• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Governor Calls for Limits on the First Amendment in Response to Psychotic Killer

JasperL said:
Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech.
Click to expand...
Promotion of violent or criminal acts do not fall under the first amendment.
 
JasperL said:
Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think radical Islamists do have the same freedom you have to be on social media. Terrorists - if the person is really a terrorist - are probably arrested. However, it's not terrorism to be radical and/or islamist. I'd love to see communism silenced, too, but I realize that even doing that is wrong, despite how loathesome communists are.
 
uptower said:
Quite possibly across a frozen landbridge from the Asian continent tens of thousands of years ago, or in some instances, something potentially similar from Europe. As for owning land, they were the only people there, who recognized at least tribal territorial integrity and access to hunting and farming resources, even if they didn't have the western concept of personal land title deeds.

Why?

The point of the meme is that someone lived on the land first and was displaced. It's a bit rich for those who displaced them to complain now they think they are being displaced as the 'rightful owners.'
Click to expand...
Indians never believed in owning land, you forget that part?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
One can already see where this is going. They'll take a psycho's "manifesto" of a seriously mentally ill person who shot people in a tragic and horrid incident, and they'll overlay that on anything "conservative" or "right wing" (which nowadays is anything right of Mao, and that will be called "hate speech" which must be censored from the internet, lest someone act violently.
Click to expand...

Who needs “they” when Democrats have a fifth columnist in Liz Cheney:

"The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and anti-semitism. History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse. @GOP leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them," Cheney said in a tweet.

Although she didn't identify the House Republican leaders by name, Cheney has called out and criticized GOP colleagues like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York for pushing divisive rhetoric stoked by former President Donald Trump. Stefanik replaced Cheney to lead the GOP conference after Cheney was ousted from that leadership role last year.
Click to expand...

Little Miss Sour Grapes needs to go. Wake up, Wyoming! Dump this dolt!
 
uptower said:
Quite possibly across a frozen landbridge from the Asian continent tens of thousands of years ago, or in some instances, something potentially similar from Europe. As for owning land, they were the only people there, who recognized at least tribal territorial integrity and access to hunting and farming resources, even if they didn't have the western concept of personal land title deeds.

Why?

The point of the meme is that someone lived on the land first and was displaced. It's a bit rich for those who displaced them to complain now they think they are being displaced as the 'rightful owners.'
Click to expand...
That isn't what Carlson is saying. What he's saying is Democrats are in favor of admitting as many new folks as they can so that they can change the electorate in their favor and that's why the Democrats love open borders - because they view themselves as benefitting from that. That's the displacement. He has never said that it's about race or replacement of "rightful" whites with non-rightful non-whites. He has clearly referred to the voting base.
 
uptower said:
even if they didn't have the western concept of personal land title deeds.
Click to expand...
*Europeans explaining to Native Americans that the lands is rightfully theirs because the Native Americans forgot to create the social construct of land ownership*
1652735048249.png
 
Nomad4Ever said:
You can criticize his solution, but I think we have to recognize there is an issue. This shooter and many others have explicitly said they were radicalized to act by seeing the actions of other shooters on social media. He wanted to radicalize more people and that's why he streamed it on Twitch. He lays out all this in his manifesto. His radicalization through far right memes and prior mass shooters, how he tried to emulated them, and how he acted how he did to try to inspire more people in the same way he was.
Click to expand...
Keep the first, amend the second!
 
Bear5131 said:
How cute a dishonest meme, remind us how the Indians came to the America's or ever owned land
Click to expand...
So land doesn't exist until there is a deed? You miss the entire foundation of the first peoples relationship with the land. And you forget the countries agreements with them as well.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Where the government twists private entities' arms to limit free speech then it's a problem. I agree with your point that as of now, nothing has been done to violate the 1A. But it's always a concern when a Governor tries to tell us what we should and shouldn't be permitted to say in public.

Sure, DP could ban me for talking about the great replacement theory, but it would be disappointing if it did. We should be able to have a thread here talking about what the various theories are, who espouses them, what they're based on, etc. We are not obligated to, and ought not be obligated to, take orders from the governor about what we should be able to talk about. And, she may call it hate speech, but that's her own view of it. She's entitled to it. But hate speech is protected speech.
Click to expand...
Yes, "hate speech" is protected. But you can go to the banned forum in the basement and see all those banned forever for hate speech. Is that wrong? I don't see it as wrong - that is poison and there is no private entity obligated to provide a platform for that. No shareholder needs to support that. Would you allow someone in your kitchen spewing that garbage? It's "protected" speech, but I'd kick them out in a heartbeat.

