Thank you for the solid reply. My disagreement may be that it is still too soon to pick that scab off those wounds.
People voting to take these actions are voting to provoke a response. It's bigger than them, this is a concerted campaign across the nation to fully eliminate Confederate symbols. To purge America of its Southern heritage. Criminals and racists may identify with it... but so too do terrorists hold Islam. Do we vote to remove Islam from America, tear down their Mosques? Many have been wrong to say yes to that.
The impetus appears to be of stereotyping the many for the actions of a few. The result is a shredding of our honored reunion as a nation. The peril is that fresh transgressions provoke new polarization and new hatreds to begin a heightened cycle of violence all over again. This is a dangerous path Americans have chosen this century, to polarize and divide against one another.
again. you do not know what free speech is. in fact there have been several brits on this board that just can't grasp the concept.
Oh wise(less) one, in your own words please explain what you think free speech is? (This is going to be pure hilarity!) @J.Wilkins seems to have a pretty good grasp on things whereas you're a known ignoramus.
Thank you for the solid reply. My disagreement may be that it is still too soon to pick that scab off those wounds.
People voting to take these actions are voting to provoke a response. It's bigger than them, this is a concerted campaign across the nation to fully eliminate Confederate symbols. To purge America of its Southern heritage. Criminals and racists may identify with it... but so too do terrorists hold Islam. Do we vote to remove Islam from America, tear down their Mosques? Many have been wrong to say yes to that.
The impetus appears to be of stereotyping the many for the actions of a few. The result is a shredding of our honored reunion as a nation. The peril is that fresh transgressions provoke new polarization and new hatreds to begin a heightened cycle of violence all over again. This is a dangerous path Americans have chosen this century, to polarize and divide against one another.
if you think and agree that Wilkins has a grasp on what free speech is then you really need to go back and take your GED again.
The concept of free speech is a constraint on the Govt. It doesn't really cover incitement to violence, which is what displaying the despised symbols of the Klan & the Nazis do to a lot of people, particularly when it's done in their faces, on their streets & in their communities. It's perfectly obvious that the people who do it are seeking violence & mocking us for perceived weakness.
Fascists use free speech to gain power, not to keep it. Current efforts by the Trump Admin to create dossiers on people who visited the Trump protest site are just the beginning of real fascism. With modern computer power, it's like gerrymandering, only different.
Again, you don't have free speech, period.
I wasn't concerned about free speech in the US in the least you moron, go read the discussion. My point is that not all speech is protected speech and in the case of Nazists advocating violence that is NOT protected speech.
If you didn't have it in for me for being called out as such a fucktard in our last discussion you would probably agree with me but nah, you have to be retarded when it comes to addressing me.
Buh---buh---- BRITAIN!
Get the fuck out of here.
"Free speech" is not binary. It isn't something you either have or you don't. You have it to varying degrees. Treating narrow exceptions as negating the rule - which is what you're doing here - leads to the conclusion that if you're going to ban one category of speech, you may as well ban lots of it
There's a history of you misguidedly claiming that I'm associated with views and people you dislike and steadily convincing yourself while making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone else.Keep in mind your comments history shows an illustrious record of batting for your team, for example on the BART train race issue.
But hey, degens gonna degen.
My point is that it shouldn't happen... ever.... in any thread.I was mistaken mentioning you this time in this thread do you feel better now? Because the wall of text above is way to much effort on your part.
Nazis advocating violence can most certainly be protected speech, depending on the context where that speech is made and how it's made. It is called the 'Brandenburg test', where in order to lose 1st amendment protection speech must be intentionally provoking imminent violence, not violence in the abstract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#The_decision
I already explained this to you earlier. Yet again you don't know what you're talking about. This is a recurring theme with you that when someone points out you said something wrong instead of thanking them for helping out you fly into a childish rage. It's pretty funny!
There's a history of you misguidedly claiming that I'm associated with views and people you dislike and steadily convincing yourself while making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone else.
The BART train thing is a perfect example. You are incapable of disagreeing without assuming that the disagreement comes from some fundamental racist or political view. You latched onto something I said and twisted it to fit your mistaken interpretation and you remain convinced today despite your mistake being ON FULL DISPLAY in that thread.
What I said there was that blocking the video could actually increase unjustified prejudice toward minorities since the riders already know that much about the perpetrators and may hold it against innocent people as a result. It was a logical perspective you and others may not have considered, but it seems that was too much for you to understand. The "protecting minorities from unjust prejudice" part went right over your head and you still steadfastly refuse to see it even now while ascribing the perspective to some imaginary alliance with racists.
