Tell Congress to Oppose Any Tax Bill That Would Increase Taxes for Seniors! Take Action Now

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 81 of 269 (87 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Richva wrote:

The thing about the right to free speach is that it is not the right to exercise it anywhere you wish.  If the students at a university do not wish to hear a certain speaker, that speaker has every right to walk to the nearest public space and continue the dialog.  

 

When Milo Yiannopoulos came out for man/boy sex, the conservatives un-invited him from THEIR convention but scream if he does not get invited to Berkely. Trump states flag burners should lose their citizenship. He claimed a speaker had no right to say Trump had not read the Constitution.  He has blocked anyone from his Twitter feed who disagree with him. He has repeatedly called for shutting down parts of the internet. He wants to stiffen libel laws to protect his thin hide. 

 

So, as usual, the conservatives want it both ways. No restrictions on when and where for the people with whom they agree but screams of "We need to be protected from this" for anyone who does not. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-brief-history-of-donald-trumps-mixed-messages-on-freedom-o...


If the students do not want to hear his words - no one is requiring their attendance.

 

Yes, we Conservatives do want it both ways - the right for anyone to say anything they want and the right for anyone to not attend such speeches that they do not want to hear.


The 2 biggest colleges in MI have always been "different", especially the one in Ann Arbor. Hillsdale is not too far from there..and has a far right reputation that would have welcomed the speaker with open arms. maybe an hour from U of M. Yet, he chose U of M when there is a possibility ANYTHING might happen. Why do you suppose all these right wing speakers chose to speak where they arent wanted? I have no pity when they get what they ask for.

So it begins.
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,258
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 82 of 269 (84 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


Klan hoods are illegal in much of the country - antifa masks should be treated the same.

 

"Whay" do I suppose people have such a reaction? - because victimology has become a major industry and often an excuse for bad behavior.

 

I am not aware of any "slave chasing" lately. So, let's stick to our contemporary context.


If you want Antifa masks made illegal talk to you state representatives or your federal ones.

 

'Whay"?  Should we all start pointing out your numerous misspellings Too?

 

"Stick to contemporary context"?  You instructing others how and what to post now?


MIseker's spokesperson - the masks and hoods are equal under the law. If you'd like to correct my spelling, please feel free. I am suggesting that "slave chasing" is not an issue of "free speech". 

 

Is there anything else you'd like to offer on the subject of "free speech".


so you want to  outlaw all ski masks? bandanas? Fear has got you. thats an alt right symptom too.

So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 83 of 269 (89 Views)

Olderscout66 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

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.


That is true, the courts have made such rulings - and that is where such decisions blame. Not in the hands of the masked, armed street mobs or the "that hurts my feelings" mindset. If it hurts your feelings, don't listen.


sounds like you would have been a royalist during the Revolution and soon woud have had to move to Canada. WOuldnt have been able to stand that mob action. 


A "mob" is a group bent on violating the law. Once a Constitutional issue has been decided, it is the right of all Americans to make use of the decision, in this case to prevent "fighting words" from disrupting their lives.

 

The anti-fascists were simply acting to protect their RIGHT to be free from the violence that flows from the altRight and KKK hate speech and their history of formenting violent confrontation.

 

the RWers here confuse "group of concerned citizens" lawfully acting to prevent fascists from inciting violence and the mob of facists that caused and committed the violence.


An honest look at the situation would show that the antifa were the ones that allowed for the violence. Had the weekend dress-up dudes been ignored, there would have been no violence.

 

The subject is not "history" it is the events of that day.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 84 of 269 (92 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

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.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


Those protesting the KKK in C'ville had a permit, do you forget that? It seems that your armed KKK mobs  are the ones who placed themselves in place of the court by running their vehicle into those protesting them, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

 

I never said that I have "seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech", so that comment of yours is even more 'bunk'.


If anyone marches or demonstrates with a permit, they have my approval. However, I do not believe that physical attacks are permitted and masks are illegal in VA so I support neither.

 

Since there was no permit involved in the car attack, bringing it up is more of your "bunk".

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,708
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Free Speech

Message 85 of 269 (104 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

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.


That is true, the courts have made such rulings - and that is where such decisions blame. Not in the hands of the masked, armed street mobs or the "that hurts my feelings" mindset. If it hurts your feelings, don't listen.


sounds like you would have been a royalist during the Revolution and soon woud have had to move to Canada. WOuldnt have been able to stand that mob action. 


A "mob" is a group bent on violating the law. Once a Constitutional issue has been decided, it is the right of all Americans to make use of the decision, in this case to prevent "fighting words" from disrupting their lives.

 

The anti-fascists were simply acting to protect their RIGHT to be free from the violence that flows from the altRight and KKK hate speech and their history of formenting violent confrontation.

 

the RWers here confuse "group of concerned citizens" lawfully acting to prevent fascists from inciting violence and the mob of facists that caused and committed the violence.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 86 of 269 (102 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

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.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?


Those protesting the KKK in C'ville had a permit, do you forget that? It seems that your armed KKK mobs  are the ones who placed themselves in place of the court by running their vehicle into those protesting them, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

 

I never said that I have "seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech", so that comment of yours is even more 'bunk'.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 87 of 269 (95 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

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.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says. When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


If a group or individual has a permit, invitation whatever to exercise their free speech (regardless of the content) and another group objects to it, I am all for settling the dispute in court. However, I do not support armed, masked mobs placing themselves in the place of the courts. Is that the "bunk that doesn't matter"?

 

And speaking of bunk - where have you seen anyone defend driving a car into people as free speech? Might that be your "bunk that doesn't matter"?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,780
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Free Speech

[ Edited ]
Message 88 of 269 (81 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

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.


None of your bunk on this matters in the least. What matters is what the Constitution says.

 

When the KKK "mobs in the street" met in C'ville, those protesting the KKK's white supremacist hate speech were within their Constitutional rights to do so. The KKK "mobs in the street" drove a car into the crowd, killing one woman and injuring dozens.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 89 of 269 (81 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

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.


That is true, the courts have made such rulings - and that is where such decisions blame. Not in the hands of the masked, armed street mobs or the "that hurts my feelings" mindset. If it hurts your feelings, don't listen.


sounds like you would have been a royalist during the Revolution and soon woud have had to move to Canada. WOuldnt have been able to stand that mob action. 


That is a strange thing to say. Do you really think that it was the royalists who stood for free speech and supported the judicial system?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,878
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 90 of 269 (83 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

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.


are you against the students right to free speech? If i understand your loaded question, you think the overwhelming number of students at the event should be denied theirs.


No trick question, just a statement of fact. You seem to think that the denial of free speech by some is free speech.

 

As to the "overwhelming number of students at the event" - if they do not want to hear the speaker, why are they at the event? Obviously to deny the speaker his free speech rights as well as to deny the rights of those who do want to hear him.