PDA

View Full Version : Free speech



WX
08-15-2017, 04:48 PM
https://s19.postimg.org/dbpy0w59v/IMG_0077.png

McMike
08-15-2017, 05:14 PM
Hate speech is not free speech, it infringes upon decent people's right to all three inalienable rights; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are the foundation of this nation, period. They cannot replace us!

John Smith
08-15-2017, 05:52 PM
There is no exception in the constitution for 'hate' speech.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/08/14/there-hate-speech-exception-first-amendment/q9m4IqfQvbo24nnlnPor1O/story.html

The problem with trying to deny speech to the KKK et al is doing so will help them recruit new members. They can make an honest case that they are being denied their constitutional right.

Why do anything that's apt to make your enemy stronger. Seems to be broad consensus that Trump making statements about Muslims, his Muslim ban, etc. are good recruiting tools for ISIS

Why go down that road here? Let them speak. Let them march and hold rallies. Take their photos.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are not in the DNA, they are taught. Let us see if we can prevent them from being taught to future generations.

efforts to stifle will only make them more angry, more hateful, and greater in number.

Osborne Russell
08-15-2017, 06:23 PM
Excellent point and well put, WX.

A major war was fought against what that symbol represents. The people that display it nowadays aren't saying anything different. Concentration camps, torture, imperialism, etc. Displaying it is a crime, period, in some countries.

No other symbol like it, that I can think of. All by itself, tantamount to incitement.

But there can be no blanket prohibition in this country. What it boils down to is, some group applies for a parade permit and the local authorities are very reluctant to grant it, based on the particular symbol. The paraders will say their symbol is being treated differently, and they're right.

WX
08-15-2017, 08:30 PM
A good starting point would be, you want to march then you do it unarmed.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-15-2017, 09:26 PM
There is no exception in the constitution for 'hate' speech.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/08/14/there-hate-speech-exception-first-amendment/q9m4IqfQvbo24nnlnPor1O/story.html

The problem with trying to deny speech to the KKK et al is doing so will help them recruit new members. They can make an honest case that they are being denied their constitutional right.

Why do anything that's apt to make your enemy stronger. Seems to be broad consensus that Trump making statements about Muslims, his Muslim ban, etc. are good recruiting tools for ISIS

Why go down that road here? Let them speak. Let them march and hold rallies. Take their photos.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are not in the DNA, they are taught. Let us see if we can prevent them from being taught to future generations.

efforts to stifle will only make them more angry, more hateful, and greater in number.

This was the point of the ACLU's law suit that allowed the march on Saturday! The city officials had tried to move the rally. I understand the ACLU's argument but it doesn't hold water when you look at the end result!

Don't give me the freedom isn't free crap until you can look into the faces of the victims families and say it to them!

jack grebe
08-15-2017, 09:36 PM
Why do anything that's apt to make your enemy stronger. .

Very good question. I have been saying the same since the Primaries........

STFU...... Every time the Left Attacks, Dipsh!t jumps in the poles........

jack grebe
08-15-2017, 09:38 PM
A good starting point would be, you want to march then you do it unarmed.

Again, one must forgo one constitutional right for another.......

oznabrag
08-15-2017, 10:53 PM
Very good question. I have been saying the same since the Primaries........

STFU...... Every time the Left Attacks, Dipsh!t jumps in the poles........

Dipspit's polls are dropping through the floor.

WX
08-16-2017, 01:25 AM
Again, one must forgo one constitutional right for another.......

So you believe people should be allowed to demonstrate while carrying clubs, shields and firearms?

Peerie Maa
08-16-2017, 03:50 AM
So you believe people should be allowed to demonstrate while carrying clubs, shields and firearms?

Just so, the screwed up laws in the US say you can keep them, it does not say that the law authorities being responsible for keeping the peace cannot limit where they are carried.

sharpiefan
08-16-2017, 07:21 AM
Amendment I

"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."

If you're carrying weapons, I'm inclined to doubt your protestations that yours is a peaceable protest.

sharpiefan
08-16-2017, 07:52 AM
Anyone remember the scene in "The Ten Commandments" when the people turn their backs to the chained Moses, calling him "traitor to Pharaoh"? They did something similar in "Star Trek" (LINK) (https://youtube.com/watch?v=nYJmFOxNew0).

ETA: Found a more contemporary example-- Police Turn Backs On NYC Mayor (https://youtube.com/watch?v=jUVVj-Lz5uo)

Any chance of finding enough non-violent anti-protestors to give the cold shoulder to the nazis & their ilk? ...or is my confidence in people misplaced?

