Free speech ended in NYC

[aris2chat]

Where does freedom of speech end in your view? We know legally there are limits but you intentionally want to break the law because you think the law should not apply to you? Most would call that anarchy, not democracy, constitutional law or representative government.

I self identify as an important member here. From now on you are to address me as Mr. Iceweasel sir.

LOL
I didn't call my father "sir" and he was he was a Member of the Joint Chiefs and later an International Court Judge after he retired. He never asked or expected me to.

If they were good friends and in casual situations I didn't use titles with Presidents, PMs, Kings or Princes, just first names.

Parents raised me to be the equal of any person anywhere.

Only a few formal exception when in their "official" place. A judge's court room once (traffic ticket, dismissed because I knew the law and brought proof neither the officer or judge seemed aware of), superior officer in the Air Force, Boss's office and special invitations to meet the Pope (it was his honor to meet me twice).

 

[dblack]

When I conduct a business transaction with someone I might call them "Mr" or "Ms". No one forces me to do it. If I choose not to use these no one fines me. Its up to the person if they want to continue to do business with me if I offended them. So YES, the OP is an assault on free speech. Being rude in another person's opinion is not a fineable offense.

If you are knowingly rude or abusive, when your freedom of speech harms others, when someone is being called names and bullied in the work place or dos so to a customer, there is a problem both morally and legally. You are in the wrong.

you don't incorrectly call someone gay if you are well aware they are not. You don't call men silly girls to be intentionally rude or just make assumptions. You don't force a legal woman to use a men's bathroom unless it is unisex when she might be abused. You don't accuse someone of being a criminal unless they have actually done something wrong or that have harmed others. You don't incite harm or threaten others. You don't create a dangerous situation just for the fun of it or because you can. This is not what free speech is about.

Hate, libels or abuse is not free speech. Freedoms and right are not without consequence or responsibility. Denying the right of others is not your legal right. You right ends when it interferes with the "legal" rights or invades the person space of other.

Sorry but your "rights" do no apply to you alone but not to every other citizen.

Ignorance or your personal rejection of the law is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

People is some areas did not believe those of color were humans or women had no rights except those a husband choose to give them. It was wrong and laws were changed and challenged for constitutionality. Same for those of different sexual identities, including those who have had legal name and sexual changes.

Free speech does not mean any and all speech. Freedom does not include breaking the law without consequence.

You do not have the right to deny others their rights and call it freedom. You are not a law unto yourself and to hell with the rest of the country and the infinite variety of people that makes up this country. You have a right to equality not superiority from the rest of the population no matter your religious beliefs. Should muslims demand FGM for all girls and women including those who are not muslim in this country. Should they demand or have the right to abuse all women who don't dress "modestly" enough for muslim men? Does one religion have the right to tell people they can't eat pork or drink alcohol or own pets or deny them them their personal choice of faith or political opinions because they believe they alone are right? If people have the right o freedom of religion in the their personal life, it does not mean you have the right to impose your belief on others of force them to follow your personal religious morality. Your religious morality does not supersede the law of the land, it applies to your personal life. If a religion believes in child abuse, they might believe it is moral in their religious teachings but legally and for everyone else in the country it is not moral or their free right to disobey the laws of the state or country.

You do not have the right abuse, harm or kill those you disagree with. You personally might disagree with someone's identity or freedoms, but you don't have the right on impose you beliefs on the rest of the country that does not share them.

Live your life by your moral code "within the law". It might be your "private" moral belief, but that does not make it your right to shove it in the face of others or make it public to everyone especially when it runs counter to the majority, counter to the law or the constitution.

You might believe killing is wrong, but for military, police and in the case of self defense there are legal and moral exceptions. You might believe rape is the right of a man or that a woman does not have a right to control her own body of make choices for her life, that does not make it correct or legal.

No one is forcing you to be gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, transvestite, asexual, hermaphrodite or intersexual, but you don't have the right to determine what someone else is or becomes.

What about all the minorities that don't qualify for "protected class" coverage? How is it equal protection if they are left off the gravy train?

