You're viewing a single thread.
“…illegal protest…”?
Oh right, the US Constitution doesn’t exist any more.
now you're catching on! You'll be head of a department in no time under drumpf's regime!
Next time an american speaks about "muh first amendment", "USA only free speech country in the world" bullshit, show them this
The problem is it cuts both ways. The Democrats saying they want hate speech to not be protected and Nazi propaganda to be censored is just the flipside of the same coin.
Either you have free speech or you don’t
Either you have free speech or you don’t
Lots of countries have free speech with limits on it. It's not uncommon and doesn't mean Citizens don't have freedom of speech.
For example:
If it has a limit, it’s not free
If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”
If it has a limit, it’s not free
"Free bread sticks"
"I'll take 100"
"Um... No. You can't have that many."
"iF tHeRe'S a LiMiT iT's NoT fReE!"
Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”
If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court
If it has a limit, it’s not free
Don’t be pedantic
Bruh... your pedantry started this
If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it
When did the American Constitution promise "Unlimited Speech"?
It doesn’t. It says free, meaning unencumbered. The breadstick analogy was for unlimited not free so it was disingenuous and I was countering it.
The breadstick analogy was for unlimited not free
It was both. They were advertised as free, they are free, but there are limits despite them being free
Nothing free is unlimited.
Alternatively Americans have no freedoms at all because they all have limits.
Freedom of Travel? You can't walk through a military base.
Freedom of Religion? No one is going to recognize your Jedi holy day. (Not to mention the government not recognizing the religious right to an abortion from Jews or TST.)
Freedom of commerce? You're not allowed to purchase heroin or import things from Cuba.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. (Karl Popper)
Nah.
Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.
That’s not freedom.
So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?
No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath
By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.
You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.
Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.
Scream "Fire" at a theater. Obviously you cannot.
The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
So you are saying there is a limitation
So there no free speech afterall 🤔
No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them
The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal.
oh look, a literal “free speech absolutist.”
Wrong platform
I’m banned from that platform because they do not believe in free speech absolutism, especially when you start in on churches and cops
Ohh, sweet summer child.
Is it so hard to believe you think Free speech should be absolute weapon should be unrestricted, abortion should be unrestricted, people should be able to harness electricity from solar and harness rainwater from the sky?
Because these are all things that are restricted here except for speech, so I am sure as fuck not going to budge on it
Are you high?
There is a massive difference between allowed to say my government is doing something wrong, and being allowed to say "gas all the kikes". One is criticism of authority, which is good. The other is hate speech, which is bad. You can absolutely have one without the other.
There is no difference between those two phrases if you actually have free speech
And in fact, saying “I voted for Donald Trump”, is way more offensive to me than saying “kill everyone in Gaza”
Every freedom ends where freedoms of others are infringed. That includes every freedom, let it be freedom of movement (you can go wherever, but not someone else's house), freedom of expression (you can express yourself however, unless that expression instills hatred towards others, inflicts trauma on kids etc. etc.) and yes, also freedom of speech (You can say anything, unless what you do is calling for violence, attacks someone etc.).
Some of you US guys really don't understand how freedom in a society works.
Yeah, and an allied soldier in WW2 was just the flipside of a Wehrmacht soldier, so both were the same, right?
Both were working class, so in that perspective yes.
Chinese and Japanese soldiers during that time period would be a much more accurate comparison, and the answer is yes
The answer is only yes, if you are a misanthropic cynic.
Hate speech is not free speech, boo.
Yes, it is.
That’s why all the Westborough Baptist people can stand around with God hates fags signs and nothing happens to them
The court only ruled on offensive or outrageous speech...
When? Brandenburg V Ohio long predates them
Snyder v. Phelps 2011
I thought you were replying to me at first, but it just reaffirm what I said so now it looks like you were replying to someone else maybe
The ruling reaffirmed that the government cannot punish speech just because it is offensive or upsetting, reinforcing strong protections for free speech under the First Amendment.
Nope, I was definitely replying to you. The court decided there's a subtle difference and that their "God hates fags" signs skirt hate speech laws quite well within the US legal framework. And I unfortunately agree as a gay atheist.
it just reaffirm what I said
Hold on. The fact that they went to trial over it and that there was litigation of the particular use of language is indication that not all speech is free speech and that careful consideration of where that line is was required. If their signs had been different this ruling would've also been quite different based on the same premise.
One Question:
Do you think the government should ban CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Materials)?
If yes, then you are already okay with limits the First Amendment and your argument is invalid
If no, you're a pedophile and you need to GTFO
No. The government has no right to accessing anybody’s materials. Warrant or not.
Free speech isn't intended to supercede criminal law. Advocating for hurting people is a crime. If they want to do it and have it be covered as "free speech", they need to start by changing the law.
Advocating for hurting people is not a crime. Even an inactionable threat is not a crime. Look up precedent for arrests of inciting a riot and see how many of those charges actually stuck or help up on appeal.
The fact that people are saying yore okay to punch Nazis in the face would be a violation of what you are advocating for but you have no problem with that because you don’t like Nazis.
I personally don't support people saying that either. Punching people in the face is not a great way to change their minds that they are being "the bad guy". And I think seeing alot of people post that, is counter productive to the goal of getting along and solving problems together reasonably.
But I don't, and shouldn't, control what everyone else thinks is a good idea.
Advocating for hurting people is a crime.
It's really not, though. Making a specific, credible threat against someone can be, but speaking in general terms that someone ought to be hurt without specifying how, when, or by who is not.
I'm sure you'll become correct momentarily, though, once Trump declares that calling for his removal (or hell, any criticism of the regime because why not?) would "hurt" him politically and is therefore a felony. That is what you had in mind, right?
You are not wrong. The Supreme Court finding presidential immunity and then allowing an insurrectionist to run in contravention of the 14th amendment seems to have finally put the old document to rest.
I mean just to be fair isn't it illegal to have a huge protest without informing the authorities first? Also violent protests would be illegal too, right?
These assumptions are based on similar laws from other countries. But I don't really believe Trump is talking about those protests or just planning to forbid them from getting permission to happen.
Correct
We live according to royal decree now.
lol it never has the united states has a long history of killing, maiming, and imprisoning protestors