What are the Limits of Free Speech?
- Thread starter TheProgressivePatriot
- Start date
For a threat to be actionable, it has to be credible. That means the person making the threat has to have control of the means of violence, In this case, the speaker has no army or militia under his control. If someone did beat up
the Democrats, then law enforcement would investigate to see who incited it.If
Wiles is found guilty of this, he would be arrested.
anynameyouwish
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2018
- 5,919
- 1,479
- 170
rush limbaugh saying "we are war with liberals. liberals are the enemy. in war it is ok to KILL your enemy"
or
rush limbaugh saying "leave only a few liberals left alive as a warning to future generations"
or
ann coulter saying "we should shoot a few (liberals) to let the rest know it can happen to them"
anynameyouwish
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2018
- 5,919
- 1,479
- 170
"What he said didn't incite me into wanting to hunt down Democrats like coyotes"
no?
then why do you want to?
Deplorable Yankee
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #46
Yeah all is well in left wing progressive nazi Germany
Sleepy nappy
October 23,2019
A sincere proposal to criminalize a word was formally considered at the highest level of a state’s government.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts legislators considered a bill that would criminalize certain uses of the word “bitch” — making it punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine up to $200.
The bill, introduced a month ago by state Democratic representative Dan Hunt, states that “a person who uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person” and would be guilty of a criminal offense punishable by “a fine of not more than either $150 or $200, or jail time of up to six months.” The offense could be reported not only by the person being called a bitch, but also a third-party witness.
What could possibly go wrong
Free Speech: Massachusetts Considers Bill to Criminalize Use of the Word 'Bitch' | National Review
Sleepy nappy
October 23,2019
A sincere proposal to criminalize a word was formally considered at the highest level of a state’s government.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts legislators considered a bill that would criminalize certain uses of the word “bitch” — making it punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine up to $200.
The bill, introduced a month ago by state Democratic representative Dan Hunt, states that “a person who uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person” and would be guilty of a criminal offense punishable by “a fine of not more than either $150 or $200, or jail time of up to six months.” The offense could be reported not only by the person being called a bitch, but also a third-party witness.
What could possibly go wrong
Free Speech: Massachusetts Considers Bill to Criminalize Use of the Word 'Bitch' | National Review
It's hard to make a valued judgment on anything without a link to provide context
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #48
So what your saying is lefties dont acucuse other of promotion hate an violence over nothing ,or something they disagree with
Really that's a lie . Funny I was told that modern man still doesnt know how ancients kangz moved giant blocks of stone that modern White 20th and 21 technology still can't do ..
...it was a lie I was called a liar for it
All lies
Thats right I'm liar ,racist , nazi , homophobe ,xenophobe, islamaphobe
Oh yeah and my words are violent and hateful
You dont feel safe
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
What your personal pronoun so I dont offend you
Is fresh and fruity acceptable?
Continue on being just a dumb whore ...its your right to
Lefty nazis whaddya gonna do eh
Sigh
Just one of the reasons why thiers no high road to take with them
Still a lot of normies out there that need to wake up to that
Just more Gish Gallop. Try dealing with the topic
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.As a freedom of expression purist, I grudgingly make exceptions for a few things, such as DIRECTLY inciting illegal acts or violence, shouting FIRE in a theater or BOMB in an airport, and libel and slander laws.
Freedom of expression is the most liberal of all rights, but unfortunately many who call themselves liberal are all too willing to shut down, shout down, intimidate and punish speech that dares to challenge their belief system.
Those people are not liberals, they are frauds.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.
Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.
Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.
Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.
To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.
And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
And one of those to whom I referred jumps in to self-identify for me.This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.As a freedom of expression purist, I grudgingly make exceptions for a few things, such as DIRECTLY inciting illegal acts or violence, shouting FIRE in a theater or BOMB in an airport, and libel and slander laws.
Freedom of expression is the most liberal of all rights, but unfortunately many who call themselves liberal are all too willing to shut down, shout down, intimidate and punish speech that dares to challenge their belief system.
Those people are not liberals, they are frauds.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.
Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.
Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.
Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.
To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.
And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.
.
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
LIE! He said we are at war with the Left, that's ALL......produce the evidence.
LIE # 2....post the evidence......
or
If she said that....post the video.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.As a freedom of expression purist, I grudgingly make exceptions for a few things, such as DIRECTLY inciting illegal acts or violence, shouting FIRE in a theater or BOMB in an airport, and libel and slander laws.
Freedom of expression is the most liberal of all rights, but unfortunately many who call themselves liberal are all too willing to shut down, shout down, intimidate and punish speech that dares to challenge their belief system.
Those people are not liberals, they are frauds.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.
Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.
Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.
Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.
To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.
And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.
When do you plan on becoming liberal, Clayton?
There is no time like the present to take that first step.
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
But what we've seen goes FAR beyond simply "opposing".....
Great. Then go to a crowded theater and yell 'FIRE!" Private venue.....nothing to do with government.
Get on a plane and jokingly say "You are THE BOMB!!"....private entity....private individuals.
When a publicly funded college allows or actively suppresses the voice of one group to be suppressed while advocating for another....it's a Constitutional violation.
You are not allowed (as an individual) to suppress the Constitutional Rights of another individual.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
It’s not so much a matter of standards or rights ‘evolving’ – it’s more a discovery of rights and protected liberties which have always existed.
As Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
The Founding Generation had the wisdom to recognize the fact that they did not have a finite, comprehensive understanding of all rights and freedoms, that a full accounting of our rights and freedoms would be realized through the political and judicial process, safeguarded by the principles codified in Constitutional case law.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
tI be perfectly fair to Clayton, though, those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by his use of the terms "racist", "bigot" and "conseevatives are all big meanie poopooheads."
there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names.
anynameyouwish
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2018
- 5,919
- 1,479
- 170
"there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names"
and this is different from the typical conservative?
every trump supporter?
march in lockstep with THEIR EXTREME IDEOLOGY or be called;
libtard
libernazi
liberscum
LIEberal
LIEbeRATS
DEMONcRATS
scum
nazis
commies
god haters
christian haters
America haters
flag burners
traitors'teasounous
satanists
kinda like that?
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 28,207
- 10,569
- 465
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
U.K Migrant crossings hit 10,000 so far in 2025, a 40% increase from last year.- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 1
-
-
No More Tariffs? Rand Paul allegedly has the votes to stop them.- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 2
-
