Which would you prefer?

[TNHarley]

I'm leaning towards, "People can only say what the govt or other institution has predetermined is OK"

Acts of civil disobedience will take care of that choice. I don't know of any cure for the other.

Pulling a Bill Clinton here, define "prefer". I'd be entertained by bleeding heart liberals laughing at their ideas. Racists meanwhile would make me sick.

at least you are honest..

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

I believe harmful is pretty self explanatory. Not to NY though. As he still hasnt answered my question.

There is no 'harmful' in your OP. The operative word is 'anything'.

 

[TNHarley]

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Anybody would mac. He just tried to come up with a reason for not picking one.

 

[TNHarley]

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

I believe harmful is pretty self explanatory. Not to NY though. As he still hasnt answered my question.

There is no 'harmful' in your OP. The operative word is 'anything'.

So you asked a question and didnt want a response? Ok

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Yes, most people in this thread are injecting their own assumptions into the OP instead of taking it literally.

That renders the exercise meaningless.

 

[Mac1958]

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Yes, most people in this thread are injecting their own assumptions into the OP instead of taking it literally.

That renders the exercise meaningless.

Great, then stop whining.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Anybody would mac. He just tried to come up with a reason for not picking one.

Tell me what the word 'anything' means in the first choice.

 

[TNHarley]

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Anybody would mac. He just tried to come up with a reason for not picking one.

Tell me what the word 'anything' means in the first choice.

Cant answer the poll. Deflect as hard as you can
Ask a question and cant elaborate on intent. Deflect back to original deflection.
Well played, sir. Well played.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Yes, most people in this thread are injecting their own assumptions into the OP instead of taking it literally.

That renders the exercise meaningless.

Great, then stop whining.
.

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

I believe harmful is pretty self explanatory. Not to NY though. As he still hasnt answered my question.

There is no 'harmful' in your OP. The operative word is 'anything'.

So you asked a question and didnt want a response? Ok

I pointed out that there's no 'harmful' exception in the OP. Why are you now pretending there is?

 

[jc456]

I wouldn't prefer either one. A bunch of racists - no .. the fewer the better
Don't want my freedom of speech F'd with either

It's a false choice

You don’t want opposition speech. You are not for free speech. SAD

How does that work in court? Someone says you’re guilty you can’t defend? You’re guilty. Now shut up

 

[TNHarley]

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Yes, most people in this thread are injecting their own assumptions into the OP instead of taking it literally.

That renders the exercise meaningless.

Great, then stop whining.
.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

I believe harmful is pretty self explanatory. Not to NY though. As he still hasnt answered my question.

There is no 'harmful' in your OP. The operative word is 'anything'.

So you asked a question and didnt want a response? Ok

I pointed out that there's no 'harmful' exception in the OP. Why are you now pretending there is?

Deflection is a tall tell sign of a narcissist JS

 

[jc456]

it's actually a simple choice. if you prevent government from controlling speech, you will get speech you don't like.

If you give government power to control speech via content, there is no real way to limit that power, and like all government power it will be extended if the government can get away with it.

No it is not a simple choice. Their are limits to nearly all the amendments including the first.

BALANCE is the key

And as long as we're on the topic of free speech, why does Trump continue to bully journalists and threaten to revoke broadcasting licenses?

He’s never said they can’t speak. He merely pointed out that when they do, they’re fkrs

 

[Mac1958]

I wouldn't prefer either one. A bunch of racists - no .. the fewer the better
Don't want my freedom of speech F'd with either
It's a false choice

You don’t want opposition speech. You are not for free speech. SAD

It's actually an interesting choice, because it tests our resolve regarding our most important right as Americans.

Would you be willing to put up with most vile, ignorant people you can think of, so that they can enjoy freedom of speech?

That's easy. Of course. The alternative is simply unacceptable. In America. With free & open communication and dialogue, maybe I can soften a heart or two.
.

