I Think I Will Scream

[Slade3200]

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.

Make a point and link to the articles for support... don't just past an article to make your points. That's lazy

 

[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?

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Make a point and link to the articles for support... don't just past an article to make your points. That's lazy

I'm pretty sure I've made my point. Now, I am going to post whatever I want. What is it with you libs? You don't control other people. When will you understand this?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Make a point and link to the articles for support... don't just past an article to make your points. That's lazy

I've posted numerous times in this thread, my own thoughts and feelings. Stop being bossy. That is your whole problem.

 

[ChrisL]

Here is another excellent point of why freedom of speech needs to be protected at all costs, and we can see how the US is progressing right along here. What "speech" will you want to ban next? No, you cannot be against free speech (of even those you vehemently disagree with) and still stand for true freedom and liberty.

"The freedom of speech is the right upon which all other rights rest; the defense of all of our other rights without violence would not be possible without free speech. Voluntary persuasion and negotiation are how differences are settled in a free society, but if we allow free speech to slowly be taken from us under the banner of social justice, then we are moving closer to a world in which force is the primary means of settling our differences. This would be a world of barbarism in which individual liberty would be stifled by violence between warring gangs who believe in the necessity of their visions. In such a world devoid of free speech, the individual stands little to no chance against the force of a collective entity and thus the individual’s right to life dies along with the individual.

Fortunately, we live in an age in which we have evolved beyond the barbarism of our primitive ancestors, and what separates us from them is our capacity for reason and our ability to think rationally. Our speech is a product of our reason, and any attempt to restrict speech is an assault upon reason. This happens slowly and incrementally. It starts by declaring that particular words are “hateful” and banning them, then after some time certain phrases or questions are deemed “noninclusive” or “insensitive” and they are banned, this then finally leads to whole topics being labeled as “triggering” or “offensive” and having punishments attached to them as well."


Why Free Speech Matters The Most - Being Libertarian

 

[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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

 

[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?

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

 

[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?

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

Beheading an animal is not mere "imagery." Good lord. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

What rights of ours are you going to want to quash next, the next time something offends you? If anyone is a threat to this country's freedoms, it is you liberals!

 

[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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

 

[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?

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

Their threats? How did they threaten an entire class of people? They are no worse than the Westboro Baptists, and it has already been determined that they have the right to say and do what they say and do.

 

[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?

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

So, what exactly are you afraid of? Why don't you explain that first. What do you think would have happened in this situation if Antifa had not showed up?

 

[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?

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

What about Kathy Griffin's recent display of decapitating Donald Trump? Should that be banned as inciting violence, especially considering all the other "free speech" going on about him colluding with the Russians, being a Russian agent, being a Nazi, being a racist, etc.? Would some not consider these things, using your logic, threats or inciting those who are angry to violence against the president of the United States? The problem with your logic is that a lot of things could be interpreted as "threatening." While I think Kathy Griffin is a douche, she is entitled to be a douche.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

Their threats? How did they threaten an entire class of people? They are no worse than the Westboro Baptists, and it has already been determined that they have the right to say and do what they say and do.

You tell me if you think this is a simple statue protest or if it was threatening hate speech aimed to provoke violence.

 

[ChrisL]

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

Their threats? How did they threaten an entire class of people? They are no worse than the Westboro Baptists, and it has already been determined that they have the right to say and do what they say and do.

You tell me if you think this is a simple statue protest or if it was threatening hate speech aimed to provoke violence.

Why should I even watch your video? So far, you have failed to give any rational answers of your own to my questions. What is it that you are afraid of?

What would have happened in this situation had Antifa not showed up?

 

[ChrisL]

Jews will not replace us! White lives matter!

Those are slogans. Nobody is harmed, nor are those validly classified as "threats" anywhere.

 

[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

You're totally right...I am being a douchebag. I apologize. I am just very passionate about this and about false equivalency. It's my "trigger".

 

[The Derp]

Their threats? How did they threaten an entire class of people? They are no worse than the Westboro Baptists, and it has already been determined that they have the right to say and do what they say and do.

The entire point of Nazism is genocide. What about that do you not get?

 

[ChrisL]

Liberals are easily triggered.

I see them as the bigger threat than the silly white supremacists.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Those are actions, not mere words.

Its expression of speech. So your ok with censoring imagery but what comes out of a persons mouth is all good. Is that your position?

I think these are questions you should be asking yourself, no? I'm not the one advocating for suppression of anyone's free speech. That is you and your side of the aisle. Lol.

The fact that I can't put up that billboard is supressiin of speech. The fact that I can put porn or murder in a tv advertisement that gets played on Sesame Street are all regulations around speech. People get arrested all the time for disturbing the peace with inappropriate speech at inappropriate times/places. This is all part of keeping our society at a civil level.

The Nazis "free speech" are direct threats to entire classes of people. Threats that have been acted upon in the past and millions have died.

So, what exactly are you afraid of? Why don't you explain that first. What do you think would have happened in this situation if Antifa had not showed up?

I wish we had the discipline to ignore these fuckers and not give them any fuel for their fire. Of course I am not Jewish or African American and it wasn't my community that they were marching in. I'm disgusted by what these groups say and do and can only imagine that its exponentially worse for the groups that have died in mass numbers because of the ideologies they push.

You're a white women... Lets say you were violently raped in the past (I really hope that wasn't the case)... Now lets say a group of ex-con rapists got together and formed a group trying to promote the legalization of rape and they held rallies to promote it. Lets say that a few of the rape leaders had statues erected and they were celebrated.

I've used the example of Nazi Park and a Hitler statue in a jewish neighborhood in Germany. I think these examples come close to how blacks and other Americans feel about the confederate and how Jews feel about Nazi groups. It's disgusting and I think it ok if we draw the line for certain topics.