dangerous illegal aliens — it might sound like “free speech” for someone to shout out “kill those pig ICE Brownshirt!”

But it wouldn’t actually be “free speech.” It would be incitement to riot among — other crimes.

That’s just one hypothetical example to establish a baseline. Freedom of speech has never been an absolute. The Framers handed us a Constitution, not a “suicide pact.”

 

[Darkwind]

This doesn't make sense because without Free Speech the smallest of nations and populations would be most at risk.

The reason the nazis were so successful is that they stifled free speech. Germans were fed propaganda and people were killed for making fun of Hitler or doubting their ability to succeed.

A nation without free speech eventually fails and often spectacularly, even violently.

That is the thing. You see the left making fun of Trump and much, much, worse. Yet, you don't see the GOP out there rounding them up and killing them.

It looks as if you cannot say the same thing for Democrats.

 

[shockedcanadian]

That is the thing. You see the left making fun of Trump and much, much, worse. Yet, you don't see the GOP out there rounding them up and killing them.

It looks as if you cannot say the same thing for Democrats.

Your Constitution has been around 250 or so (maybe less), there are going to be ebb and flows of reactions but the rules must remain the same "free speech is not illegal".

Knowing who the violent crazies one are is important but those are decisions that are outside the law. The danger is having government from ANY side to weaponize against citizens.

 

[Papageorgio]

You know — upon seeing armed and masked Antifa thugs trying to attack ICE Agents attempting to arrest some dangerous illegal aliens — it might sound like “free speech” for someone to shout out “kill those pig ICE Brownshirt!”

But it wouldn’t actually be “free speech.” It would be incitement to riot among — other crimes.

That’s just one hypothetical example to establish a baseline. Freedom of speech has never been an absolute. The Framers handed us a Constitution, not a “suicide pact.”

That falls under inciting violence which falls out of the free speech range.

 

[Marener]

So what is assassinated over speech?

Mariner sits there totally flummoxed

A crime and he’s being prosecuted.

Do you support the Trump administration’s stated intent to prosecute “hate speech” and take “vengeance” on their political opponents?

 

[Darkwind]

Your Constitution has been around 250 or so (maybe less), there are going to be ebb and flows of reactions but the rules must remain the same "free speech is not illegal".

Knowing who the violent crazies one are is important but those are decisions that are outside the law. The danger is having government from ANY side to weaponize against citizens.

I agree, but in the past six months, we've learned which party is the actual Fascist one.

It wasn't the right that was quashing free speech.
It wasn't right that people were being jailed for standing against flawed science.
It wasn't the right that had people fired for not getting a medical procedure, or wearing a useless mask, or keeping our kids out of school.

I could go on and on and on, but all of America has already seen the point.

Now, they kill those who won't be silent.

 

[Darkwind]

A crime and he’s being prosecuted.

Do you support the Trump administration’s stated intent to prosecute “hate speech” and take “vengeance” on their political opponents?

Define 'hate speech' as you understand it, and then define it as the Government understands it.

Lets see if we're even talking the same apples.

 

[BackAgain]

That falls under inciting violence which falls out of the free speech range.

Exactly! Exactly ^ what I was saying.

So, not all speech falls under the blanket of 1st Amendment guaranteed protection.

 

[Marener]

Define 'hate speech' as you understand it, and then define it as the Government understands it.

Lets see if we're even talking the same apples.

Hate speech is speech that expressed hatred.

 

[Concerned American]

Musk said he should go to prison. You said the first amendment protects him from the government, but not Musk.

So I assume you think Musk is going to imprison him.

Moron-er hypocrisy rearing its ugly head again. Seems advocated the impeachment attempt against Trump for saying, "March peacefully and patriotically" Hmmm, careful what you wish for Moron-er, you may get it.

 

[BlindBoo]

You know — upon seeing armed and masked Antifa thugs trying to attack ICE Agents attempting to arrest some dangerous illegal aliens — it might sound like “free speech” for someone to shout out “kill those pig ICE Brownshirt!”

But it wouldn’t actually be “free speech.” It would be incitement to riot among — other crimes.

That’s just one hypothetical example to establish a baseline. Freedom of speech has never been an absolute. The Framers handed us a Constitution, not a “suicide pact.”

So that guy that urged protesters to "kill em" on Jan 6th was inciting a riot. But he was hired by the Dirty Don's DOJ instead.

"NPR has obtained police bodycam footage from multiple angles of the former defendant and current administration official, Jared Wise, berating officers and calling them "Nazi" and "Gestapo." NPR located the footage, which has not previously been published, in a review of thousands of court exhibits from Jan. 6 criminal cases, obtained through legal action by a coalition of media organizations. The Department of Justice had introduced the footage as an exhibit in Wise's trial. NPR also obtained the transcript of Wise's testimony, in which he acknowledged that he repeatedly yelled "kill 'em" as officers were being attacked and tried to explain his actions. "

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/07/nx-s1-5493197/doj-trump-jan-6-defendant-jared-wise-capitol-riot

 

[Papageorgio]

Exactly! Exactly ^ what I was saying.

So, not all speech falls under the blanket of 1st Amendment guaranteed protection.

Yes but we need that as limited as possible. I don’t want government controlling what I can or cannot say.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Perfectly legal and well within first amendment protections.

I don’t agree with it whatsoever, but I don’t have to.

We really don't take people seriously who call active military service personnel extremists for posting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Having them banned from social media was only the smallest injustice dished out to them


Trump is hitler kill kill kill kill kill

 

[Votto]

Don't you all see what the Left is doing, they are using our freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to murder conservatives, whether it be freedom of speech to incite violence or the freedom of arms to carry out the violence.

Then they sit back and laugh and celebrate as if proof that we really should not have those freedoms.

 

[Darkwind]

Hate speech is speech that expressed hatred.

So, everything that you disagree with?

Speech that expresses hatred is 95% from the left.

So, lets work with this. Here is the google legal version of "Hate Speech".

is no single legal definThere ition of "hate speech" in the U.S., as it is broadly protected by the First Amendment. However, expression that constitutes hate speech can lose this protection if it falls into narrow, constitutionally unprotected categories, such as true threats (direct threats of violence), unlawful incitement (speech directly inciting imminent criminal activity), or discriminatory harassment. Speech is considered protected unless it involves these specific actions, regardless of how offensive or hateful it may be.

What constitutes "hate speech" in a general sense:

• Vilification and demeaning language:
  Any expression intended to "vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or class of people" based on attributes like race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
  
• Symbols, gestures, and images:
  Hate speech can also be conveyed through nonverbal means, including images, symbols, and gestures.
  
  
• Targeted at groups:
  The target of hate speech is generally an individual or a group of individuals based on their identity factors.
  

When hate speech becomes legally unprotected:

• True Threats:
  Speech communicating a serious intent to commit an act of violence against a person or group.
  
  
• Unlawful Incitement:
  Speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
  
  
• Hate Crimes:
  These are actual crimes (like assault or vandalism) that are motivated by a victim's actual or perceived identity. For example, an assault that is motivated by a racial bias is a hate crime.
  

Key takeaway:
In the United States, the legal framework focuses on regulating harmful actions and unprotected speech categories rather than the content of offensive speech itself. The First Amendment ensures that the government cannot punish people for merely expressing offensive beliefs, even if those beliefs are hateful.


As you can see, two of those categories can be clearly applied to how the democrats talk about Conservatives.

 

[progressive hunter]