Minority rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMinority_rights
Wikipedia
Minority rights are the normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, ... around the world (such as the Civil Rights Movement in the United States). ... To protect minority rights, many countries have specific laws and/or ...
United States of America - Minority Rights Group
minorityrights.org › Directory
Minority Rights Group International
Minority Rights Group > Directory > United States of America ..... documentary sheds light on harsh realities faced by 'legal ghosts' in Dominican Republic · Say ...
Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles | Democracy Web
democracyweb.org/node/36
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. ... of the laws (see descriptions of these two cases on the African American History ...
Civil Rights: Law and History - FindLaw
civilrights.findlaw.com › Learn About The Law › Civil Rights › Civil Rights Overview
Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, persons from minority groups were ... campus to protect him were 123 deputy federal marshals, 316 US Border Patrolmen, and ...

So, a buncha irrelevant links?

 

[aris2chat]

We should have the right to call you a pervert dip shit moron whether or not it is true? We should be able to call you a CS or BF even if you are not? Sissy girl? Butch? CL? MF? AF? some incorrect pronoun even when you have asked not to be address in that manner more than once?

Yep. It's protected speech.

No actually it is not.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'd like to be called Louie Louie. We gotta go now.

 

[aris2chat]

When I conduct a business transaction with someone I might call them "Mr" or "Ms". No one forces me to do it. If I choose not to use these no one fines me. Its up to the person if they want to continue to do business with me if I offended them. So YES, the OP is an assault on free speech. Being rude in another person's opinion is not a fineable offense.

If you are knowingly rude or abusive, when your freedom of speech harms others, when someone is being called names and bullied in the work place or dos so to a customer, there is a problem both morally and legally. You are in the wrong.

you don't incorrectly call someone gay if you are well aware they are not. You don't call men silly girls to be intentionally rude or just make assumptions. You don't force a legal woman to use a men's bathroom unless it is unisex when she might be abused. You don't accuse someone of being a criminal unless they have actually done something wrong or that have harmed others. You don't incite harm or threaten others. You don't create a dangerous situation just for the fun of it or because you can. This is not what free speech is about.

Hate, libels or abuse is not free speech. Freedoms and right are not without consequence or responsibility. Denying the right of others is not your legal right. You right ends when it interferes with the "legal" rights or invades the person space of other.

Sorry but your "rights" do no apply to you alone but not to every other citizen.

Ignorance or your personal rejection of the law is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

People is some areas did not believe those of color were humans or women had no rights except those a husband choose to give them. It was wrong and laws were changed and challenged for constitutionality. Same for those of different sexual identities, including those who have had legal name and sexual changes.

Free speech does not mean any and all speech. Freedom does not include breaking the law without consequence.

You do not have the right to deny others their rights and call it freedom. You are not a law unto yourself and to hell with the rest of the country and the infinite variety of people that makes up this country. You have a right to equality not superiority from the rest of the population no matter your religious beliefs. Should muslims demand FGM for all girls and women including those who are not muslim in this country. Should they demand or have the right to abuse all women who don't dress "modestly" enough for muslim men? Does one religion have the right to tell people they can't eat pork or drink alcohol or own pets or deny them them their personal choice of faith or political opinions because they believe they alone are right? If people have the right o freedom of religion in the their personal life, it does not mean you have the right to impose your belief on others of force them to follow your personal religious morality. Your religious morality does not supersede the law of the land, it applies to your personal life. If a religion believes in child abuse, they might believe it is moral in their religious teachings but legally and for everyone else in the country it is not moral or their free right to disobey the laws of the state or country.

You do not have the right abuse, harm or kill those you disagree with. You personally might disagree with someone's identity or freedoms, but you don't have the right on impose you beliefs on the rest of the country that does not share them.

Live your life by your moral code "within the law". It might be your "private" moral belief, but that does not make it your right to shove it in the face of others or make it public to everyone especially when it runs counter to the majority, counter to the law or the constitution.

You might believe killing is wrong, but for military, police and in the case of self defense there are legal and moral exceptions. You might believe rape is the right of a man or that a woman does not have a right to control her own body of make choices for her life, that does not make it correct or legal.

No one is forcing you to be gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, transvestite, asexual, hermaphrodite or intersexual, but you don't have the right to determine what someone else is or becomes.

What about all the minorities that don't qualify for "protected class" coverage? How is it equal protection if they are left off the gravy train?

