The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 3,579
Registered: ‎12-17-2010

Re: Free Speech

Message 71 of 241 (86 Views)

alferdpacker wrote:

 


Fishslayer777 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you characterize this ... "we need to have shootouts in your church.

Considering recent occurrences, the subject should be scheduled for a congregational meeting discussion and vote - to determine whether the congregation is in favor of it or against it as a regularly scheduled part of church activities...

 

 

 

 


Don't you know it is too soon to discuss anything like that.

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,306
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Free Speech

Message 72 of 241 (87 Views)


Fishslayer777 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you characterize this ... "we need to have shootouts in your church.

Considering recent occurrences, the subject should be scheduled for a congregational meeting discussion and vote - to determine whether the congregation is in favor of it or against it as a regularly scheduled part of church activities...

 

 

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,060
Registered: ‎06-07-2016

Re: Free Speech

Message 73 of 241 (88 Views)
Out of curiosity, how would you characterize this ... "we need to have shootouts in your church.

Hate is not a Christian virtue, neither is liberal sanctimony
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,638
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Free Speech

Message 74 of 241 (90 Views)

SCOTUS long ago established that not all speech is protected. "Fighting words", words that can reasonably be expected to provoke a violent responce, have NO protction under the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. People who have made a career spewing "fighting words" in PRIVATE venues can and should be barred from doing the same thing in a public one, especially a public school.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 75 of 241 (100 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


So I do not consider the actions of masked, armed mobs in the street with the sole purpose of denying another's free speech to be free speech.

 

On the other hand I support 100% antifa's right to get a permit and have a rally, town hall, talk-in, whatever.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 76 of 241 (86 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:


Yeah .................... you can't force anyone or any entity that is not public to allow anyone to speak on their property, like it or not.


True - however, cancelling or not permitting a speaker based on the threat of violence seems inappropriate. And, a university being a place where students are supposed to expand their thinking, narrowing their opportunity to hear alternate thinking doens't seem rational.

 

As you know, I prefer freedom to speak and freedom to listen or not listen.


There ya' go again with using words like "seems inappropriate", and a bunch of other irrelevant words.

 

As you know, it really doesn't matter what you "prefer", what matters is the law, the Constitution, and the right it gives people to determine who does or does not speak on their property.  Get used to it.


Sorry if my phrasing goes deeper than, "Yeah, me too" - but, that's just me.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 77 of 241 (88 Views)

Centristsin2010 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


Just as you exploit your right to free speech to disparage others.  It appears it's YOUR intention to misinterpret what others are saying to create conflict and dissension.  Just as your fascist leader does.  It's another one of your common threads with the fascist trump.


There is nothing I do that restricts the free speech of my fellow posters so your point is pointless.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 78 of 241 (88 Views)

MIseker wrote:
YOUR version of free speech. As i posted before, I prefer the way University of Michigan handles it with participation of all sides of free speech.

Good ol U of M has a better free speech policy than any other University.
"Students protesting at the University of Michigan disrupted about half of the speech delivered by libertarian social scientist Charles Murray on campus last night. After the speech, a public relations representative of the university called the protests "consistent with a long-established university policy regarding freedom of speech and artistic expression."

If I understand the concept, you think that the denial of free speech is free speech.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 79 of 241 (86 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


So when a white supremacist hate group like the KKK meets (as in C'ville), how come it doesn't "sound like balance" to you for others to protest the KKK and their racist hate rhetoric?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 80 of 241 (85 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:


Yeah .................... you can't force anyone or any entity that is not public to allow anyone to speak on their property, like it or not.


True - however, cancelling or not permitting a speaker based on the threat of violence seems inappropriate. And, a university being a place where students are supposed to expand their thinking, narrowing their opportunity to hear alternate thinking doens't seem rational.

 

As you know, I prefer freedom to speak and freedom to listen or not listen.


There ya' go again with using words like "seems inappropriate", and a bunch of other irrelevant words.

 

As you know, it really doesn't matter what you "prefer", what matters is the law, the Constitution, and the right it gives people to determine who does or does not speak on their property.  Get used to it.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"