# What are the Limits of Free Speech?



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:


http://[URL]https://www.patheos.com...-be-violence-if-trump-is-removed-from-office/[/URL]




> Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to  be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.
> 
> Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”
> 
> ...



Here is some guidance on the issue;


> What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?
> 
> Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are *not protected by the First Amendment*. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct,* speech that incites imminent lawless action,* speech
> 
> ...




Honest opinions only please.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...


Maxine Waters telling people to go after Republicans and Trump voters.
That's going too far. 
Don't you think???


----------



## sparky (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Honest opinions only please.



I'd only say we seem to have a _sketchy_ metric 

One could surf all the scotus rulings

but even they always come to some concession

~S~


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...


Did she incite violence and if so how?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

sparky said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Honest opinions only please.
> ...


----------



## sparky (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...




Let's cut to the chase then PP

go here>

Facts and Case Summary - Snyder v. Phelps

~S~


----------



## JGalt (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...



Mehh. What he said didn't incite me into wanting to hunt down Democrats like coyotes, so it was within his First Amendment right.


----------



## Old Man Grumbles (Oct 23, 2019)

Does his speech incite "imminent lawless action"? Questionable. It seems to me is that he is speaking to what outcome he thinks will happen, not calling for such action to happen. Now, that's just my view.

As the article points out, in the past Wiles has made statements as to what was going to happen and been shown to be wrong. I see it as a fool trying to show he's not a fool by being right "this time". Sadly, I think he suffers delusions and should seek immediate therapy.

I do not believe his comments are protected under the freedom of religion clause of the 1st Amendment. As to it being protected speech, I have to be on the fence as well due to the defining "speech that incites imminent lawless action" as being what Wiles is doing. Even if he is impeached, Trump would likely be found not guilty in a Senate trial, ergo no change in the political theater ongoing in the U.S.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...


No, as ignorant and as ridiculous as Wiles is, his is speech entitled to Constitutional protections. 

He is not advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence. 

Now, if Trump were to be removed from office via the impeachment process, and Wiles were to call for his supporters to meet at the Mall the day after Trump resigns from office to attack those celebrating Trump’s departure, that speech would not be within the scope of the First Amendment - with regard to either freedom of speech or religious liberty.


----------



## miketx (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


^^^^This from the person who only wants honesty.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Ask yourself what you think would happen if you told every weirdo in the US that they can attack Republicans and not be punished for it. 

That's how they're going to take it.......I don't expect them to show any restraint. I knew what would happen after Mad Maxine gave everyone on the left the green light to attack Trump supporters.

And as I predicted hundreds of Republicans have been shot at, beat up, and verbally excoriated by angry leftist assholes.


----------



## tycho1572 (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Would you support the free speech rights of a public figure who told their followers that harassing you and your family was ok?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...


What free speech?
Well miss f.i. when the left uses" I dont feel safe your words are hate and violent "...which they do for just about everything ...


Is it any wonder some of us o.d. on the schadenfreude when leftist brainwashed idiots turn on other leftist over silly sjw issues .

Hell I'm waiting on the mass grave head count from Chavez and maduros democratic socialist ideals......leftist burying other leftist in mass graves is the ultimate for me
Democratic socialism always comes with mass graves

So anyway how long have you been a member of the nazi party?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 23, 2019)

JGalt said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...


But just think of all of the millions of White Devil Terrorists that are out there waiting to kill...kill....KILL!!!!


----------



## Mac1958 (Oct 23, 2019)

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.


----------



## Third Party (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...


The new problem is this-speech that may be described as inflammatory has ballooned. Define "lynching" and how bad is it to say in public?


----------



## beautress (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Her picture started appearing on rolls of toilet paper across the land.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 23, 2019)

A warning to trump supporters Brought to you from the left's freedom fighters who wrap themselves in soviet flags


a brainwashed  misfit angry little half a fag a member of antifa .....gee that's uusual
And I have no problem with him saying any of it ..but if we apply lefty rules that they wanna force upon you ....even through the courts which thier are tons of examples of then that should be a no no ....I mean we keep hearing about how moral and what values all these wonderful progressives have ....

So


Here comes the condemnations from the left...thats is after they're done ripping up an antiabortion poster and attack the person of carrying it all while accusing the person of displaying the sign as a promoter of hate and violence against women ...