Minority rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMinority_rights
Wikipedia
Minority rights are the normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, ... around the world (such as the Civil Rights Movement in the United States). ... To protect minority rights, many countries have specific laws and/or ...
United States of America - Minority Rights Group
minorityrights.org › Directory
Minority Rights Group International
Minority Rights Group > Directory > United States of America ..... documentary sheds light on harsh realities faced by 'legal ghosts' in Dominican Republic · Say ...
Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles | Democracy Web
democracyweb.org/node/36
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. ... of the laws (see descriptions of these two cases on the African American History ...
Civil Rights: Law and History - FindLaw
civilrights.findlaw.com › Learn About The Law › Civil Rights › Civil Rights Overview
Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, persons from minority groups were ... campus to protect him were 123 deputy federal marshals, 316 US Border Patrolmen, and ...

So, a buncha irrelevant links?

Rights and laws should not be irrelevant to americans

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I demand that everyone here refer to me as "King" Digital Drifter.
It's nothing more than hateful micro aggression if you do not cooperate.

OK Princess.

(snicker)

 

[aris2chat]

I'd like to be called Louie Louie. We gotta go now.

Try and get your name legally changed, but it is still under copy write so I doubt you will be allowed to.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'd like to be called Louie Louie. We gotta go now.

Try and get your name legally changed, but it is still under copy write so I doubt you will be allowed to.

 

[dblack]

When I conduct a business transaction with someone I might call them "Mr" or "Ms". No one forces me to do it. If I choose not to use these no one fines me. Its up to the person if they want to continue to do business with me if I offended them. So YES, the OP is an assault on free speech. Being rude in another person's opinion is not a fineable offense.

If you are knowingly rude or abusive, when your freedom of speech harms others, when someone is being called names and bullied in the work place or dos so to a customer, there is a problem both morally and legally. You are in the wrong.

you don't incorrectly call someone gay if you are well aware they are not. You don't call men silly girls to be intentionally rude or just make assumptions. You don't force a legal woman to use a men's bathroom unless it is unisex when she might be abused. You don't accuse someone of being a criminal unless they have actually done something wrong or that have harmed others. You don't incite harm or threaten others. You don't create a dangerous situation just for the fun of it or because you can. This is not what free speech is about.

Hate, libels or abuse is not free speech. Freedoms and right are not without consequence or responsibility. Denying the right of others is not your legal right. You right ends when it interferes with the "legal" rights or invades the person space of other.

Sorry but your "rights" do no apply to you alone but not to every other citizen.

Ignorance or your personal rejection of the law is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

People is some areas did not believe those of color were humans or women had no rights except those a husband choose to give them. It was wrong and laws were changed and challenged for constitutionality. Same for those of different sexual identities, including those who have had legal name and sexual changes.

Free speech does not mean any and all speech. Freedom does not include breaking the law without consequence.

You do not have the right to deny others their rights and call it freedom. You are not a law unto yourself and to hell with the rest of the country and the infinite variety of people that makes up this country. You have a right to equality not superiority from the rest of the population no matter your religious beliefs. Should muslims demand FGM for all girls and women including those who are not muslim in this country. Should they demand or have the right to abuse all women who don't dress "modestly" enough for muslim men? Does one religion have the right to tell people they can't eat pork or drink alcohol or own pets or deny them them their personal choice of faith or political opinions because they believe they alone are right? If people have the right o freedom of religion in the their personal life, it does not mean you have the right to impose your belief on others of force them to follow your personal religious morality. Your religious morality does not supersede the law of the land, it applies to your personal life. If a religion believes in child abuse, they might believe it is moral in their religious teachings but legally and for everyone else in the country it is not moral or their free right to disobey the laws of the state or country.

You do not have the right abuse, harm or kill those you disagree with. You personally might disagree with someone's identity or freedoms, but you don't have the right on impose you beliefs on the rest of the country that does not share them.

Live your life by your moral code "within the law". It might be your "private" moral belief, but that does not make it your right to shove it in the face of others or make it public to everyone especially when it runs counter to the majority, counter to the law or the constitution.

You might believe killing is wrong, but for military, police and in the case of self defense there are legal and moral exceptions. You might believe rape is the right of a man or that a woman does not have a right to control her own body of make choices for her life, that does not make it correct or legal.

No one is forcing you to be gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, transvestite, asexual, hermaphrodite or intersexual, but you don't have the right to determine what someone else is or becomes.

