I Think I Will Scream

[ChrisL]

I've already posted the law for you.

No, you tried to make believe that by virtue that they were given permission to march, anything they say or do in that march is somehow "free speech". And that's fucking stupid. You're fucking stupid.

They were given permission. They had a PERMIT. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

This is no different or any worse than the things the Westboro Baptist church people say all the time and at soldier's funerals no less.

 

[Conservative65]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

 

[ChrisL]

Using liberal logic, I guess negative speech, epitaphs of hanging presidents or presidents having their heads cut off or other such negative speech/symbolism about the government should be banned as well. It could incite a revolution or a coup and violence.

Bunch of stupid sheep is what they are, who would WILLINGLY give up their right to free speech because of some words some fringe whack group makes?!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I've already posted the law for you.

No, you tried to make believe that by virtue that they were given permission to march, anything they say or do in that march is somehow "free speech". And that's fucking stupid. You're fucking stupid.

They were given permission. They had a PERMIT. Lol.

The counter protesters had TWO PERMITS.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is no different or any worse than the things the Westboro Baptist church people say all the time and at soldier's funerals no less.

Being against fascist nazis is utterly American. The last time we had to do this, it was called WWII.

It has always been SOLDIERS who fight for democracy.

 

[ChrisL]

This is no different or any worse than the things the Westboro Baptist church people say all the time and at soldier's funerals no less.

Being against fascist nazis is utterly American. The last time we had to do this, it was called WWII.

It has always been SOLDIERS who fight for democracy.

That was against a country ruled by a maniac. You are freaking about a fringe group of weirdos. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

These people have been doing this for a very long time now. They hold rallies regularly. They get permits and march all the time. They give their speeches and have their little meetings. This has been going on for a very long time. Now, all of the sudden, the left is feeling threatened by them. What a crock of shit.

 

[ChrisL]

No you are NOT going to curb freedom of speech or our second amendment rights either. This is why you will LOSE the next election. Stop being a threat to American constitutional rights!

 

[ChrisL]

After listening to the leftists blabber about our 2nd amendment rights for years now, I've always known it was only a matter of time before they used some excuse to attack another one of our precious rights. Traitors to our country and to our constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

Dude you are off your rocker. I don't have the time to respond to all of that right now but your reality is not the reality for many people in this country.

There is only one reality. What you're talking about is fantasy. You are in denial. You are so consumed with painting "balance" that you elevate bad ideas. It's shit like that what gave way to Bush the Dumber, Sarah Palin, the teabags, Donald Trump, and Nazis.

You should work on closing your mouth and listening better. You've taken a few things that i've said now way out of context and I don't have the time to keep reexplaining myself.

Then explain the context, please. I didn't take anything out of context...you're reacting to the fact that you wrote stupid, shitty things.

I have a house in Austin... they have been working for the past 4 years on building an extra lane on the mopac expressway. I have family in seattle Washington, take a look at their tunnel project out there and what they done with the residents tax dollars. I also live in a small town in California where it is nearly impossible to build on your own land and get water rights. The regulations are out of control. All new projects get bottlenecks or killed by extreme environmentalist groups. It is ridiculous that you think an entire ideology is wrong. Even Obama pressed the importance of the contrast of ideas that each side brings.
You are way too lopsided man, even if you have better ideas, your pipe dream to erase all conservatives from our government is unrealistic. Your uncompromising attitude is not going to lead to productivity, it is going to continue the obstructionism and stagnation of Washington. This is a large part of the problem

 

[Slade3200]

Free speech means FREE speech.

Incitement is not free speech, what don't you understand about that?

It is free speech. They were granted permission by a federal judge and had a permit to be there and to protest the removal of the statue. "Incitement" is a matter of opinion. I didn't feel "incited" at all by their words. You?

They went way beyond protesting the statue, they marched the streets calling for the elimination of the Jews. Go watch that Vice documentary. The Derp I'm making similar arguements as you but your being such a douchebag it makes me want to argue against you. Grow up

 

[Slade3200]

I turned off the over paid over compensated under educated booger eating morons a long time ago.....

Watch this stupid loser bitch...

Kate rocks, that guy was being a douche and talking over her non-stop. Trump silences reporters all the time during interviews... don't be a hypocrite

 

[ChrisL]

Free speech means FREE speech.

Incitement is not free speech, what don't you understand about that?

It is free speech. They were granted permission by a federal judge and had a permit to be there and to protest the removal of the statue. "Incitement" is a matter of opinion. I didn't feel "incited" at all by their words. You?

They went way beyond protesting the statue, they marched the streets calling for the elimination of the Jews. Go watch that Vice documentary. The Derp I'm making similar arguements as you but your being such a douchebag it makes me want to argue against you. Grow up

The ACLU argues free speech rights must be universal
The ACLU’s defense in these cases takes a purist view of the First Amendment right to free speech. The ACLU typically makes it clear that it disagrees with what these groups are saying, but it nonetheless supports their right to say it.

Take the recent Yiannopolous case. In a blog post, James Esseks, director of the LGBT and HIV Project at the ACLU, said that “we vehemently disagree with Mr. Yiannopoulos’ views. We work hard, every day, with the very communities he targets, to fight for equal rights and dignity for all. We recognize that his words cause grievous pain to many individuals, their families, and their loved ones. Speech like his hurts.”