Or someone watching a video in public that was over heard

Or someone doing the tomahawk chop
Or some kid in a maga hat just standing there and smiling while off in the background ******* are screaming racial slurs


And they wonder why somedays some of us hope for civil war 2 to turn hot

The number in nations
 The god in their hearts
 The justice in swine
 The devil in god


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

sparky said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


OK Thank you. As I said, I was undecided . Thank you for your input


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> A warning to trump supporters Brought to you from the left's freedom fighters who wrap themselves in soviet flags
> 
> 
> a brainwashed  misfit angry little half a fag a member of antifa .....gee that's uusual
> ...


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 23, 2019)

Libel
Slander
False statements and hysteria that will impede on someone else's individual liberty


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

Third Party said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...


Consider the concept of evolving standards of human rights.


----------



## sparky (Oct 23, 2019)

Top 40 Threats to Free Speech Right Now! - National Coalition Against Censorship

~S~


----------



## sparky (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Consider the concept of evolving standards of human rights.



Objectively, and i mean from a _very _broad objective, the _more_ humans, the_ less_  freedom, and by proxy _rights_ we'll have PP

~S~


----------



## Death Angel (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...


He didnt make a personal threat, he issued a warning. I agree.

Personally, I WILL target you at the ballot box. And I'm not worried. Your political lynching will fail. I have no doubt. God is with this man. You are fighting GOD.


----------



## Death Angel (Oct 23, 2019)

miketx said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Funny how he cant bring himself to condemn this.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

sparky said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Consider the concept of evolving standards of human rights.
> ...


I can't say that I understand you very well . Can you please speak human?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Condemn what exactly?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...


----------



## Death Angel (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.


----------



## sparky (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...




apologies ,my adhd, etc etc.... PP

Yes there are '_evolving standards_' of human rights, in fact  they've always been in flux

We could ring up any given point in time, and debate just how '_free_' we were in terms of _rights, laws_, or even in the case of the _lack_ of them

Historically , we could consider any given _point _in our history  , from the Magna Carta on forward a millennium to current times.

And as our rights are also synonymous with our freedoms , a metric can be delineated.   No need to re invent that wheel either, as we can find various groups on line who's aspirations are just that.

BUT, one factor is undeniably _population  density
_
This is one sore subject when it comes to '_rights_' , because individual rights decline , when one has little chance to actually exist as an individual alone

~S~


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 23, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


I don't recall. I'm waiting for you to explain. But in any case, what ever she did or said does not negate or mitigate what this so called man of god said. Try dealing with that instead of always making about someone else,


----------



## miketx (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Sure you do, you just lie and say otherwise.


----------



## Death Angel (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


I did. Read my post more carefully. He DIDNT do as Waters COMMANDED her rabble to do.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 23, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> > A warning to trump supporters Brought to you from the left's freedom fighters who wrap themselves in soviet flags
> ...




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


----------



## Old Man Grumbles (Oct 23, 2019)

Freedom of speech is, in this time period, under constant flux.  We are told now that making the "ok" sign with your hand (a form of speech) is racist now. We read of three Connecticut college students being arrested and charged with a hate crime for shouting the n-word (while foul-mouthed), should it be a crime? Or is it protected free speech?

It seems on a daily basis we must take care in any words we utter, or signs we make, to keep from offending someone. However, just being offended should not be a criteria for turning protected speech into a crime.

It seems to me that these social constructs on what is unprotected speech outweigh ones right to protected free speech.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 24, 2019)

Old Man Grumbles said:


> Freedom of speech is, in this time period, under constant flux.  We are told now that making the "ok" sign with your hand (a form of speech) is racist now. We read of three Connecticut college students being arrested and charged with a hate crime for shouting the n-word (while foul-mouthed), should it be a crime? Or is it protected free speech?
> 
> It seems on a daily basis we must take care in any words we utter, or signs we make, to keep from offending someone. However, just being offended should not be a criteria for turning protected speech into a crime.
> 
> It seems to me that these social constructs on what is unprotected speech outweigh ones right to protected free speech.



It's only going to get worse ..

I dont think thiers any turning around from this  darkness  that has engulfed the nation it  only gets year after year ....by design...When you start banning words from the dictionary like ****** and lynching...for silly reasons .... as a civilization? you're in a downward spiral as we barrel toward an Orwellian nightmare.......pretty much

The retards in Connecticut mucaj and karal go to white castle  ........are scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 30. They're not dark enough to make the top of the victimhood oppression list 
Just walking playing a stupid game by themselves.... 