What about all the minorities that don't qualify for "protected class" coverage? How is it equal protection if they are left off the gravy train?

Minority rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMinority_rights
Wikipedia
Minority rights are the normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, ... around the world (such as the Civil Rights Movement in the United States). ... To protect minority rights, many countries have specific laws and/or ...
United States of America - Minority Rights Group
minorityrights.org › Directory
Minority Rights Group International
Minority Rights Group > Directory > United States of America ..... documentary sheds light on harsh realities faced by 'legal ghosts' in Dominican Republic · Say ...
Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles | Democracy Web
democracyweb.org/node/36
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. ... of the laws (see descriptions of these two cases on the African American History ...
Civil Rights: Law and History - FindLaw
civilrights.findlaw.com › Learn About The Law › Civil Rights › Civil Rights Overview
Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, persons from minority groups were ... campus to protect him were 123 deputy federal marshals, 316 US Border Patrolmen, and ...

So, a buncha irrelevant links?

Rights and laws should not be irrelevant to americans

I ask you a specific question. Discrimination law advocates make the (utterly false) claim that they support equal rights. But in practice discrimination laws focus on specific protected classes. I'm wondering what you think about the 'rights' of people who aren't covered by those protected classes.

 

[BULLDOG]

normal anything doesn't think like him.

that's offensive

I made it clear that I am to be referred to as "High master ruler of all the Stars".

Offend be again and I'll report you to the police.


how do you like them apples

Are you high, or are you normally this dumb?

I see it went over your head.

not surprised, leftists never understand that they hate freedom, they just need an excuse

So you think I hate freedom, but just don't know it? That settles it. You're high. Nobody is really that dumb.

Do you support a law that makes if clear, that if I don't use a pronoun that I am told to use, I can be fined?

if you do, you are against freedom
if not, you are still a leftist and are most likely still against it as there is no free thought on the left.

It's a recent decision, but I wouldn't have a problem with any law that keeps you whining like a baby with a stinking diaper. You're funny when you get all puffed up.

 

[Brynmr]

We should have the right to call you a pervert dip shit moron whether or not it is true? We should be able to call you a CS or BF even if you are not? Sissy girl? Butch? CL? MF? AF? some incorrect pronoun even when you have asked not to be address in that manner more than once?

Yep. It's protected speech.

No actually it is not.

This is from an article called 'An Idiot's Guide to Free Speech', since you're an idiot.

As an American, you have the right to say most anything you want to say without being penalized by the government. As long as you're not inciting crime, spewing out "fighting words" (srsly), making true threats, or sharing obscenity as defined by the Miller test/child porn, you're pretty much good to go. Hate speech is protected pretty strongly here in the U.S. — the landmark SCOTUS Whitney v. California decision determined that "to justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced" and "there must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent." — so congrats, you can call some random person a "Nazi c***" on Twitter.

http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech

 

[aris2chat]

We should have the right to call you a pervert dip shit moron whether or not it is true? We should be able to call you a CS or BF even if you are not? Sissy girl? Butch? CL? MF? AF? some incorrect pronoun even when you have asked not to be address in that manner more than once?

Yep. It's protected speech.

No actually it is not.

This is from an article called 'An Idiot's Guide to Free Speech', since you're an idiot.

As an American, you have the right to say most anything you want to say without being penalized by the government. As long as you're not inciting crime, spewing out "fighting words" (srsly), making true threats, or sharing obscenity as defined by the Miller test/child porn, you're pretty much good to go. Hate speech is protected pretty strongly here in the U.S. — the landmark SCOTUS Whitney v. California decision determined that "to justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced" and "there must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent." — so congrats, you can call some random person a "Nazi c***" on Twitter.

http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech

LOL

Whitney v. California 1925, later over turned1961
One of the two descents in Dennis v. United States 1951 was a member of the KKK.

 

[Two Thumbs]

that's offensive

I made it clear that I am to be referred to as "High master ruler of all the Stars".

Offend be again and I'll report you to the police.


how do you like them apples

Are you high, or are you normally this dumb?

I see it went over your head.

not surprised, leftists never understand that they hate freedom, they just need an excuse

So you think I hate freedom, but just don't know it? That settles it. You're high. Nobody is really that dumb.

Do you support a law that makes if clear, that if I don't use a pronoun that I am told to use, I can be fined?

if you do, you are against freedom
if not, you are still a leftist and are most likely still against it as there is no free thought on the left.