I imagine a parade route lined with people's backs would make quite a loud statement.

John Smith
08-16-2017, 09:36 AM
This was the point of the ACLU's law suit that allowed the march on Saturday! The city officials had tried to move the rally. I understand the ACLU's argument but it doesn't hold water when you look at the end result!

Don't give me the freedom isn't free crap until you can look into the faces of the victims families and say it to them!

I think it is a dangerous thing when we start determining who has the right to march/rally and who does not. I'd go along with no guns allowed.


My point is a bigger one. Trump could NOT have gone to "both sides" if there was not footage of people fighting with each other. I'm all for taking pictures of those marching, but the KKK can stand up today and claim, correctly, that the opposition tried to deny them their right to free speech.

People can argue the "other side" had a right to protest the march, and I'll not deny that. My thought is that there are smarter ways to respond.

I also don't believe a symbol, regardless of what it stands for, is worth losing a human life over.


I believe the marchers WANTED a confrontation, and giving it to them was simply not well thought out.

John Smith
08-16-2017, 09:37 AM
Dipspit's polls are dropping through the floor.

No they are not. This IS HIS BASE. This is the 34% or so that is solidly behind him, and they will stay there. That's enough to control primary elections.

John Smith
08-16-2017, 09:39 AM
Amendment I

"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."

If you're carrying weapons, I'm inclined to doubt your protestations that yours is a peaceable protest.

I tend to agree. What saddens me today is how so many people don't believe they had the right to assemble.

May be a poor analogy, but it's like playing a game of chess and immediately losing your queen via a dumb move, then complaining you lose the game.

John Smith
08-16-2017, 09:41 AM
Anyone remember the scene in "The Ten Commandments" when the people turn their backs to the chained Moses, calling him "traitor to Pharaoh"? They did something similar in "Star Trek" (LINK) (https://youtube.com/watch?v=nYJmFOxNew0). Any chance of finding enough non-violent anti-protestors to give the cold shoulder to the nazis & their ilk? ...or is my confidence in people misplaced?

I imagine a parade route lined with people's backs would make quite a loud statement.

Agreed. They wanted a confrontation, and the idiots, IMO, gave them exactly what they wanted. I'll repeat: without such confrontation, there would be NO footage of the two groups fighting each other, and Trump would have no path down the route of 'both sides".

oznabrag
08-16-2017, 09:51 AM
No they are not. This IS HIS BASE. This is the 34% or so that is solidly behind him, and they will stay there. That's enough to control primary elections.

If you are willing to be cowed by 1/3, then stay home.

Take that third and divide it by 4, and that will yield the number who will actually show up to take up arms against your duly-Constituted (and incredibly heavily-armed) Government.

Of that 1/12th, about half will soil themselves at the first sign of trouble.



These people are a rabble.

They have no discipline, and, demonstrably, no brains.

Their masters' first and foremost tactic is intimidation.

That means that their 'army' is composed primarily of cowards.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-16-2017, 09:52 AM
https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/gilbert.png

sharpiefan
08-16-2017, 10:18 AM
https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/gilbert.png


Ioannis Metaxas: "ΟΧΙ!" ["NO!"]

The rejection by Greek prime minister Ioannis Metaxas of the ultimatum made by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini on 28 October 1940; this ultimatum demanded Greece to allow Axis forces to enter Greek territory and occupy certain unspecified "strategic locations" or otherwise face war.

I'd like to see anti-protestors with NO! on their backs lining a parade route. No signs, no slogans, no shouting, no physical engagement. At the right time and place, silence speaks volumes.

Peerie Maa
08-16-2017, 10:21 AM
I tend to agree. What saddens me today is how so many people don't believe they had the right to assemble.

May be a poor analogy, but it's like playing a game of chess and immediately losing your queen via a dumb move, then complaining you lose the game.

They had the right to assemble, if they abided by the terms of the permit that they had to have.
I believe that the police should have told them leave the weapons in their cars, or don't join the protest I A W "peaceably assemble"

Keith Wilson
08-16-2017, 10:21 AM
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

jack grebe
08-16-2017, 10:31 AM
Skip, that conversation we had about trolling was not intended for you to stretch your legs........:rolleyes:

Osborne Russell
08-16-2017, 11:16 AM
Anyone remember the scene in "The Ten Commandments" when the people turn their backs to the chained Moses, calling him "traitor to Pharaoh"? They did something similar in "Star Trek" (LINK) (https://youtube.com/watch?v=nYJmFOxNew0).

