US says it will not join Christchurch Call against online terror

[sangha]

So you absolutely support the right of people to chant "Kill The Cops" and/or "Whitey Must Die" (1st Amendment Right) as well as their right to wave fully automatic weapons around (2nd Amendment Right) when demonstrating do you?

What's your position on the practice of "Baal Worship" - including all of the traditional rites associated with it (1st Amendment Right)?

As long as they're not kneeling during the Pledge of Allegiance while they chant, it's all good

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Generally speaking, but brandishing? Probably not.

So your position is that "Carry but don't touch" is as far as "keep and bear arms" extends, is it?

Worship is fine; sacrifice may not be.

Since the sacrifices are an integral part of the "practice", then they are completely protected by the 1st Amendment and, accordingly you MUST vociferously oppose any efforts to impose an unconstitutional ban on child sacrifices by the worshippers of Baal.

I mean even the slightest infringement on anyone's constitutional right to do anything (no matter how repugnant someone else might find it personally) has to be totally stopped immediately or else the whole Constitution of the United States of America is **D*O*O*M*E*D** - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Appalling restrictions on speech.

But the Strayan PM is HOT.

:yes:

This

​

is what you consider "HOT"?

PS - Just as a tiny piece of cultural information, it's "Strine" and not "Strayan".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

From the link you gave, one of the commitments made.

I picked this one out because it appears to be the main contention given by some americans (trump and his ilk).

Beside the irony of trump declining to prohibit the production or dissemination of information under the guise of free speech. There is the curious point of they they think terrorism and extremist content is free speech.

That is one of the problems that arise from unthinking literal interpretations of anything from the Constitution of the United States of America to "The Talmud/Bible/Qu'ran".

The other point would be the use of wording to give meaning.

There are three separate and distinct statements being made here.

First the constitutions wording of the freedom of speech. Which i would argue is another reason to point out how outdated and in desperate need of revisal the american constitution is.

You might want to note that the constitutions which the government of the United States of America has drafted for other countries have all included wording equivalent to "as provided by law" in conjunction with "freedom of speech".

The second is the wording of this christchurch document, freedom of expression. I would argue a far better wording giving a more consistent meaning that cannot be used as the next meaning has been abused by some on this thread and americans in general.

The difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" is that those people who have only "freedom of expression" cannot say anything they are allowed to make faces while those people who have only "freedom of speech" can say anything but they must keep their faces expressionless.

Right?

The third used here on this thread, defending free speech. Given the context by trump and his ilk again, it means you can say anything you want and never have to face the consequences of what you say.

That is exactly what they say. Their position is that "Freedom of speech is absolutely and anyone is allowed to say anything at all (provided that I don't disagree with it)."

 

[3leftsdoo]

So your position is that "Carry but don't touch" is as far as "keep and bear arms" extends, is it?

Since the sacrifices are an integral part of the "practice", then they are completely protected by the 1st Amendment and, accordingly you MUST vociferously oppose any efforts to impose an unconstitutional ban on child sacrifices by the worshippers of Baal.

I mean even the slightest infringement on anyone's constitutional right to do anything (no matter how repugnant someone else might find it personally) has to be totally stopped immediately or else the whole Constitution of the United States of America is **D*O*O*M*E*D** - right?

No, it's carry legal weapons legally; don't brandish.

Silly.

Also silly.

 

[3leftsdoo]

This

View attachment 67256812​

is what you consider "HOT"?

PS - Just as a tiny piece of cultural information, it's "Strine" and not "Strayan".

No, it's Strayan.

And I may need glasses...

 

[j-mac]

From the BBC

US says it will not join Christchurch Call against online terror
​

The US has declined to join an international initiative aimed at tackling the spread of terror online.

The White House said on Wednesday it supported the Christchurch Call's aims but was "not in a position to join", citing the need for freedom of speech.

The comments came as five of the world's biggest tech companies pledged to tackle extremist material.

The Christchurch Call was launched in response to a deadly terror attack that was live streamed on Facebook.

The March attack launched by a lone gunman on two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch left 51 people dead.

COMMENT:-

Mt. Trump and "Team Trump" are to be congratulated for their staunch defence of the terrorists' First Amendment Rights.

Right?
​

Yes, because you knee jerk reactionaries are so adept at thinking about unintended consequences.....right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[j-mac]

When Trump publicly defends Neo Nazis and the KKK, he obviously believes they are an important part of his base. Particularly when he repeatedly refuses to denounce them, until finally the pressure grows, and he is forced to. But by that time, they know Trump has defended them as much as he could. And don't they love them some Trump.

Hail Trump: White nationalists mark Trump win with Nazi salute - BBC

One group loved Trump's remarks about Charlottesville: White Supremacists

Neo-Nazis Praise Trump's Response to Charlottesville: 'He Said He Loves Us All!'


They love Trump. Trump loves them. So I don't think this should surprise anyone.

Just because both liberals, and Nazis take his remarks out of context doesn't mean what you dishonestly ascribe to him.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[Gondwanaland]

The main issue I see with this call is indeed the restrictions on speech. But also, who gets to decide what is "terrorist and violent extremist content,"?

Because as of late from the left the refrain I've seen is that words that might offend someone are "violence". And also have seen themlabel anyone that disagrees with then as "far right extremists" (even putting that label on people like Shapiro, Peterson, etc., who are hated by the actual far right and even getdeath threats)

 

[Athanasius68]

Congratulations on winning this thread's Whataboutism award in the very first post after the OP! :bravo:

It's on more or less on point. The note to which it responded said Trump supported terrorist free speech rights. Sen Sanders supports felons voting. To be more on point, the comment would be that Sen Sanders supports the right of the Boston bomber to campaign to change the penalties faced for the bombing.

