Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?

[9thIDdoc]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

"Lawful demonstrations" does not include destruction of property or racial violence. Demonstrations and riots are two very diferent things.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

"Lawful demonstrations" does not include destruction of property or racial violence. Demonstrations and riots are two very diferent things.

Please post a link to where anyone said that it does.

Fact is, I have read RW nutters here calling for punishment, jailing for constitutionally-guaranteed protesting. Many RWs here think there is one amendment - the 2nd - and want the rest of the constitution trashed. Especially if it give equal rights to gays.

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

"Hate speech"?
No such thing exists or can exist under our Constitution because everyone would have a different-sometimes directly opposite-definition of what it is. Hate speech is strictly an opinion; not law. Expressing an opinion may not be wise or safe otherwise but making that expression illegal would be tyranny. Given what they had to say about the king and his government, I'm sure the FF were well aware of that.

Incorrect.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including hate speech, when that speech advocates for violence against another person because of his race, religion, or national origin (see Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993)).

And that members of private society might denounce your hate speech in no way 'violates' your First Amendment rights.

And what we see here is hate speech. Its divisive and destructive and stinks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

The line is (I think) when speech turns to action. If your speech is hateful, fine, you have every right to an opinion. But if that hate manifests into undesirable behavior towards others, then your right to free speech is null and void.

 

[Katzndogz]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

 

[Rozman]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

 

[Rozman]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

I don't think protesters should be allowed to disrupt commerce,block traffic,show up at stores and not allow
people who want to spend the evening living their lives.
They should apply in advance of their protest to the local police and get a permit....

Then protest their fucking asses off if they so do desire.

Mayor De Blasio is out of his fucking mind allowing the recent protests in NYC to go on as they did.

 

[Care4all]

We only have a right to free speech when speaking out against or for our government....that's it.

So these protesters speaking out against things they see as injustices of THE Local GOVERNMENT, THEY are the ones protected, via our Bill of Rights in our constitution.

But us on this privately owned board ARE NOT, and never HAVE BEEN protected with our speech, the owners can do whatever they wanted.

I remember a time when we just permabanned KKK'ers and new Stormfronters, before they even could set root in to this board. I recall a new member joining with the user ID of Niggah, after a few posts he was noticed, and being told by admin to perma-ban him immediately, and told that we did not need that kind of poster around here to ruin it for the rest....

So, there is no first amendment protection given to us as citizens, other than protection that the government can't stop us from it, when we are talking and speaking about them or an issue involving them, it truly is up to Admin or the owners on a private board, to do what is best for their board...whether it is keeping the new Stormfront'ers around or getting rid of them within 24 hours of joining....none would be the wiser on the latter...can't miss what never got in, (for any length of time) in the first place...imho.

 

[Londoner]

You're more than welcome to that opinion but, as usual, its not based on anything but a knee-jerk, reactionary fear to what you don't understand.

And, its way off topic.

You wanna try to actually address what he (or I) wrote?

First. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Lavine, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage or any member of Far Right Speak. The primary premise of every episode is that Liberals are anti-Americans who have destroyed this country (its borders, language, culture, traditions, economy, etc).

Second. Imagine a group of people who because of emotional, cognitive or financial limitations get 100% of their information from these kinds of news sources.

Conclusion: The poster you are addressing is literally acting on the only beliefs he has access to.

God Help us. Take him and multiply by tens of thousands. Then imagine a sudden economic decline that is was worse than the one we just experienced - circa Germany of the 30s. Now you have the recipe for the kind of scapegoating and violence that we have never seen.

Listen carefully to the anger and observe the level of disconnect. The ingredients are in place. God help us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

It's very simple...

One is entitled to do anything that one recognizes as being central to the fulfillment of one's life, as long as in exercising their rights, they do not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

Of course the problem comes where unreasonable people whose interest are limited to their own needs, OKA: Sociopaths, AKA: Leftists, progressives, liberals... as they reject the objectivity required to be a decent human being and as a result, they ruin, every thing they touch.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... or any member of Far Right Speak.

There's no such thing as "the far-right".