ETA: Found a more contemporary example-- Police Turn Backs On NYC Mayor (https://youtube.com/watch?v=jUVVj-Lz5uo)

Any chance of finding enough non-violent anti-protestors to give the cold shoulder to the nazis & their ilk? ...or is my confidence in people misplaced?

I imagine a parade route lined with people's backs would make quite a loud statement.

Yeah. There's a possibility, of course. People criticize Trump for not taking a stand . . . OK then.

amish rob
08-16-2017, 11:27 AM
I think it is a dangerous thing when we start determining who has the right to march/rally and who does not. I'd go along with no guns allowed.


My point is a bigger one. Trump could NOT have gone to "both sides" if there was not footage of people fighting with each other. I'm all for taking pictures of those marching, but the KKK can stand up today and claim, correctly, that the opposition tried to deny them their right to free speech.

People can argue the "other side" had a right to protest the march, and I'll not deny that. My thought is that there are smarter ways to respond.

I also don't believe a symbol, regardless of what it stands for, is worth losing a human life over.


I believe the marchers WANTED a confrontation, and giving it to them was simply not well thought out.

No. The protesters did not infringe on the right to free speech, only the government can do that.
What the protesters did was educate the rally attendees as to the consequences of free speech. The protesters reminded the rally attendees that they are responsible for their own words and actions, and that saying some things will get you beat up.

Sorry, Dude, but if you want to dress up and play Nazi, you're gonna get beat down. Why? Because read a book. You know what the Nazis did?! And they did it largely because people let it happen.

No. No more Nazis. That chapter in human history is closed forever. Period.

Peace,
Robert

oznabrag
08-16-2017, 11:52 AM
No. The protesters did not infringe on the right to free speech, only the government can do that.
What the protesters did was educate the rally attendees as to the consequences of free speech. The protesters reminded the rally attendees that they are responsible for their own words and actions, and that saying some things will get you beat up.

Sorry, Dude, but if you want to dress up and play Nazi, you're gonna get beat down. Why? Because read a book. You know what the Nazis did?! And they did it largely because people let it happen.

No. No more Nazis. That chapter in human history is closed forever. Period.

Peace,
Robert

Exactly.

gypsie
08-18-2017, 12:14 AM
I think we over egg the free speech thing. In fact i would say Free Speech is impossible, it is an abstract fabrication - and a refuge for the scoundrel.
The government does not restrict speech, we do. It is a moral choice not a legal one. There is legislation against causing harm through speech - particularly to rich people - but not against speech itself.

We discuss free speech as if it is absolute - we call it a right!
There are many things we all agree we can't say (we can't go on TV and tell people to kill their neighbor). Then there are many things we can say (we can go on TV and tell people to help their neighbor).
Somewhere on that continuum there is a tipping point.

Is free speech an end in its own right?
How high on the spectrum of rights does it sit?
Does someone full of hate have the right to fill my life with insecurity and disrespect because their right to free speech trumps my right to safety and respect? If it is a right, then i do have to accept that my children can be assaulted by hatred on the street because the thugs rights are more important - but i do not accept that (and i don't think anyone does). Therefore i do not accept free speech is a right, it is completely conditional on what is being said, by whom and in what context.


Scenario 1;
I have the right to play the piano, i don't know how to play the piano. Can I exercise that right?
In my own home - yes.
In public - No i'd be a public nuisance and someone would stop me.
On a concert hall stage in front of a paying audience - No.
On a TV show about serious music - No.

Scenario 2
I have the right to play the piano, i am a virtuosic piano player. Can I exercise that right?
In my own home - yes
In public - yes, its great to hear beautiful music in the street.
on a concert hall stage - yes of course
on TV - yes of course

In Scenario 1 my freedom is restricted by my incapacity to use the resource. In free speech that might be; my incapacity to speak constructively and in an informed way about a subject - like say immigration. So; what I do at home is fine, otherwise please be quiet.
In Scenario 2 my freedom is enhanced by my capability. In free speech it could be that i am an informed person with a constructive opinion that people welcome - even if it is against what you believe, it is respectful and encourages thinking and free debate. We will allow it to be expressed.

Problem is of course that Nazi's think they are informed and skilled speakers - but the vast majority of us know they are not - so we should not defend their right to speak their crap freely.
this is almost impossible to legislate against - but we shouldn't accept unacceptable hate speech just because we try and categorize or rationalize it the way a legislative body must - we the people can simple feel something is wrong. we can't harm people because we think it is wrong, but the tool;s of the law will come to the party if it is clear someone has crossed an unacceptable line. We don't make it clear enough.