The real problem is there will always exist the sewers where guys like that can find a friendly place to read and spew that nonsense. Much of what he said is broadcast on the most popular cable news channel in the country. So Twitter limiting it won't do a thing, but it's still the right thing to do IMO.
 
mrjurrs said:
So land doesn't exist until there is a deed? You miss the entire foundation of the first peoples relationship with the land. And you forget the countries agreements with them as well.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss it that's why I posted it, Indians at the time though it was preposterous for anyone to own land
 
MrNiceGuy said:
That isn't what Carlson is saying. What he's saying is Democrats are in favor of admitting as many new folks as they can so that they can change the electorate in their favor and that's why the Democrats love open borders - because they view themselves as benefitting from that. That's the displacement. He has never said that it's about race or replacement of "rightful" whites with non-rightful non-whites. He has clearly referred to the voting base.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, we can read and we can see the clips on youtube. It's clear as day he's promoting the great replacement theory.

He may be doing it in a mildly roundabout way (Barely, and still lying as he goes because even if your interpretation is 'correct' his message is still patently untrue) but he's pushing the same idea. It's plain as day and impossible to hide behind a couple of minor semantic 'differences'.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
That isn't what Carlson is saying. What he's saying is Democrats are in favor of admitting as many new folks as they can so that they can change the electorate in their favor and that's why the Democrats love open borders - because they view themselves as benefitting from that. That's the displacement. He has never said that it's about race or replacement of "rightful" whites with non-rightful non-whites. He has clearly referred to the voting base.
Click to expand...
You're funny.
 
vegas giants said:
Promotion of violent or criminal acts do not fall under the first amendment.
Click to expand...
Oh, they sure do. How do you think pot became legalized in so many places? When using and selling pot was criminal, people were busy advocating for engaging in that criminal act.

The SCOTUS test is very strict - in order to be prohibited by the State, speech must (a) actually call for incitement to immediate lawless action, and (b) be reasonably likely to actually succeed in inciting such immediate lawless action.

Communists are allowed to promote the concept of revolution to overthrow the government, as long as they aren't trying to incite immediate lawless action and reasonably likely to succeed in doing so. The difference is like - it's free speech to say that the only way to save this country is to overthrow the government in communist revolution -- but it's not free speech to say - "come on comrades! We are heading down to city hall to crack some skulls right now! Let's go!" - that kind of thing.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, "hate speech" is protected. But you can go to the banned forum in the basement and see all those banned forever for hate speech. Is that wrong? I don't see it as wrong - that is poison and there is no private entity obligated to provide a platform for that. No shareholder needs to support that. Would you allow someone in your kitchen spewing that garbage? It's "protected" speech, but I'd kick them out in a heartbeat.

The real problem is there will always exist the sewers where guys like that can find a friendly place to read and spew that nonsense. Much of what he said is broadcast on the most popular cable news channel in the country. So Twitter limiting it won't do a thing, but it's still the right thing to do IMO.
Click to expand...
All anyone has to do is watch a liberal movie, t.v. show, read a book, listen to a liberal song, play a video game and get those ideas
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Oh, they sure do. How do you think pot became legalized in so many places? When using and selling pot was criminal, people were busy advocating for engaging in that criminal act.

The SCOTUS test is very strict - in order to be prohibited by the State, speech must (a) actually call for incitement to immediate lawless action, and (b) be reasonably likely to actually succeed in inciting such immediate lawless action.

Communists are allowed to promote the concept of revolution to overthrow the government, as long as they aren't trying to incite immediate lawless action and reasonably likely to succeed in doing so. The difference is like - it's free speech to say that the only way to save this country is to overthrow the government in communist revolution -- but it's not free speech to say - "come on comrades! We are heading down to city hall to crack some skulls right now! Let's go!" - that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
Ok. I accept that limit as reasonable
 
Bear5131 said:
I didn't miss it that's why I posted it, Indians at the time though it was preposterous for anyone to own land
Click to expand...
Then what is your point? They didn't own it, but they were here. The settler's didn't own it, and most of America is now in their possession because of criminal activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom