Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't know you, and nor do I care what you think; so we have that in common.Rich coming from you. You can't even handle the speech on this message board.
Thanks for playing, when your slippery slope comes true (which it never will) let me know. Till then, I am quite happy with Australia and New Zealand's anti-discrimination, and hate speech laws:I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.
Your idea blatantly contradicts the idea of free speech, peter. Yes, there are anti-Semites, racists and other undesirable people out there, but is it right to take away their right to free speech just because they have that opinion? I'm sorry, even as much as I despise such people, taking away their right to free speech sets an ominous precedent. This would not be just limited to the parameters you set, it would be expanded to include religious speech, political speech and et cetera. You don't realize the consequences of what you're suggesting.
Like your own post immediately before that one?
Postululation inoperative, since it was Liberalism that wrote the First Amendment.
Wrong Amendment anyway, once again this thread, as I read the OP and worthy though it is, is about the Fourth Amendment, not the First.
If you look closely Pogo, you have to violate the Fourth Amendment to limit someones First Amendment rights.
No you don't. That's absurd.
Gummint passes a law that makes it illegal for a newspaper to criticize the Prezzydent -- clear violation of First, doesn't involve the Fourth.
No, they're not redundant. And yes they are distinct.
So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.No, I don't believe I will. You see, I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it offends sissy bedwetters who think the purpose of government is to take care of everyone like they're in kindergarten.
You don't like it?
Tough shit.
Chaos in society? Westboro Baptist Church and the Black Panthers both exist in the real world, and I haven't seen society collapse as a result. Did I sleep through the apocalypse again?
The world will not end if you get offended, Skippy.So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.No, I don't believe I will. You see, I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it offends sissy bedwetters who think the purpose of government is to take care of everyone like they're in kindergarten.
You don't like it?
Tough shit.
Yes, I know you loath freedom. You could always move to one of the progressive paradises where you won't have to put up with it.
Bye.
So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.
Chaos in society? Westboro Baptist Church and the Black Panthers both exist in the real world, and I haven't seen society collapse as a result. Did I sleep through the apocalypse again?
Yes chaos. People talking that have no solution but want to talk because they think they have a right to. You normally don't see a society collapse unless you happen to live at the end of it. Do you think you are some kind of god?
Freedom of speech is a unrealistic concept. Everything you say has a price attached to it whether you believe it or not. Some of the things people say have a huge hidden cost. To pretend hate speech is not destructive is a bit on the naive side of the ledger. If you cant prove your point and provide a solution to a problem you probably shouldn't be allowed to talk.
Freedom of speech is a unrealistic concept. Everything you say has a price attached to it whether you believe it or not. Some of the things people say have a huge hidden cost. To pretend hate speech is not destructive is a bit on the naive side of the ledger. If you cant prove your point and provide a solution to a problem you probably shouldn't be allowed to talk.
Oh shut it.
Hate speech? The term is so vague, it is impossible to define. The term is used as a bludgeon to silence points of view and to set up the possibility of litigation.
It's a horse shit concept.
Here's an idea Acquire a thicker skin.
As soon as you rabbit earned libs hear something you don't like, your first reaction is "hey shut that guy up"...You are so stupid.
The best way to marginalize an idiot who says something offensive is ignore him. Once you make charges you have encouraged the person because now you have given them a forum.
Here. If a guy on a street corner in downtown decides to start shouting some vile garbage, what do you think will happen if everyone simply ignore the guy? Is it not possible the guy will simply tire of no one paying attention to him and go away?
I do not understand the liberal mindset that commands them to react as though "we HAVE to do something about that. Silence HIM!!!"...
No...Wrong approach. You marginalize the person. You treat him like he's not even there.
It's the same as crying child who is cranky because he has not had a nap or is throwing a temper tantrum. You let the kid tire of crying. Soon, he will stop and fall off to sleep..Problem solved.
They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.
You are wrong, period.
No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.
They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” [/FONT][/FONT]
He stole that from the left, but don't let facts get in your way.
Really? Who else had "Free Speech Zones"? And if the right is using the same tactics as the left, how are they any different much less superior?
Who else? The 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Going to blame that on Bush?
They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4You are wrong, period.
No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.
They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests for example, national security, justice or personal safety override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. [/FONT][/FONT]
They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4You are wrong, period.
No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.