 

[bendog]

How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?

harmful how?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

With respect, I'm not sure "harmful" is the correct analysis. We could differ on whether NFL players kneeling is harmful, or whether it is harmful to knowingly post false facts on social media. But the gummit should not be able to punish that. Facebook can limit what people post though.

What TN and his ilk (I've always wanted to use that LOL) seem to miss is that when one exercises a constitutional right, one can affect another's exercise of his own right. Free speech analysis in a school setting is different than the analysis for adults who are just in the workplace and public settings. There's the too often used phrase "you don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre." But oddly you do have a right to parade with Nazi flags and salutes in front of a synagogue. There seems to be a distinction there, but I find it hard to grasp. I get it that I can burn an American flag, and in theory a cop is supposed to not let a bunch of people kick my ass for being a jerk who's burning a flag. But there I'm not threatening anyone. A bunch of Nazi's with clubs and guns is threatening.

But in theory we have a right of "peaceable assembly." And we have a right to comment on society. However, like the right to own guns ... no right is absolute, and no one has an absolute right to affect others' enjoyment of their rights.

Speech can be regulated, and one doesn't have a right to a job unless they have a contract, and even then a contract can condition your right to employment based on what you do

 

[TNHarley]

harmful how?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

With respect, I'm not sure "harmful" is the correct analysis. We could differ on whether NFL players kneeling is harmful, or whether it is harmful to knowingly post false facts on social media. But the gummit should not be able to punish that. Facebook can limit what people post though.

What TN and his ilk (I've always wanted to use that LOL) seem to miss is that when one exercises a constitutional right, one can affect another's exercise of his own right. Free speech analysis in a school setting is different than the analysis for adults who are just in the workplace and public settings. There's the too often used phrase "you don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre." But oddly you do have a right to parade with Nazi flags and salutes in front of a synagogue. There seems to be a distinction there, but I find it hard to grasp. I get it that I can burn an American flag, and in theory a cop is supposed to not let a bunch of people kick my ass for being a jerk who's burning a flag. But there I'm not threatening anyone. A bunch of Nazi's with clubs and guns is threatening.

But in theory we have a right of "peaceable assembly." And we have a right to comment on society. However, like the right to own guns ... no right is absolute, and no one has an absolute right to affect others' enjoyment of their rights.

Speech can be regulated, and one doesn't have a right to a job unless they have a contract, and even then a contract can condition your right to employment based on what you do

Where do you come up with that? My liberty ends at your nose. Your liberty ends at my nose. I have been saying that for years!

 

[bendog]

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

With respect, I'm not sure "harmful" is the correct analysis. We could differ on whether NFL players kneeling is harmful, or whether it is harmful to knowingly post false facts on social media. But the gummit should not be able to punish that. Facebook can limit what people post though.

What TN and his ilk (I've always wanted to use that LOL) seem to miss is that when one exercises a constitutional right, one can affect another's exercise of his own right. Free speech analysis in a school setting is different than the analysis for adults who are just in the workplace and public settings. There's the too often used phrase "you don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre." But oddly you do have a right to parade with Nazi flags and salutes in front of a synagogue. There seems to be a distinction there, but I find it hard to grasp. I get it that I can burn an American flag, and in theory a cop is supposed to not let a bunch of people kick my ass for being a jerk who's burning a flag. But there I'm not threatening anyone. A bunch of Nazi's with clubs and guns is threatening.

But in theory we have a right of "peaceable assembly." And we have a right to comment on society. However, like the right to own guns ... no right is absolute, and no one has an absolute right to affect others' enjoyment of their rights.

Speech can be regulated, and one doesn't have a right to a job unless they have a contract, and even then a contract can condition your right to employment based on what you do

Where do you come up with that? My liberty ends at your nose. Your liberty ends at my nose. I have been saying that for years!

Your right to post on social media can cost you your job.

 

[TNHarley]

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

With respect, I'm not sure "harmful" is the correct analysis. We could differ on whether NFL players kneeling is harmful, or whether it is harmful to knowingly post false facts on social media. But the gummit should not be able to punish that. Facebook can limit what people post though.

