What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[progressive hunter]

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

 

[harmonica]

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

 

[progressive hunter]

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,

 

[harmonica]

hahha

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,

hahahahhaahhah
not unlimited--like the 2A

 

[progressive hunter]

hahha

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,

hahahahhaahhah
not unlimited--like the 2A

again,,,read it and get back to me,,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court`s Heller decision stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership will continue to be regulated. So yes, we can regulate the hell out of them legally.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

they once said slavery was legal,,,

Red herring fallacy.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the fuck up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What is the solution?"

It's quite simple really, but nobody wants to admit it: The USA needs to balkanize. Countries and borders exist for a reason - to keep people with specific beliefs and values isolated from others who have different beliefs and values. When you mix opposing ideologies under the farce ideal of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" you get conflict. The USA is at this point now with several factions competing for dominance. Every time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, this multicultural nonsense has been attempted in history it has failed miserably - and there is only one outcome: War.

So we either split up now, or we fight it out and split up after. Either way, it's coming.

Most conservatives truly hate America.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did I say I was rejecting regulating guns? No. It is the wholesale ban on guns that I am rejecting.

Guns are already regulated....you know as a gun owner that these rifles used are not different from any other rifle ..... they are not military weapons.....or weapons of war...

A shooter in Russia used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 people..the same as El Paso, and injure 40....more than El Paso......

So if you think they will stop at just regulating scary looking rifles, that is just silly....

We have background checks...mass shooters can pass background checks because they have clean records......they will pass any universal background check for a private sale.....but most buy their guns legally from stores...

There are no further regulations that will stop this...this is a mental health, and police intelligence issue....

We sure see the results of easy access to mass killing weapons.

93 people killed by mass shooters in 2018....

38,000 by car,

1,500 by knife

3,500 by pool

Yeah......you are a troll.....

You sure love death. If there is a way to kill people you want it readily available.

250,000 people/year die from medical malpractice. Where are your calls to ban doctors?

And most conservatives are truly this stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ban Assault type rifles, semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. For current owners, make it illegal to carry one off one's property or sell it.

Ban large capacity magazines.

Put a gag on Trump.

Give Republicans a back bone

Pass the Democrat bills that passed the House. These look at mental aspects.

Putting a gag on Trump is a good idea; the rest is not.

‘Banning’ assault weapons won’t work – it was tried once before and it was a failure.

We need to consider other solutions that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court`s Heller decision stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership will continue to be regulated. So yes, we can regulate the hell out of them legally.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

they once said slavery was legal,,,

Red herring fallacy.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

case law clayton to the rescue,,,

it means what it says,,,courts be damned.,,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

 

[progressive hunter]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I'm guessing a fucking nazi,,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] 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.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

 

[lennypartiv]

Therefore we should do nothing about mass killings.
Great thinking.

More guns make us safer.

 

[progressive hunter]

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] 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.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

what is mentally ill and who decides???

and if a felon has paid his debt to society then why isnt he allowed back in???

 

[WinterBorn]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I'm guessing a fucking nazi,,,

No one said God doesn't belong in school.

They simply said the school can't lead the prayers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] 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.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

what is mentally ill and who decides???

and if a felon has paid his debt to society then why isnt he allowed back in???

Dig up Scalia and ask him.

 

[progressive hunter]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I'm guessing a fucking nazi,,,

No one said God doesn't belong in school.

They simply said the school can't lead the prayers.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

 

[progressive hunter]

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

what is mentally ill and who decides???

and if a felon has paid his debt to society then why isnt he allowed back in???

Dig up Scalia and ask him.

why dig him up,,,
we can just ask darth vader ginsberg,,,shes still alive,,

thats the problem with the courts making law,,you get opinions,,and the best 5 out of 9 win,,,and its not the job of SCOTUS to decide what the constitution says but to say whether a law is constitutional,,big difference,,,

the constitution is clearly written for any moron to understand it,,