So as such the government does not restrict free speech, they legislate on infringements of the law that might involve speech - but we the people decide what speech is acceptable. It is a moral judgment, but we seem to have lost the strength of character to stand by what we think is morally acceptable - or morally unacceptable.

gypsie
08-18-2017, 12:31 AM
Agreed. They wanted a confrontation, and the idiots, IMO, gave them exactly what they wanted. I'll repeat: without such confrontation, there would be NO footage of the two groups fighting each other, and Trump would have no path down the route of 'both sides".

You're not suggesting Trump was wrong are you? Or is it that the anti-nazis made him look wrong? Or Trump can't help saying the wrong thing so everyone should tolerate nazi's in case he does?

To paraphrase your comment - Nobody should confront nazi's incase Trump looks bad - is that it?

oznabrag
08-18-2017, 01:41 AM
I think we over egg the free speech thing. In fact i would say Free Speech is impossible, it is an abstract fabrication - and a refuge for the scoundrel.
The government does not restrict speech, we do. . . .

And there, your argument falls apart.

The government does not restrict speech, because it is Constitutionally forbidden to do so.

To dismiss the fact that the US Government does not restrict speech is to dismiss the Constitution as a factor in the analysis.

oznabrag
08-18-2017, 01:45 AM
. . .
Scenario 1;
I have the right to play the piano, i don't know how to play the piano. Can I exercise that right?
In my own home - yes.
In public - No i'd be a public nuisance and someone would stop me.
On a concert hall stage in front of a paying audience - No.
On a TV show about serious music - No.

. . .

Iris DeMent.


:D

amish rob
08-18-2017, 01:51 AM
Iris DeMent.


:D
Good news, Oznabrag, there are only 37 cats tonight...

Peace,
Flinger of Felines (not really)

john welsford
08-18-2017, 03:58 AM
Hate speech is not free speech, it infringes upon decent people's right to all three inalienable rights; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are the foundation of this nation, period. They cannot replace us!

Any "freedom" should be used in a responsible manner.

John Welsford

Ian McColgin
08-18-2017, 05:43 AM
[IMc - Proving that WSJ can still do fine reporting, even as their editorial side slips further into madness, here's some lucid coverage of the ACLU's position.]

ACLU Will No Longer Defend Hate Groups Protesting With Firearms
Executive director says violence and guns at Charlottesville rally spurred new stance

By Joe Palazzolo
Updated Aug. 17, 2017 6:54 p.m. ET

The American Civil Liberties Union, taking a tougher stance on armed protests, will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms, the group’s executive director said.

Following clashes over the weekend in Charlottesville, Va., the civil-rights group also will screen clients more closely for the potential of violence at their rallies, said Anthony Romero, who has been the ACLU’s executive director since 2001.

The ACLU’s Virginia branch defended the right of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other groups under the banner “Unite the Right” to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a Charlottesville park.

“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” said Mr. Romero.

The revised policy marries the 97-year-old civil-rights group’s First Amendment work with the organization’s stance on firearms, which aligns with many municipalities and states that bar protesters from carrying weapons.

“If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” Mr. Romero said, adding that the decision was in keeping with a 2015 policy adopted by the ACLU’s national board in support of “reasonable” firearm regulation.

Mr. Romero said the ACLU would continue to deal with requests by white-supremacist groups and others for legal help on a case-by-case basis. “It’s neither a blanket no or a blanket yes,” he said.

Top officials at ACLU branches in California echoed Mr. Romero’s comments in a statement posted online Wednesday. “If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution,” they said.

The move is likely to temper the criticism from members who blame the ACLU in part for clashes between white supremacists protesting the removal of a Confederate statue and counterprotesters.

For decades, the ACLU has defended white supremacists and other hate groups against government efforts to curb their speech, driven by the belief that carve-outs to the First Amendment weaken its protections for everyone.

The organization persuaded Illinois courts in 1978 that the First Amendment protected the right of the neo-Nazis to march in full uniform with swastika armbands in a Chicago suburb that was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors.

Last week, the ACLU’s Virginia branch helped organizers of the “Unite the Right” protest secure a permit to assemble in a Charlottesville park where the Confederate statue has been since 1924.

City officials had sought to move the protest a mile away from the park, saying it was too small to accommodate the anticipated crowds. ACLU lawyers, representing organizer Jason Kessler, successfully argued in federal court that the city’s decision to revoke the permit for the protest at the park was based on Mr. Kessler’s “highly controversial” views rather than concerns for safety.