We should have the right to call you a pervert dip shit moron whether or not it is true? We should be able to call you a CS or BF even if you are not? Sissy girl? Butch? CL? MF? AF? some incorrect pronoun even when you have asked not to be address in that manner more than once?
What if we called you a criminal, murderer or rapist though it is incorrect? What of the N word or nazi, communist, satanist, terrorist? Meat eater, pig eater, animals murderer, animal abuser?

Where does freedom of speech end in your view? We know legally there are limits but you intentionally want to break the law because you think the law should not apply to you? Most would call that anarchy, not democracy, constitutional law or representative government.

you can call me all that and more

there is not end

all unconstitutional lasw should be broken

most would call it freedom, but you're a fucking moron with no grasp of freedom or the Constitution

at all

 

[Two Thumbs]

that's offensive

I made it clear that I am to be referred to as "High master ruler of all the Stars".

Offend be again and I'll report you to the police.


how do you like them apples

Are you high, or are you normally this dumb?

I see it went over your head.

not surprised, leftists never understand that they hate freedom, they just need an excuse

So you think I hate freedom, but just don't know it? That settles it. You're high. Nobody is really that dumb.

Do you support a law that makes if clear, that if I don't use a pronoun that I am told to use, I can be fined?

if you do, you are against freedom
if not, you are still a leftist and are most likely still against it as there is no free thought on the left.

It's a recent decision, but I wouldn't have a problem with any law that keeps you whining like a baby with a stinking diaper. You're funny when you get all puffed up.

so you think it's funny to have your rights taken away.

 

[Iceweasel]

Where does freedom of speech end in your view? We know legally there are limits but you intentionally want to break the law because you think the law should not apply to you? Most would call that anarchy, not democracy, constitutional law or representative government.

I self identify as an important member here. From now on you are to address me as Mr. Iceweasel sir.

LOL
I didn't call my father "sir" and he was he was a Member of the Joint Chiefs and later an International Court Judge after he retired. He never asked or expected me to.

If they were good friends and in casual situations I didn't use titles with Presidents, PMs, Kings or Princes, just first names.

Parents raised me to be the equal of any person anywhere.

Only a few formal exception when in their "official" place. A judge's court room once (traffic ticket, dismissed because I knew the law and brought proof neither the officer or judge seemed aware of), superior officer in the Air Force, Boss's office and special invitations to meet the Pope (it was his honor to meet me twice).

Fascinating stuff but you completely missed the point. Unsurprisingly.

 

[Brynmr]

LOL

Whitney v. California 1925, later over turned1961
One of the two descents in Dennis v. United States 1951 was a member of the KKK.

Lying rolls off the tongues of Liberals like mercury of a china plate.

Subsequent jurisprudence and further developments

"Whitney is in fact the precursor to the position Douglas and Hugo L. Black took in the 1950s and 1960s, that freedom of speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment."

 

[Brynmr]

Dennis v. United States

I think you're just stupid... and bigoted.

"Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government."

 

[Brynmr]

Are you high, or are you normally this dumb?

I see it went over your head.

not surprised, leftists never understand that they hate freedom, they just need an excuse

So you think I hate freedom, but just don't know it? That settles it. You're high. Nobody is really that dumb.

Do you support a law that makes if clear, that if I don't use a pronoun that I am told to use, I can be fined?

if you do, you are against freedom
if not, you are still a leftist and are most likely still against it as there is no free thought on the left.

It's a recent decision, but I wouldn't have a problem with any law that keeps you whining like a baby with a stinking diaper. You're funny when you get all puffed up.

so you think it's funny to have your rights taken away.

Radical Leftists are always happy to rights taken away from others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you can call someone a cock sucking, muther fucking, cum gargling fukaki whore, and it's all good.

but don't respect some gender pronoun and it's off to the clink.



of course jake doesn't understand, he has no grasp of the Constitution

Fakey has no grasp, but a deep and abiding hatred of it all the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you can call someone a cock sucking, muther fucking, cum gargling fukaki whore, and it's all good.

but don't respect some gender pronoun and it's off to the clink.



of course jake doesn't understand, he has no grasp of the Constitution

Fakey has no grasp, but a deep and abiding hatred of it all the same.