In your twisted world, giving one reason to release the video in defense of minorities is the same as saying that I hate minorities and share my hatred and politics with other people you decide to lump me with. Absolutely everyone you have ever disagreed with is a racist Trump supporter, even when we aren't talking about race or politics, like when I asked Perknose not to stigmatize trailer living.
My point is that it shouldn't happen. Ever.
Even if I had participated in the thread, it's the agent00f way to argue and discourages discussion by throwing wrong, irrelevant, or perceived implications around to taint any potential the discussion may have had. I wanted you to see the undeniable similarity, reflect on that, and adjust your behavior. Wasn't really interested in an apology or an admission of a mistake, but thanks.
Jesus fucking Christ I'm surrounded by people who cannot read but would love to attack anything I have to say.
What I did, if you read the fucking discussion, was to address the idiotic idea that all speech is protected. Free speech as in "I can march down the road inciting violence with speech" is not protected speech which is what outhouse is trying to claim.
He didn't say as much but he did imply that through responding with "you don't know what free speech is" which led me to believe that he thinks that all speech is free and protected which it is not.
Just read the discussion, I'm getting really fucking tired of people nailing down one response out of the context of the discussion and trying to argue against something I never said.
Again, you don't have free speech, period.
This retardedness has gone on for long enough, why don't you just stop being coy and start telling me where I'm wrong? Perhaps it's a misunderstanding and we actually agree?
Perhaps you are fucked in the skull and have no argument but want to keep going "hurrrr dun undastand frai speeech".
I don't know which it is but so far I'm leaning towards the latter.
we started this little experiment when i called you out when you said "hate speech is not protected"
sorry but it is. anybody in this country has the right (unlike yours) to walk down the street yelling vile shit directed toward anybody or any group they want. In this country (unlike yours) everybody has a right to make racist, sexist, newspaper, website, billboard, facebook post... to anybody or group they want and THE GOVERNMENT CANT DO SHIT ABOUT IT.
that my limey friend is what free speech is and one of the reasons we kicked your sorry asses out of north america.
Thank you for the solid reply. My disagreement may be that it is still too soon to pick that scab off those wounds.
People voting to take these actions are voting to provoke a response. It's bigger than them, this is a concerted campaign across the nation to fully eliminate Confederate symbols. To purge America of its Southern heritage. Criminals and racists may identify with it... but so too do terrorists hold Islam. Do we vote to remove Islam from America, tear down their Mosques? Many have been wrong to say yes to that.
The impetus appears to be of stereotyping the many for the actions of a few. The result is a shredding of our honored reunion as a nation. The peril is that fresh transgressions provoke new polarization and new hatreds to begin a heightened cycle of violence all over again. This is a dangerous path Americans have chosen this century, to polarize and divide against one another.
we started this little experiment when i called you out when you said "hate speech is not protected"
sorry but it is. anybody in this country has the right (unlike yours) to walk down the street yelling vile shit directed toward anybody or any group they want. In this country (unlike yours) everybody has a right to make racist, sexist, newspaper, website, billboard, facebook post... to anybody or group they want and THE GOVERNMENT CANT DO SHIT ABOUT IT.
that my limey friend is what free speech is and one of the reasons we kicked your sorry asses out of north america.
Yeah, I read the entire discussion, word for word. Your comment, to wit:
Suggests that you view "free speech" as a binary proposition. I did read that you were discussing various exceptions to it. I was only replying to that comment, which I felt was an over-reach of your previous point.
Don't get so pissed off. People are going to disagree with you on this board. It happens literally every minute here.
In the context of the discussion it means one thing only, there is no such thing as free speech in the US or in the UK. In both nations it is regulated.
I even explained that in those exact words but somehow, perhaps by sheer will or because you didn't actually read the discussion, you still managed to misunderstand it.
I'm getting pissed off at wilful misunderstandings and arguing against strawmen for no good reason, it's intellectual dishonesty and I expect better from people who at least seemingly have the intelligence to realize that this is what they are doing.
This is like saying that there's no such thing as democracy or capitalism in the world. If that's your argument then your definition is so narrow as to be functionally meaningless.
That's what woolfe was trying to tell you.
This is an ideal that is certainly not true, if you tried it you'd get arrested.