After an Ohio man who allegedly had expressed sympathy for Nazis barreled through a crowd, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others, the ACLU was criticized on social media and elsewhere.

“The @ACLU helped enable the events in Charlottesville this weekend,” read one tweet. A member of the ACLU of Virginia’s board resigned, saying in a tweet that he wouldn’t “be a fig leaf for Nazis.”

Some demonstrators openly carried firearms, which is allowed in Virginia, but no one was injured by them. Still, Mr. Romero explained that the displays of force can suppress speech through intimidation.

The federal courts are currently split on whether the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry outside the home. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, said federal judges may deem protest areas to be sensitive places, like schools, where the U.S. Supreme Court has said governments can impose firearm restrictions.

In recent decades, the ACLU has repeatedly defended the right of the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses, wear hoods and distribute fliers. In 2010, the civil-rights group filed a brief in support of a Kansas church’s right to picket military funerals.

But a new generation of ACLU members and donors, who surged to the group after the election of President Donald Trump, know the group primarily as a champion of causes typically aligned with the left, like pressing for greater immigrant and LGBT rights, and reducing criminal penalties.

Since the election, the ACLU’s membership has nearly quadrupled to 1.6 million and the group has received $83 million in online donations, said Stacy Sullivan, an ACLU spokeswoman.

In November, the ACLU solicited donations on its home page with a picture of the then president-elect and the words, “We’ll see you in court.”

Since Mr. Trump has taken office, the organization has fought the president in court over his administration’s bans on travel and refugees, sanctuary cities and other issues.

Judy Kutulas, a professor of history and American studies at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn., and the author of “The American Civil Liberties Union and the Making of Modern Liberalism,” said much of the backlash against the ACLU stems from a lack of understanding about the group’s historical mission.

“I think it’s just a misunderstanding of what the ACLU does,” she said.

Still, the ACLU’s choice of clients and positions have led to recurring fractures within the organization over the years, Ms. Kutulas said.

The ACLU’s defense of pro-fascist groups during World War II created a rift on the organization’s board, and the group’s support for relaxing campaign-finance restrictions in the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruffled staff.

About 30,000 members left the ACLU in the late 1970s, after the Illinois branch represented a neo-Nazi group that sought to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, home to thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, according to a history of the case by Philippa Strum, a fellow at the nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

“It turned out to be a huge surprise to many people who support the ACLU who thought of us as another liberal do-gooder organization,” said Chris Hansen, a former senior staff counsel who retired from the ACLU in 2012 after nearly four decades.

Write to Joe Palazzolo at joe.palazzolo@wsj.com

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167

Dan McCosh
08-18-2017, 05:54 AM
There is no exception in the constitution for 'hate' speech.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/08/14/there-hate-speech-exception-first-amendment/q9m4IqfQvbo24nnlnPor1O/story.html

The problem with trying to deny speech to the KKK et al is doing so will help them recruit new members. They can make an honest case that they are being denied their constitutional right.

Why do anything that's apt to make your enemy stronger. Seems to be broad consensus that Trump making statements about Muslims, his Muslim ban, etc. are good recruiting tools for ISIS

Why go down that road here? Let them speak. Let them march and hold rallies. Take their photos.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are not in the DNA, they are taught. Let us see if we can prevent them from being taught to future generations.

efforts to stifle will only make them more angry, more hateful, and greater in number. Actually, there is an exception to the first amendment, dubbed "fighting words", which limits what can be said in public confrontations:

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Ian McColgin
08-18-2017, 06:02 AM
[IMc - The doctrine of "fighting words" has been considerably refined from what hard hats in the '60s thought it meant.]

Post-Chaplinsky[edit]

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

SMARTINSEN
08-18-2017, 06:32 AM
They cannot replace us!

Daniel Noyes
08-18-2017, 07:12 AM
https://s19.postimg.org/dbpy0w59v/IMG_0077.png

SOOOO True, we should silence the extremist Leftys at CBS

CBS spews more pro death/ NAZI type propoganda than nearly any other major news outlet, we must silence them for good for their article celebrating the abortion of nearly 100 % of un born children with Downs Syndrome in Iceland... they are the new NAZI... did you really expect the next generation of NAZI to march under that same old defeated flag?


https://www.facebook.com/studentsforlife/videos/10154766697567927/

mmd
08-18-2017, 07:19 AM
Daniel, how many converts do you think a missionary would get if he angrily preached the same sermon to the same people over and over and over and over?

