Free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews?

[Mycroft]

If the opinion is contrary to the rights of others to equality and tolerance, yes.

Wrong.

There is no law that says your opinion or my opinion has to comply with your notion of "equality and tolerance". At least, not yet. We are all still free to have our own opinion...and to express it.

 

[MaryP]

Wrong.

There is no law that says your opinion or my opinion has to comply with your notion of "equality and tolerance". At least, not yet. We are all still free to have our own opinion...and to express it.

You asked if I was advocating for it, and I told you. I am so sick of haters using the Constitution as a shield. It does not give people license to target a group of people with speech that can cause others to harm them. It's wrong and anyone who was raised in a barn and doesn't know it, deserves to be taught some manners by the law.

The first amendment was to ensure we could speak out about our government. That's it.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Can you think of any more?

Catholic pedo priests hundreds of them

 

[reflechissez]

Yes. The whole point of free speech is to air ideas - especially ones that most people find obectionable. Nothing should be off limits in a free society.

No, the whole point of free speech is to prevent the government from taking action against you. That's all.

 

[highroller]

OK, but punishing a restaurant, bar or shop owner for ‘allowing’ a patron’s hate speech is ridiculous.

The Alabama bus boycotts were wrong?

 

[Gaius46]

No, the whole point of free speech is to prevent the government from taking action against you. That's all.

You confuse “free speech” as a concept with the 1st Amendment. They aren’t the same thing.

 

[reflechissez]

You confuse “free speech” as a concept with the 1st Amendment. They aren’t the same thing.

You can argue about "a concept" all you want. You are not required/obligated to listen to everyone's speech.

 

[Mycroft]

You asked if I was advocating for it, and I told you. I am so sick of haters using the Constitution as a shield. It does not give people license to target a group of people with speech that can cause others to harm them. It's wrong and anyone who was raised in a barn and doesn't know it, deserves to be taught some manners by the law.

Well, it looks like you have your work cut out for you...trying to get that law passed.

The first amendment was to ensure we could speak out about our government. That's it.

I don't think the 1st Amendment mentions speaking out about our government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

 

[Mycroft]

You confuse “free speech” as a concept with the 1st Amendment. They aren’t the same thing.

The 1st Amendment specifically mention "freedom of speech". Sounds like it's a concept in the 1st Amendment.

The mistake that other member makes is thinking the 1st Amendment only applies to speech about the government.

 

[Josie]

Catholic pedo priests hundreds of them

Anyone involved with Epstein should be able to be legally killed.
Any priest accused of pedophilia should be able to be legally killed.

Anyone else?

 

[Spunkylama]

I wouldn't continue the above. ^^^^^^It could be said you were advocating for the killing of x people on a social media platform.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Its funny because they have no idea what that red pill was!

I like Keanu and Larry but I've never seen that movie (or any of the sequels) and I doubt I ever will.

 

[lurchadams]

It isn't the free speech that will be the problem for Twitter.. It's the consequences of the free speech.. The families of the victims of the Nazis, Terrorists, etc will go after Twitter..

My concern is that such an influential media platform is in the hands of an eccentric billionaire. This is what should be keeping people awake at night. Information is power - just ask Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdock, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. It's what they're going to do with it I'm afraid of.

 

[MaryP]

Well, it looks like you have your work cut out for you...trying to get that law passed.


I don't think the 1st Amendment mentions speaking out about our government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

It just seems from their arguments that is what the Founders were thinking of. I could be wrong, and I have no hope that we will stop getting away with murder under the abused concept of "rights" under the Constitution.

 

[aociswundumho]

I would say that there is middle ground. The whack job on the street corner can spout as much hate against whatever ethnic, religious, sexual grouping they want. But they are barred from action AND they cannot follow members of those groups around screaming at them. That is harassment which is against the law.

This is an excellent way to explain the difference between actions and mere words.

Yes. Someone saying the most vile things against Jews in words and writing is free speech. What that person cannot do is incite violence or criminal activity against Jews or follow Jews around harassing them and haranguing them in their daily lives or directing others to do so.

