Which would you prefer?

[NYcarbineer]

How many here don't believe that the GOVERNMENT should have the power in any capacity to act against speech that is harmful?

harmful how?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And, bingo.

That's how they do it.

They'll expand the term to cover any speech they don't like.
.

TN''s entire schtick is baseless. There's been no changes to free speech legal analysis since the Sup Ct found burning a flag was protected speech.

Harley wants the government to have NO authority to regulate speech. He wants bomb threats to be legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

harmful how?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

 

[miketx]

Simple poll!

You should not be allowed to post this kind of stuff unless you have approval!

 

[Mac1958]

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

 

[miketx]

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

Nice little fascist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

Nice little fascist.

What's fascist about not wanting people to have the right to call in bomb threats?

 

[Mac1958]

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

It's right there. On your screen. I swear.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

 

[my2¢]

I'm leaning towards, "People can only say what the govt or other institution has predetermined is OK"

Acts of civil disobedience will take care of that choice. I don't know of any cure for the other.

Pulling a Bill Clinton here, define "prefer", in what context? I'd be entertained by bleeding heart liberals laughing at their ideas. Racists meanwhile would make me sick.

 

[Mac1958]

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

 

[miketx]

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

Nice little fascist.

What's fascist about not wanting people to have the right to call in bomb threats?

Classic deflection! People can call in a fake bomb threat with or without rights fascist.

 

[miketx]

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

You are a liar. Having freedom has nothing to do with committing crimes fascist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

You are a liar. Having freedom has nothing to do with committing crimes fascist.

That wasn't in the OP. The OP says racists should be able to say 'anything'. Bomb threats fall into the category of 'anything'.

 

[miketx]

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

Nice little fascist.

What's fascist about not wanting people to have the right to call in bomb threats?

Classic deflection! People can call in a fake bomb threat with or without rights fascist.

Where the OP make exceptions to 'anything'?

 

[TNHarley]

harmful how?
Seems to me that if speech is ACTUALLY harmful, it isnt "free"

That's a circular argument. Your #1 choice was 'any' speech, not speech that isn't harmful.

What do you mean by harmful?

And I wonder if the Regressives would consider "trying to convince as many Americans as possible that their President is an insane, out of control, white supremacist" might be considered "harmful"?


.

We have a CONSTITUTION and a GOVERNMENT to determine what is harmful. Harley doesn't want the government to have any such authority. Nor do you apparently.

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

I believe harmful is pretty self explanatory. Not to NY though. As he still hasnt answered my question.

 

[miketx]

TN, NYC here says that you and don't want the government to have any authority whatsoever on speech.

Obviously, he's lying about my position, but he does that all the time.

How about you?
.

Then you agree that choice #1 is thoroughly UNACCEPTABLE?

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

You are a liar. Having freedom has nothing to do with committing crimes fascist.

That wasn't in the OP. The OP says racists should be able to say 'anything'. Bomb threats fall into the category of 'anything'.

The OP says no such thing liar.

 

[Mac1958]

No, I voted for choice #1.

If a person is a racist, as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law, then let them speak.

My goodness, get me out of your head. This is flattering 'n stuff, but it's a little creepy.
.

So why call me a liar? Voting for post #1 is voting for the right to call in bomb threats.

And you just lied again. In all honesty, I don't think you even realize it.

You didn't even SEE the "as long as they are not threatening anyone or breaking some law..." part of the post YOU QUOTED.

This is why I think there is something wrong with people like you.
.

That is not in OP's choices. Can't YOU read?

That's correct. You brought that up to deflect from the thread.

Are you okay?
.

Do you have a different definition of the word 'anything' that I don't know about?

Probably not.

When I saw the question, I assumed that he was talking about normal conversation, not illegal activity. I still think that. The church thing didn't enter my mind because I understood his point.

And it's clear to me that you went with this church thing to deflect from the point and put him on the defensive. As a Regressive, an illiberal leftist authoritarian, you don't want to admit that you'd like much more central control over speech.

I don't need you to confirm that, because I know you will not. That's okay.
.