But Esseks argued that standing up for that speech, as hurtful as it may be, is necessary for the work of civil rights:

Without free speech protections, all civil rights advocacy could be shut down by the people in power, precisely because government doesn’t agree with the ideas activists advance. That was true of the civil rights fights of the past, it’s true of the movements facing pitched battles today, and it will be true of the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard.

The argument here is simple: While it’s true today that the authorities in DC — or Skokie or Charlottesville — are working to block racist views, a few decades ago these government bodies may have been working to promote racist views. After all, it was only a few decades ago that different levels of government, with support of much of the public, were working to actively restrain minority rights through, for example, government-sanctioned segregation, restrictions on black Americans’ right to vote, and prohibitions on civil rights protests, particularly in Southern cities.

 

[Slade3200]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

 

[ChrisL]

Are you understanding of why it is important that we not let the government dictate to us what is "appropriate" when it comes to speech?

 

[Slade3200]

Free speech means FREE speech.

Incitement is not free speech, what don't you understand about that?

It is free speech. They were granted permission by a federal judge and had a permit to be there and to protest the removal of the statue. "Incitement" is a matter of opinion. I didn't feel "incited" at all by their words. You?

They went way beyond protesting the statue, they marched the streets calling for the elimination of the Jews. Go watch that Vice documentary. The Derp I'm making similar arguements as you but your being such a douchebag it makes me want to argue against you. Grow up

The ACLU argues free speech rights must be universal
The ACLU’s defense in these cases takes a purist view of the First Amendment right to free speech. The ACLU typically makes it clear that it disagrees with what these groups are saying, but it nonetheless supports their right to say it.

Take the recent Yiannopolous case. In a blog post, James Esseks, director of the LGBT and HIV Project at the ACLU, said that “we vehemently disagree with Mr. Yiannopoulos’ views. We work hard, every day, with the very communities he targets, to fight for equal rights and dignity for all. We recognize that his words cause grievous pain to many individuals, their families, and their loved ones. Speech like his hurts.”

But Esseks argued that standing up for that speech, as hurtful as it may be, is necessary for the work of civil rights:

Without free speech protections, all civil rights advocacy could be shut down by the people in power, precisely because government doesn’t agree with the ideas activists advance. That was true of the civil rights fights of the past, it’s true of the movements facing pitched battles today, and it will be true of the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard.

The argument here is simple: While it’s true today that the authorities in DC — or Skokie or Charlottesville — are working to block racist views, a few decades ago these government bodies may have been working to promote racist views. After all, it was only a few decades ago that different levels of government, with support of much of the public, were working to actively restrain minority rights through, for example, government-sanctioned segregation, restrictions on black Americans’ right to vote, and prohibitions on civil rights protests, particularly in Southern cities.

Let's stick to conversation and not copy n paste articles mmmk?

 

[ChrisL]

Free speech means FREE speech.

Incitement is not free speech, what don't you understand about that?

It is free speech. They were granted permission by a federal judge and had a permit to be there and to protest the removal of the statue. "Incitement" is a matter of opinion. I didn't feel "incited" at all by their words. You?

They went way beyond protesting the statue, they marched the streets calling for the elimination of the Jews. Go watch that Vice documentary. The Derp I'm making similar arguements as you but your being such a douchebag it makes me want to argue against you. Grow up

The ACLU argues free speech rights must be universal
The ACLU’s defense in these cases takes a purist view of the First Amendment right to free speech. The ACLU typically makes it clear that it disagrees with what these groups are saying, but it nonetheless supports their right to say it.

Take the recent Yiannopolous case. In a blog post, James Esseks, director of the LGBT and HIV Project at the ACLU, said that “we vehemently disagree with Mr. Yiannopoulos’ views. We work hard, every day, with the very communities he targets, to fight for equal rights and dignity for all. We recognize that his words cause grievous pain to many individuals, their families, and their loved ones. Speech like his hurts.”

But Esseks argued that standing up for that speech, as hurtful as it may be, is necessary for the work of civil rights:

Without free speech protections, all civil rights advocacy could be shut down by the people in power, precisely because government doesn’t agree with the ideas activists advance. That was true of the civil rights fights of the past, it’s true of the movements facing pitched battles today, and it will be true of the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard.

The argument here is simple: While it’s true today that the authorities in DC — or Skokie or Charlottesville — are working to block racist views, a few decades ago these government bodies may have been working to promote racist views. After all, it was only a few decades ago that different levels of government, with support of much of the public, were working to actively restrain minority rights through, for example, government-sanctioned segregation, restrictions on black Americans’ right to vote, and prohibitions on civil rights protests, particularly in Southern cities.

Let's stick to conversation and not copy n paste articles mmmk?

No I will post articles that are topical to the conversation that I agree with.

 

[Slade3200]

Are you understanding of why it is important that we not let the government dictate to us what is "appropriate" when it comes to speech?

You make a fine point but there are lines to be drawn right? I can't put up a billboard of a couple having anal sex while beheading a raccoon next to an elementary school, can I?

 

[ChrisL]

The first reason is that the very thing we’re doing when we ask whether free speech is fundamental — exchanging and evaluating ideas — presupposes that we have the right to exchange and evaluate ideas. In talking about free speech (or anything else) we’re talking. We’re not settling our disagreement by arm-wrestling or a beauty contest or a pistol duel. Unless you’re willing to discredit yourself by declaring, in the words of Nat Hentoff, “free speech for me but not for thee,” then as soon as you show up to a debate to argue against free speech, you’ve lost it.

Why free speech is fundamental - The Boston Globe