 

[d0gbreath]

It's interesting that "free speech" was mentioned in lieu of separation of Church and State.

 

[Obscurity]

Bernie Sanders wants the Boston bomber to vote!

It's a constitutional right. Only republicans are out there trying to stop people from voting. Look at Texas. Now they want to stop allowing ride sharing to voting stations.

I believe he has every right to vote, and so does everyone else in prison.

Typical with you that you're ok with removing rights from people. Sad.

 

[Obscurity]

It's on more or less on point. The note to which it responded said Trump supported terrorist free speech rights. Sen Sanders supports felons voting. To be more on point, the comment would be that Sen Sanders supports the right of the Boston bomber to campaign to change the penalties faced for the bombing.

He already can campaign yo change the penalties faced for bombing. Why is it he has the right to freedom of speech while incarcerated but not the freedom to vote? Why is it when it comes to forfeiting his right to life it requires appeal after appeal after appeal but his right to vote is taken away without so much as a whimper?

Rights exist and the states have stamped on them for too long. Like it or not felon citizens of this country are being unduly deprived of their rights to vote and republicans have waged a systemic war against the ability of people to vote country wide.

So before you lot go on and on about sanders stance you ought to look in the mirror and question why you rabidly defend the 2nd amendment but not the right to vote.

Pathetic.

 

[Crystal]

It's a constitutional right. Only republicans are out there trying to stop people from voting. Look at Texas. Now they want to stop allowing ride sharing to voting stations.

I believe he has every right to vote, and so does everyone else in prison.

Typical with you that you're ok with removing rights from people. Sad.

I personally don’t give a fig what you think. Not even a worm infested fig. You want ****ing terrorists to vote.

 

[Obscurity]

I personally don’t give a fig what you think. Not even a worm infested fig. You want ****ing terrorists to vote.

You're goddamn right I will stand up for everyone's right to vote. It's not my elected officials denying everyone the ability to vote that they can. It's the right doing that.

So please, ****ing spare your fake ass moral outrage, its bull**** and you know it. Typical of you though given your other authoritarian stances.

 

[Crystal]

You're goddamn right I will stand up for everyone's right to vote. It's not my elected officials denying everyone the ability to vote that they can. It's the right doing that.

So please, ****ing spare your fake ass moral outrage, its bull**** and you know it. Typical of you though given your other authoritarian stances.

Terrorist voting. There isn’t a new low that liberals can sink to.

 

[Obscurity]

Terrorist voting. There isn’t a new low that liberals can sink to.

Oh grow up. Rights exist to protect things that are uncomfortable. Speech you disagree with, religion you disagree with, and individuals voting you disagree with.

You lot are autocrats who want to remove all vestiges of individual liberty.

 

[Crystal]

Oh grow up. Rights exist to protect things that are uncomfortable. Speech you disagree with, religion you disagree with, and individuals voting you disagree with.

You lot are autocrats who want to remove all vestiges of individual liberty.

Terrorists!

 

[Obscurity]

Terrorists!

We know, you think repeating yourself will get you anywhere. It won't. You are for selective rights. Not for liberty.

 

[Crystal]

We know, you think repeating yourself will get you anywhere. It won't. You are for selective rights. Not for liberty.

I know, I apologize for challenging your superiority. Please forgive me.

 

[Athanasius68]

He already can campaign yo change the penalties faced for bombing. Why is it he has the right to freedom of speech while incarcerated but not the freedom to vote? Why is it when it comes to forfeiting his right to life it requires appeal after appeal after appeal but his right to vote is taken away without so much as a whimper?

Rights exist and the states have stamped on them for too long. Like it or not felon citizens of this country are being unduly deprived of their rights to vote and republicans have waged a systemic war against the ability of people to vote country wide.

So before you lot go on and on about sanders stance you ought to look in the mirror and question why you rabidly defend the 2nd amendment but not the right to vote.

Pathetic.

Those who choose not to participate in society in a civilized way should nt be in the positron to control those who do.

 

[Obscurity]

I know, I apologize for challenging your superiority. Please forgive me.

You're the one who wants to restrict rights sometimes. Not me.

 

[Obscurity]

Those who choose not to participate in society in a civilized way should nt be in the positron to control those who do.

How is one guy voting controlling anything?

Maybe if you lot are concerned about criminal voting it says were locking too many people up for too many stupid things.

Tell me, why is the right concerted in effort to diminish those who can vote?

 

[Bullseye]

From the BBC

US says it will not join Christchurch Call against online terror
​

The US has declined to join an international initiative aimed at tackling the spread of terror online.

The White House said on Wednesday it supported the Christchurch Call's aims but was "not in a position to join", citing the need for freedom of speech.

The comments came as five of the world's biggest tech companies pledged to tackle extremist material.

The Christchurch Call was launched in response to a deadly terror attack that was live streamed on Facebook.

The March attack launched by a lone gunman on two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch left 51 people dead.

COMMENT:-

Mt. Trump and "Team Trump" are to be congratulated for their staunch defence of the terrorists' First Amendment Rights.

Right?
​

What does this Christchurch Initiative entail that's not already contained in our laws? What provisions doe it contain? What's it's definition of terror online?


But, it's "Trump:twisted:" right?

By the way, there's already another thread on this topic.

 

[Athanasius68]

How is one guy voting controlling anything?

Maybe if you lot are concerned about criminal voting it says were locking too many people up for too many stupid things.

Tell me, why is the right concerted in effort to diminish those who can vote?

The idea isn't just to allow the Boston terrorist to vote...