The cherry  is someone felt the need to snitch to the " authorities "to get thier vodka ration up'd a 5th and brownie points for stopping the hate.......and violence

The satsi stool pigeons are  everywhere 
Left winger nazi are pathetic petulant childish mindless sheep..

I dont feel safe ...I need an adult! I need an adult !

_*UConn President Thomas Katsouleas released a statement reacting to the arrests, saying, “It is supportive of our core values to pursue accountability, through due process, for an egregious assault on our community that has caused considerable harm. I’m grateful for the university’s collective effort in responding to this incident, especially the hard work of the UConn Police Department, which has been investigating the case since it was reported.*_

Yes those core values ...of being leftwing progressive  nazi ...authoritarian freaks .
Was it a tasteless act committed in public ...by third word savages ..

Yep
And now they must be investigated ? And forced into some sort of sensitivity class ..or fined or maybe even imprisoned (see western europe)


As a doom pronographer  said :
* Regrets are a luxury permitted only to the survivors.
Outlive the bastards who want to rob, cage, rape, and eventually murder you and your family.*


 
Lewis fits to 



 

*A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process

C. S. Lewis*

Infriggindeed!


----------



## pismoe (Oct 24, 2019)

sparky said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


population density and diversity is the problem and is why Free Speech will be lost in the USA .


----------



## sparky (Oct 24, 2019)

well we're still '_free_' to howl in the ascii wilderness pismoe.....~S~


----------



## pismoe (Oct 24, 2019)

I've long predicted what I said in post number 38 ,   There are Barbarians or 5th Column at the gates   Sparky .


----------



## sparky (Oct 24, 2019)

_Oh?_  i thought them manning the helm by now Pismoe.....~S~


----------



## pismoe (Oct 24, 2019)

they are making inroads so a little while longer .Sparky


----------



## Joe Bruno (Oct 24, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...



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 (Oct 24, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...





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 (Oct 24, 2019)

JGalt said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...



"What he said didn't incite me into wanting to hunt down Democrats like coyotes"

no?


then why do you want to?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 24, 2019)

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


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 24, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


It's hard to make a valued judgment on anything without a link to provide context


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 24, 2019)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Deplorable Yankee said:
> ...


Just more Gish Gallop. Try dealing with the topic


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2019)

Mac1958 said:


> 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.


This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.

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 (Oct 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


And one of those to whom I referred jumps in to self-identify for me.
.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Oct 24, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> rush limbaugh saying "we are war with liberals. liberals are the enemy. in war it is ok to KILL your enemy"



LIE!   He said we are at war with the Left, that's ALL......produce the evidence.



anynameyouwish said:


> or
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh saying "leave only a few liberals left alive as a warning to future generations"



LIE # 2....post the evidence......

or


anynameyouwish said:


> ann coulter saying "we should shoot a few (liberals) to let the rest know it can happen to them"




If she said that....post the video.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




When do you plan on becoming liberal, Clayton?

There is no time like the present to take that first step.


----------



## Jitss617 (Oct 24, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> 
> 
> Personally I am undecided on the first question  because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know,  that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.
> ...


There are none.. you can try to Prosecute but it will be taken to the supreme court it’ll be throwing your fucking face


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Oct 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 24, 2019)

sparky said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


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 (Oct 24, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.


----------



## miketx (Oct 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


I think you've posted "Fallacy" more times than you have posted "Trump". What's up with that girl?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 24, 2019)

miketx said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


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 (Oct 24, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




"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 (Oct 24, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?  A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.
> ...



god has a message for you:


----------



## miketx (Oct 24, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


But that's what you are. It's not name-calling when you are that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 24, 2019)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I
> have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is,  does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence?


Free speech does not include speech that harms others - libel/slander - or speech that places others in a state of clear, present  and immediate danger.

“There is going to be violence in America if Trump is impeached and removed from office." does not do any of this.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 24, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


It looks like you live in a world just as simple-minded as Clayton's


----------



## sparky (Oct 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...




Well that's a_ lofty _concept Clay

here i am _whining_ about a metric , and you pull out this ditty claiming we should, given due constitutional course of actions, _figure it out_ for ourselves

and here i was so willing to foist _blame_ on someone, or something else....

i'm gonna go eat _worms_!

~S~


----------