Please stop preaching anti-abortion to the Bilge for a while. You are not making any converts here, and you are just working yourself into a lather trying. Those that want to buy the product already have, and the rest ain't buying what you are trying to sell. Maybe carrying a sign with icky pictures outside of your local abortion clinic will salve your soul.


(<sigh> Edit again because my fingers don't type what my brain tells them to... - mmd)

Daniel Noyes
08-18-2017, 07:23 AM
Actually, there is an exception to the first amendment, dubbed "fighting words", which limits what can be said in public confrontations:

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 90 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

it used to be against the Law in Massachusetts to talk in a disrespectful manner about or about the rulings of a Massachusetts State judge... so what you leftys are really hoping for is the implemintation of a big Brother type Police State... that figures :D

Daniel Noyes
08-18-2017, 07:25 AM
Daniel, how many converts do you thing a missionary would get if he angrily preached the same sermon to the same people over and over and over and over?

Please stop preaching anti-abortion to the Bilge for a while. You are not making any converts here, and you are just working yourself into a lather trying. Those that want to buy the product already have, and the rest ain't buying what you are trying to sell. Maybe carrying a sign with icky pictures outside of your local abortion clinic will salve your soul.

no lather, just a little too much "inconvenient" truth for the Leftys here to handle.

the price of freedom is eternal vigilence... did we really expect the NEW GENERATION of NAZI to wear NAZI uniforms and go around goose steping and heiling? no they are the ones who today are selectivly weeding out undesireable a"sub human" individuals and shoveling the bodies into the squeaky clean crematorium ovens.

Vince Brennan
08-18-2017, 07:27 AM
Daniel, I would remind you of our OTHER rabid anti-abortionist doctrinaire preacher, good ol' SamF.

Why'n'cha drop him a PM to see if he'll gang up with you to shove your particular mono-centric stupidity down our throats? After all, we MUST be wrong...

Oh...Wait...

You can't.

Must be our "CBS-ian" board moderators colluding again to limit your free speech, d'ya think?

mmd
08-18-2017, 07:45 AM
Daniel, it is not an "inconvenient truth" that "Leftys" (sic) can't handle; it is an issue of personal freedom that has been discussed and debated for some decades now, and pretty much all of us have decided which team we are on by now. Constant shrill preaching will not make any new converts for you, nor will constantly offering up snide insults help your case. You have made your opinion known, you have heard the feedback from the Bilge denizens, so please stop repeating yourself. Move on to a topic that is more likely to enjoy a more positive response for you.

Daniel Noyes
08-18-2017, 07:48 AM
Daniel, I would remind you of our OTHER rabid anti-abortionist doctrinaire preacher, good ol' SamF.

Why'n'cha drop him a PM to see if he'll gang up with you to shove your particular mono-centric stupidity down our throats? After all, we MUST be wrong...

Oh...Wait...

You can't.

Must be our "CBS-ian" board moderators colluding again to limit your free speech, d'ya think?


American Voter- "this is disgusting, I just learned what an abortion is and how it is performed and that there have been Millions killed this way in the USA since Roe V Wade... what do you have to say for yourselves!?"

Democrat- "...... uuuugh.... Look over there! some bad people dressed as NAZIS!"

Dan McCosh
08-18-2017, 07:50 AM
it used to be against the Law in Massachusetts to talk in a disrespectful manner about or about the rulings of a Massachusetts State judge... so what you leftys are really hoping for is the implemintation of a big Brother type Police State... that figures :D Dunno that a law aimed at stopping bar fights constitutes a Big Brother Police State. Still, that is the position of Bikers Behind Bars, the organization representing inmates at Jackson State Prison. The group successfully lobbied for the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws in Michigan, which relieved them from the need to wear Nazi helmets while riding.

jack grebe
08-18-2017, 07:51 AM
Daniel, it is not an "inconvenient truth" that "Leftys" (sic) can't handle; it is an issue of personal freedom that has been discussed and debated for some decades now, and pretty much all of us have decided which team we are on by now. Constant shrill preaching will not make any new converts for you, nor will constantly offering up snide insults help your case. You have made your opinion known, you have heard the feedback from the Bilge denizens, so please stop repeating yourself. Move on to a topic that is more likely to enjoy a more positive response for you.

Thattaboy mmd.

Be friendly and positive...... And maybe help a few others when they stumble with it......

Peerie Maa
08-18-2017, 08:05 AM
Someone put this up on FB
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20767941_10101368939671000_6457853947060981733_n.j pg?oh=f75d04d933b99b122b1fa38f5db0f0ca&oe=5A26DDF3
I think that we in the UK have taken it on board.