Urging people to do something bad falls under free speech using your own definition. There is no action, only words. The person urging others to do something has no power over them, they are moral agents, not robots.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No, the whole point of free speech is to prevent the government from taking action against you. That's all.

Exactly.
Outside of that, there IS NO "free speech"....you will pay for EVERY SINGLE WORD, and freedom of speech does not and never has implied freedom from consequences. It's just that Uncle Sam isn't allowed to dole them out and neither, if I remember correctly, are the states.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

My concern is that such an influential media platform is in the hands of an eccentric billionaire. This is what should be keeping people awake at night. Information is power - just ask Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdock, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. It's what they're going to do with it I'm afraid of.

For me, afraid isn't the word I'd use.

Anger is closer.

 

[Gaius46]

You can argue about "a concept" all you want. You are not required/obligated to listen to everyone's speech.

Free speech has NOTHING to do with requiring you to listen. Free speech means someone can say what they want - whether you listen is up to you, though not listening, even to objectionable speech, is probably to your detriment.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Anyone involved with Epstein should be able to be legally killed.
Any priest accused of pedophilia should be able to be legally killed.

Anyone else?

Did I say killed? Castrated would be fine in those cases, nuts and bolts

 

[lurchadams]

Trump is not responsible for inciting January 6. He didn't call for anybody to do anything but come to DC to protest, as everyone has a right to do.

You're not calling Trump a cult leader, but then you compare him to a cult leader than "calls on his followers to go and kill minorities and they do it." Well, Trump did not do anything like that. He called on his supporters to rally in Washington. That's freedom of speech and association. Not only did he not "personally kill anyone", he did not tell anyone to kill anyone, or harm anyone, or harass anyone, or trespass, or anything else like that. He called on people to rally.

At what point does free speech become criminal? Free speech includes the advocacy of the use of force and advocacy of engaging in criminal activity, except that advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

Trump did not advocate the use of force. He also did not advocate that anyone engage in criminal activity. So, we don't even get to the exceptions - I.e. we don't even need to ask whether his advocacy of the use of force was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" because he didn't advocate the use of force at all. This exception was created because groups like communists and other Leftists will often advocate the benefits or necessity of force in general - that a revolution is needed, or that we should violently overthrow the government - people are allowed to talk about that stuff - except, you can't talk about that stuff if the talk is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." AND -- repeat AND what the person says has to be LIKELY to incide or produce such action.

So, to analyze this issue, if you claim what Trump said was not protected speech, you need to identify a statement made by Donald Trump which (A) constitutes advocacy of the use of force, and (B) his advocacy of the use of force was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (C) his advocacy of the use of force was in fact likely to produce such lawless action.

Have at it - identify one comment or statement by Donald Trump which fits that description.

He DID incite it - not only that, trump had the power to stop it but refused to for several house putting thousands of people in danger. trump's both a traitor and a sociopath.

You're not making sense, my friend.

 

[bomberfox]

I like Keanu and Larry but I've never seen that movie (or any of the sequels) and I doubt I ever will.

The entire matrix trilogy was a metaphor for transitioning XD. Thats a clue for what the red pill is.

 

[lurchadams]

For me, afraid isn't the word I'd use.

Anger is closer.

I got both goin' here, my friend. I'm a mutli-tasker!!!

 

[Josie]

Did I say killed? Castrated would be fine in those cases, nuts and bolts

Ah, I see. I thought your violent vigilantism meant any kind of violence.

So you think it should be legal for any Joe Schmo to castrate any priest accused of pedophilia and anyone involved with minors at Epstein Island. Is that accurate?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Ah, I see. I thought your violent vigilantism meant any kind of violence.

So you think it should be legal for any Joe Schmo to castrate any priest accused of pedophilia and anyone involved with minors at Epstein Island. Is that accurate?

if the government was not going to seek justice sure

 

[lurchadams]

You're unresponsive.

Your post, above about, "libs snivling" is nothing but a MAGA fever dream. It's amazing how Republicans never miss the opportunity to troll these days. They're like the violinists on the Titanic - well - at least the violinists didn't root for a coup.