They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT="]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” [/FONT][/FONT]
Any American worth calling themselves patriotic and a 100% supporter of the Constitutional principles that set us apart from every other nation on the planet would have a HUGE problem with that. The reason is simple. Such suits should never happen in the first place.Seems to be a matter to be settled by the laws of the state where it occureed. Or do you have a problem with that?
What the alleged injured parties are saying is "you will do business with me on my terms and if you don't I will use the civil courts to make you pay or put you out of business"..
I cannot think of a more un-American perception.
Such a principle is outrageous. So much so that no one with a scintilla of common sense and decency would be in support of them
What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?
.
Our Freedom of Speech rights are not in danger from the government, thankfully, so we're not going to lose that right in the forseeable future.
Unfortunately, intimidation does clearly exist within what remains of our culture in the form of Political Correctness, which intimidates people into not saying what they're thinking because they don't want to lose their job and/or they don't want to be branded with certain labels. The threat of those labels is used to take the conversation off it tracks and control it.
On the bright side, however, PC has been overplayed and is beginning to lose its effectiveness. People are finally telling these people to take their phony indignation, fold it up, and file it. Excellent!
I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them. Unlike the PC Police, I'm not afraid to have people who disagree with me have their opinions heard. I'm not going to do anything to intimidate someone from speaking their mind, and the PC crowd can't say that, no matter how much they try to spin it.
There is no PC police.
Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against the words and actions of other private citizens found to be offensive or inappropriate, regardless how subjective or capricious the grounds for the objection might perceived to be. That those who engage in the offensive or inappropriate speech allow themselves to be intimidated or shut down by those objecting to their speech is the fault of those engaged in the offensive speech, not the citizens objecting.
This is the nature of a free and democratic society, what Justice Kennedy refers to as the constitution with a lower case c, the discourse, debate, disagreement, and dissent of a free people to determine themselves what speech is or is not appropriate, absent interference by legislative measures or rulings by the courts.
It is to be celebrated and encouraged, not ridiculed as being PC.
Sigh....so boring. That headline interested me as it was the first time I had seen it. Naturally, the title is bullshit. Tester and Murphy did no such thing.
Th video is shit. Not worthy of a second look.
Why don't you tell me the purpose of the two WH websites. Be honest.
Thanks for boring me to fucking death.
That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.
How's the baseball coaching coming along?
That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.
How's the baseball coaching coming along?
How's your crochet class coming?
When, on the thread somewhere dealing with the Libretardian pope, Paul II, the Randists showed their true nasty nature by joyously praising the fact that the websites have moderators. "Oh, that's different" is the gateway to Stalinism. Like a mirror, they change things from Left to Right but it's still just as ugly. We've been warned in advance that if they ever crippled the government, their business heroes would hire people to spy on employees' private lives. But, oh, that's different, it's the Boss's own money spent on goons, not taxpayers' money spent on Homeland Security Men in Black.
Lol, another far leftist who has his head buried in his glutes. I frankly want the government to vanish. I want it to be rebuilt on Constitutional foundations, not on bureaucratic ones.
Who cares what you want? You are outnumbered. You are just a self-obsessed Greedhead walking tall by walking all over people.
Never. Not once. Never considered it.
And a question for you: Are you equating a "neg rep" on a website with intimidating people not to say words you don't like?
Really?
.
If I can intimidate someone over the internet they shouldn't be on the internet.
Hey, that's almost exactly right. Change "they" to "I" and you're there.
You still have no substantive rebuttal for the content ot the video.Sigh....so boring. That headline interested me as it was the first time I had seen it. Naturally, the title is bullshit. Tester and Murphy did no such thing.
Th video is shit. Not worthy of a second look.
Why don't you tell me the purpose of the two WH websites. Be honest.
Thanks for boring me to fucking death.
That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.
More like tickles the funny bone
You are about as gullible as a newborn child if you dont think he could find some right wingers to do the same thing if he switched up his proposition to limit the free speech of liberals. Are you really that stupid or are you just playing possum?
Um, given that I don't take you seriously, Asclepias, yes I would be playing possum. Only newborn children like you would be gullible enough to be led around by the hand with liberal propaganda. You just can't stick to the original argument, can you?
Youre the one that responded to me saying he could find some rw's to say the same thing. Why didnt you stick to the point instead of addressing my observation?