Daniel Noyes
08-18-2017, 08:46 AM
Daniel, it is not an "inconvenient truth" that "Leftys" (sic) can't handle; it is an issue of personal freedom that has been discussed and debated for some decades now, and pretty much all of us have decided which team we are on by now. Constant shrill preaching will not make any new converts for you, nor will constantly offering up snide insults help your case. You have made your opinion known, you have heard the feedback from the Bilge denizens, so please stop repeating yourself. Move on to a topic that is more likely to enjoy a more positive response for you.

( I and no other Repubs here have supported NAZI)

Ok agreed MMD. Ill move on to another topic as soon as the Democrats here who support abortion move on from trying to contuinue their smeer campaign against all Republicans by harping about NAZI... especially since millions of democrats support abortion and there were 500 NAZI at the "MEGA RALLY" in Virginia

Daniel Noyes
08-18-2017, 08:50 AM
Someone put this up on FB
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20767941_10101368939671000_6457853947060981733_n.j pg?oh=f75d04d933b99b122b1fa38f5db0f0ca&oe=5A26DDF3
I think that we in the UK have taken it on board.

but you in the UK have been very IN-tolerant in the past, how did tolerant people come from In-tolerance?

birlinn
08-18-2017, 08:52 AM
By not tolerating intolerance.
And you do not exhibit tolerance.

amish rob
08-18-2017, 09:01 AM
( I and no other Repubs here have supported NAZI)

Ok agreed MMD. Ill move on to another topic as soon as the Democrats here who support abortion move on from NAZI... especially since millions of democrats support abortion and there were 500 NAZI at the "MEGA RALLY" in Virginia


I will use small words.

Some of us have brown, black, yellow, and red friends, and even gay friends and family members. Some of us have "mixed race" families, or are from foreign lands.
Some of us are Jewish!

All fodder for Nazis. As in, Nazis round up those people, and kill them. All of them. Nazis drive tanks into adjacent countries and take them over. Killing the populace. Nazis are the only group, so far, to systematically murder entire swaths of their population with ovens. The Nazis want absolute power.
What the Nazis did was called holocaust. The Turks did it to the Armenians, too, only it was longer ago, so they just drove them all into the desert and starved them to death. Cheaper than ovens.

A lady having an abortion is only dealing with her life, and another unborn life, and I can't imagine any woman ever had an abortion because she hated the life inside her. Because Nazis kill from a standpoint of pure hatred, and I can't imagine a woman ending a pregnancy being a hateful thing. Painful and traumatic, yes. Hate fueled?
Quite the opposite, probably.

That you can label a woman in a hard spot a callous killer, but laugh off the pure and abject evil and hatred that was and is Naziism speaks volumes for your humanity.

But guess what? I'm the type of dumb hippy that loves you just as much as before I read that stuff. :) Now, who wants to talk about being tough?

Peace,
Robert

mmd
08-18-2017, 09:17 AM
Daniel, someone has to go first in resisting the temptation to argue and fight. Be the bigger man and let it be you that goes first.

Peerie Maa
08-18-2017, 09:20 AM
Daniel, someone has to go first in resisting the temptation to argue and fight. Be the bigger man and let it be you that goes first.

I think that he must have run out of nails or paint or something.

Too Little Time
08-18-2017, 12:12 PM
No. The protesters did not infringe on the right to free speech, only the government can do that.
The government seems to believe it has an obligation to protect freedom of speech. Hence the police.

You might notice the following comment that i found on the interent: "The city has approved rallies in Justice Park and McGuffey Park for opponents of the Unite the Right rally." The Unite the Right had a permit for Emancipation Park.

It appears that the protesters made a mistake, and went to the wrong location. (Just to be PC.)

There is a lot of blame to go around, but both sides were looking for a fight. The presence of guns did not violate the "peaceful assembly" clause, the attempts are actual physical combat did. And permits were revoked and people were told to disassemble. (I am sure some might have misinterpreted that last word.)

amish rob
08-18-2017, 12:33 PM
The government seems to believe it has an obligation to protect freedom of speech. Hence the police.

You might notice the following comment that i found on the interent: "The city has approved rallies in Justice Park and McGuffey Park for opponents of the Unite the Right rally." The Unite the Right had a permit for Emancipation Park.

It appears that the protesters made a mistake, and went to the wrong location. (Just to be PC.)

