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 have.Nope. We defend it all the time. It is a key part of what makes this country a great place to be lucky enough to be born in. You might want to have some real discussions with some progressives. You know....the kind where you listen as well as talk.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but anyway:
On another board, I posted my oath of enlistment, explained what it meant, and asked the resident progressives if they would defend MY Constitutional rights with their lives, if necessary.
The answer was invariably, "Hell, NO! Why should we defend YOUR rights, you fascist?!"
Non-anecdotal evidence:
[email protected]
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack
Tester and Murphy Propose Repealing the First Amendment | National Review Online
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4"]Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch! - YouTube[/ame]
Do those look like they're designed to protect free speech...or suppress it?
That was hilarious!All that shows is people dont mind limiting other peoples rights as long as they dont lose their rights.
Free speech can go too far, there needs to be some anti-discrimination laws and anti-hate laws otherwise society gets out of control. Look at parts of Europe and the US, and you have dangerous neo-nazi types and religious fundamentalists preaching religious and racial hatred, which results in murders, property destruction and otherwise acts of violence. Russia is the worst example right now, as people are persecuted for being LGBT.
If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.Free speech can go too far, there needs to be some anti-discrimination laws and anti-hate laws otherwise society gets out of control. Look at parts of Europe and the US, and you have dangerous neo-nazi types and religious fundamentalists preaching religious and racial hatred, which results in murders, property destruction and otherwise acts of violence. Russia is the worst example right now, as people are persecuted for being LGBT.
Excuse me?
I have.Nope. We defend it all the time. It is a key part of what makes this country a great place to be lucky enough to be born in. You might want to have some real discussions with some progressives. You know....the kind where you listen as well as talk.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but anyway:
On another board, I posted my oath of enlistment, explained what it meant, and asked the resident progressives if they would defend MY Constitutional rights with their lives, if necessary.
The answer was invariably, "Hell, NO! Why should we defend YOUR rights, you fascist?!"
Non-anecdotal evidence:
[email protected]
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack
Tester and Murphy Propose Repealing the First Amendment | National Review Online
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4"]Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch! - YouTube[/ame]
Do those look like they're designed to protect free speech...or suppress it?
You’ve got to be kidding.
You’re actually this stupid to believe these are ‘Obama supporters,’ or they’re seeking to ‘repeal’ the First Amendment, or that they’re ‘representative’ of any group of persons at all?
It’s as if you have the mentality of a 12-year-old.
If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.Free speech can go too far, there needs to be some anti-discrimination laws and anti-hate laws otherwise society gets out of control. Look at parts of Europe and the US, and you have dangerous neo-nazi types and religious fundamentalists preaching religious and racial hatred, which results in murders, property destruction and otherwise acts of violence. Russia is the worst example right now, as people are persecuted for being LGBT.
Excuse me?
If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.
The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?
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.
Free speech is fine, till the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism take hold. Then there is always that phrase about how you shouldn't say fire in a crowded theatre. Free speech has to be handled responsibly or it has capacity to do great harm.The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?
Doubtful, 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 our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.
The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?
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.
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.If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.
Excuse me?
If you think it should be banned you are proving the OP right.
I wonder how many of the lefties who insist they are all about free speech will bother to point out why.
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.If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.
If you think it should be banned you are proving the OP right.
I wonder how many of the lefties who insist they are all about free speech will bother to point out why.
The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.
If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.
If you think it should be banned you are proving the OP right.
I wonder how many of the lefties who insist they are all about free speech will bother to point out why.
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.
The only thing wrong is your logic, by mine everyone can say what they like until they start advocating (or engaging in) mass genocide and violence. By your logic that behaviour should be tolerated, fortunately it hasn't been.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.If you think it should be banned you are proving the OP right.
I wonder how many of the lefties who insist they are all about free speech will bother to point out why.
The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.
Wrong again, keep up the good work.
The only cons come about when the government tries to tell people what they can and cannot say. If that ends up with a little of the freedom that scares the shit out of your small mind, good.
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.
The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.
Wrong again, keep up the good work.
The only cons come about when the government tries to tell people what they can and cannot say. If that ends up with a little of the freedom that scares the shit out of your small mind, good.