One either recognized, respects, defends and adheres to the principles in nature that govern human behavior, or one does not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The line is (I think) when speech turns to action. If your speech is hateful, fine, you have every right to an opinion. But if that hate manifests into undesirable behavior towards others, then your right to free speech is null and void.

One is perfectly entitled to speak of those things for which there is a potential right. One is not entitled to publicly promote those things for which there is no right... arson, theft, libel, assault, murder... .

 

[NYcarbineer]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

It's very simple...

One is entitled to do anything that one recognizes as being central to the fulfillment of one's life, as long as in exercising their rights, they do not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

Of course the problem comes where unreasonable people whose interest are limited to their own needs, OKA: Sociopaths, AKA: Leftists, progressives, liberals... as they reject the objectivity required to be a decent human being and as a result, they ruin, every thing they touch.

And what have I ruined?

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

It's very simple...

One is entitled to do anything that one recognizes as being central to the fulfillment of one's life, as long as in exercising their rights, they do not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

Of course the problem comes where unreasonable people whose interest are limited to their own needs, OKA: Sociopaths, AKA: Leftists, progressives, liberals... as they reject the objectivity required to be a decent human being and as a result, they ruin, every thing they touch.

And what have I ruined?

Of what I personally know of you, I can personally testify that you've ruin every argument you've attempted to make.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Thank you for posting this.

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

This board has become safe haven for KKK/white supremacist hate speech. I wish cereal_killer would see that and put an end to the constant racism we're seeing here now.

I would also like to see an end to the use of the N word. We should be better than that.

Yeah, those who use it hide behind cowardly cutesy spellings but that's the word they're using.

I don't spend near as much time here any more. Frankly, if you're interested in debate, there are far better choices.

What is the definition of "hate speech"? Why do you get to decide it? Critiquing the performance of yet another son of an Irish woman in the White House does not make one a "white supremacist." Cries of "racism" and "hate speech" are not some card you can pull in the event that you are unwilling, unable, or fearful of refuting. It's that simple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

It's very simple...

One is entitled to do anything that one recognizes as being central to the fulfillment of one's life, as long as in exercising their rights, they do not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

Of course the problem comes where unreasonable people whose interest are limited to their own needs, OKA: Sociopaths, AKA: Leftists, progressives, liberals... as they reject the objectivity required to be a decent human being and as a result, they ruin, every thing they touch.

And what have I ruined?

Of what I personally know of you, I can personally testify that you've ruin every argument you've attempted to make.

I've won every single argument I've had with you. Deal with it.

Now back to the question. If I've ruined everything I've touched, tell me what I've ruined. It was your accusation.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Freedom of Speech should have very few restrictions, and Freedom of Thought none at all.

Out in the world, I could not agree more strongly. But this is a privately owned message board. There is no expectation of "free speech" here.

And its true that we are up to our epaulets in the damn KKK.

Oh shut the hell up.

 

[Gracie]

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

No there isn't. Free speech is free speech. Just cuz you don't like what others say doesn't mean you can shut them up.

This board has become safe haven for KKK/white supremacist hate speech. I wish cereal_killer would see that and put an end to the constant racism we're seeing here now.

Hogwash. This board allows people to speak their mind. It is NOT a safe haven for KKK/etc that YOU see as racism when in reality, it is just stuff you don't want to see. There IS a remedy for that. Go find another board more to your liking. Oops. Until YOU say something someone else doesn't like and then wants to shut YOU up.
If you don't want to find another board, use the ignore feature. Problem solved.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

I don't think protesters should be allowed to disrupt commerce,block traffic,show up at stores and not allow
people who want to spend the evening living their lives.
They should apply in advance of their protest to the local police and get a permit....

Then protest their fucking asses off if they so do desire.

Mayor De Blasio is out of his fucking mind allowing the recent protests in NYC to go on as they did.

Yet another RW who hates the Constitution.

DeBlasio had no right to end protesting.

If tee potties wanted to protest, you would be in favor of it.

Sharpton calls for an end to protests until after the funerals and called for peace before but RWs call that race baiting.

Guilani calls for violence against blacks and you call it free speech.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.