There is a lot of blame to go around, but both sides were looking for a fight. The presence of guns did not violate the "peaceful assembly" clause, the attempts are actual physical combat did. And permits were revoked and people were told to disassemble. (I am sure some might have misinterpreted that last word.)

I don't advocate violence. Never will again.

I will, however, use it to protect myself or others.

That is me.

Free speech rights simply cannot be impinged by a private citizen. The amendment protects us from the government, not each other.

I don't KNOW who did what there. I only saw pictures and video of some people assembled and marching under the Nazi flag and chanting hate slogans in the USA, and that isn't going to be countenanced by the people here.
The blame lies solely with those who decided to be Nazis and try to reign Nazi terror in the streets of 2017 America.

Fighting to destroy and fighting to protect are not the same. Both fighting, true, but not the same. Otherwise, how do we justify the last time we fought Nazis? Is there anyone, anywhere who believes Nazis should be allowed to regain power? Is there anyone, anywhere who believes Nazi ideals are NOT worth fighting over, that Nazis themselves are not worth fighting? By any means necessary, sure, and the most peaceful first.

Notice the ring of police, though, forming a wall of defense AROUND the white supremacists? That is the First Amendment at work. Nobody's First Amendment rights were violated.

Peace,
Robert

Peerie Maa
08-18-2017, 12:38 PM
The government seems to believe it has an obligation to protect freedom of speech. Hence the police.

You might notice the following comment that i found on the interent: "The city has approved rallies in Justice Park and McGuffey Park for opponents of the Unite the Right rally." The Unite the Right had a permit for Emancipation Park.

It appears that the protesters made a mistake, and went to the wrong location. (Just to be PC.)

There is a lot of blame to go around, but both sides were looking for a fight. The presence of guns did not violate the "peaceful assembly" clause, the attempts are actual physical combat did. And permits were revoked and people were told to disassemble. (I am sure some might have misinterpreted that last word.)

I suspect that the police were there to try to keep the peace. Whether a speaker spoke or not would have been a side issue for them.

Hard to argue that the penis extensions did not violate the "Peacefull assembly" clause, but then after all it is the USA and so perverse at best. However helmets riot shields and clubs did do so.

oznabrag
08-18-2017, 01:13 PM
Good news, Oznabrag, there are only 37 cats tonight...

Peace,
Flinger of Felines (not really)

I'm no feline flinger either,really, but metaphorically speaking, 37 is a vast improvement over 50!

:D

amish rob
08-18-2017, 01:24 PM
I'm no feline flinger either,really, but metaphorically speaking, 37 is a vast improvement over 50!

:D

Oh, that 50 cats line got me. That was funny. I once likened changing a poopy diaper to trying to stuff an angry cat in a box. An angry, poop covered cat. :)

Peace,
Robert

john welsford
08-18-2017, 02:01 PM
Oh, that 50 cats line got me. That was funny. I once likened changing a poopy diaper to trying to stuff an angry cat in a box. An angry, poop covered cat. :)

Peace,
Robert

We had a feral cat which regularly came into the house, tearing up both of our pet cats and our dog, stealing their food, spraying and leaving its feces everywhere. I caught it eventually, grabbed its tail, then the scruff of its neck with the other hand and endeavoured to keep its claws away from me by pulling the tail and the head apart under tension. I did stuff the angry poop covered cat into a box. I succeeded but it was one of the most painful experiences of my life.
Tough critturs cats.

John Welsford

amish rob
08-18-2017, 02:06 PM
We had a feral cat which regularly came into the house, tearing up both of our pet cats and our dog, stealing their food, spraying and leaving its feces everywhere. I caught it eventually, grabbed its tail, then the scruff of its neck with the other hand and endeavoured to keep its claws away from me by pulling the tail and the head apart under tension. I did stuff the angry poop covered cat into a box. I succeeded but it was one of the most painful experiences of my life.
Tough critturs cats.

John Welsford

That is hilarious. Well, in retrospect moreso that in the moment, I would guess. I can easily imagine the ordeal. Cats are tough and smart. And funny.

I truly enjoy cats, of all sizes, though I do not interact with the big ones, can I help it. :)

Peace,
Robert

Osborne Russell
08-18-2017, 02:27 PM
Agreed. They wanted a confrontation, and the idiots, IMO, gave them exactly what they wanted. I'll repeat: without such confrontation, there would be NO footage of the two groups fighting each other, and Trump would have no path down the route of 'both sides".

He'd have come up with some other nonsense, count on it. But that isn't the point. The point is the power of the footage we gave him. Why did we do what we did?

We know why he does what he does.