The only thing wrong is your logic, by mine everyone can say what they like until they start advocating (or engaging in) mass genocide and violence. By your logic that behaviour should be tolerated, fortunately it hasn't been.
The government isn't some bogeyman out to get you, nor is it a friendly hand. I don't have a small mind because I am not a racist, a religious radical, or any of those things. Unlike yourself I am an anarchist-communist, and anarcho-capitalist so I actually believe in social contract, so keep ranting on about me being pro-government; it is rather funny considering that the constitution you are supporting is a product of government (nor does it apply to the rest of the world).
A truly free society is one where groups and individuals can say and think what they like, but we don't live in that kind of society because humans are capable of terrible things as individuals or groups. Advocate absolute free speech, but when the local community tries you as a witch or communist, don't say I didn't warn you. But you would never be in such a position, those times are over surely you tell yourself, but there is always a movement ready to rise and cause trouble.
Not always, Hitler said he wanted to get rid of the Jews, and did it. Terrorists say they wanted to destroy 'x' and actually did it. People threaten to kill 'x' and do. In the US it is more difficult to judge, but there are grounds for prosecution if speech becomes too threatening and dangerous even under the first amendment - when there is clear enough intent to do harm; hence why anti-terror laws are constitutional in the US, and why the US government was able to limit certain types of speech in wartime.Wrong again, keep up the good work.
The only cons come about when the government tries to tell people what they can and cannot say. If that ends up with a little of the freedom that scares the shit out of your small mind, good.
The only thing wrong is your logic, by mine everyone can say what they like until they start advocating (or engaging in) mass genocide and violence. By your logic that behaviour should be tolerated, fortunately it hasn't been.
The government isn't some bogeyman out to get you, nor is it a friendly hand. I don't have a small mind because I am not a racist, a religious radical, or any of those things. Unlike yourself I am an anarchist-communist, and anarcho-capitalist so I actually believe in social contract, so keep ranting on about me being pro-government; it is rather funny considering that the constitution you are supporting is a product of government (nor does it apply to the rest of the world).
A truly free society is one where groups and individuals can say and think what they like, but we don't live in that kind of society because humans are capable of terrible things as individuals or groups. Advocate absolute free speech, but when the local community tries you as a witch or communist, don't say I didn't warn you. But you would never be in such a position, those times are over surely you tell yourself, but there is always a movement ready to rise and cause trouble.
That may be how it works in your country, peter. But here none of your logic applies.
Simply put, there is a difference between "behavior" and "opinion."
If you think it should be banned you are proving the OP right.
I wonder how many of the lefties who insist they are all about free speech will bother to point out why.
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.
.
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.
Not always, Hitler said he wanted to get rid of the Jews, and did it. Terrorists say they wanted to destroy 'x' and actually did it. People threaten to kill 'x' and do. In the US it is more difficult to judge, but there are grounds for prosecution if speech becomes too threatening and dangerous even under the first amendment - when there is clear enough intent to do harm; hence why anti-terror laws are constitutional in the US, and why the US government was able to limit certain types of speech in wartime.The only thing wrong is your logic, by mine everyone can say what they like until they start advocating (or engaging in) mass genocide and violence. By your logic that behaviour should be tolerated, fortunately it hasn't been.
The government isn't some bogeyman out to get you, nor is it a friendly hand. I don't have a small mind because I am not a racist, a religious radical, or any of those things. Unlike yourself I am an anarchist-communist, and anarcho-capitalist so I actually believe in social contract, so keep ranting on about me being pro-government; it is rather funny considering that the constitution you are supporting is a product of government (nor does it apply to the rest of the world).
A truly free society is one where groups and individuals can say and think what they like, but we don't live in that kind of society because humans are capable of terrible things as individuals or groups. Advocate absolute free speech, but when the local community tries you as a witch or communist, don't say I didn't warn you. But you would never be in such a position, those times are over surely you tell yourself, but there is always a movement ready to rise and cause trouble.
That may be how it works in your country, peter. But here none of your logic applies.
Simply put, there is a difference between "behavior" and "opinion."
If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.
.
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.
Oh, good. So that means you never neg rep...right?