What TN and his ilk (I've always wanted to use that LOL) seem to miss is that when one exercises a constitutional right, one can affect another's exercise of his own right. Free speech analysis in a school setting is different than the analysis for adults who are just in the workplace and public settings. There's the too often used phrase "you don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre." But oddly you do have a right to parade with Nazi flags and salutes in front of a synagogue. There seems to be a distinction there, but I find it hard to grasp. I get it that I can burn an American flag, and in theory a cop is supposed to not let a bunch of people kick my ass for being a jerk who's burning a flag. But there I'm not threatening anyone. A bunch of Nazi's with clubs and guns is threatening.

But in theory we have a right of "peaceable assembly." And we have a right to comment on society. However, like the right to own guns ... no right is absolute, and no one has an absolute right to affect others' enjoyment of their rights.

Speech can be regulated, and one doesn't have a right to a job unless they have a contract, and even then a contract can condition your right to employment based on what you do

Where do you come up with that? My liberty ends at your nose. Your liberty ends at my nose. I have been saying that for years!

Your right to post on social media can cost you your job.

Personally, i think a man should be able to fire whoever for whatever. I am a strong believer in private property.
Not sure what that has to do with you making shit up though

 

[my2¢]

I'm leaning towards, "People can only say what the govt or other institution has predetermined is OK"

Acts of civil disobedience will take care of that choice. I don't know of any cure for the other.

Pulling a Bill Clinton here, define "prefer". I'd be entertained by bleeding heart liberals laughing at their ideas. Racists meanwhile would make me sick.

at least you are honest..

Giving it further thought, I'm more solidly in the 2nd choice column as I am against any further liberalization of FCC regulations and I prefer movies from Hollywood's golden era of the mid-30's to the mid-50's heavily censored, that didn't go far enough however in terms of the racist portrayal of blacks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.

Yes, most people in this thread are injecting their own assumptions into the OP instead of taking it literally.

That renders the exercise meaningless.

Great, then stop whining.
.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

I believe harmful is pretty self explanatory. Not to NY though. As he still hasnt answered my question.

There is no 'harmful' in your OP. The operative word is 'anything'.

So you asked a question and didnt want a response? Ok

I pointed out that there's no 'harmful' exception in the OP. Why are you now pretending there is?

Deflection is a tall tell sign of a narcissist JS

Where's the harmful exception in the OP?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

With respect, I'm not sure "harmful" is the correct analysis. We could differ on whether NFL players kneeling is harmful, or whether it is harmful to knowingly post false facts on social media. But the gummit should not be able to punish that. Facebook can limit what people post though.

What TN and his ilk (I've always wanted to use that LOL) seem to miss is that when one exercises a constitutional right, one can affect another's exercise of his own right. Free speech analysis in a school setting is different than the analysis for adults who are just in the workplace and public settings. There's the too often used phrase "you don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theatre." But oddly you do have a right to parade with Nazi flags and salutes in front of a synagogue. There seems to be a distinction there, but I find it hard to grasp. I get it that I can burn an American flag, and in theory a cop is supposed to not let a bunch of people kick my ass for being a jerk who's burning a flag. But there I'm not threatening anyone. A bunch of Nazi's with clubs and guns is threatening.

But in theory we have a right of "peaceable assembly." And we have a right to comment on society. However, like the right to own guns ... no right is absolute, and no one has an absolute right to affect others' enjoyment of their rights.

Speech can be regulated, and one doesn't have a right to a job unless they have a contract, and even then a contract can condition your right to employment based on what you do

Where do you come up with that? My liberty ends at your nose. Your liberty ends at my nose. I have been saying that for years!

Your right to post on social media can cost you your job.

Personally, i think a man should be able to fire whoever for whatever. I am a strong believer in private property.
Not sure what that has to do with you making shit up though

lol, so you don't just support the right of racists to say things, you support the right of racists act on their racism.