Reply With Quote
“but there’s a difference to me with hateful speech and free speech.
---
I'll just bet there is.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-rally-n794156“I think as a country you have a right to free speech,” said Boston resident Beth Chandler, “but there’s a difference to me with hateful speech and free speech. And a lot of what the separatists are saying is hateful speech and there’s not a place for that in our country.”
“but there’s a difference to me with hateful speech and free speech.
---
I'll just bet there is.
In the other thread, you were okay with communist speech being taken down and marginalized.
Communist speech offends you in the same manner as racist hate speech offends this girl. Two sides of the same coin, no?
I can never win arguments with you, Midst. Leave me alone. I'm trying to enjoy my Saturday morning. + I'm gettin' my bell rung as soon as Girl rises & shines.
No. I agree. Hard line commies should be marginalized, as their ideology also results in genocidal endgames. But marginalization shouldn't come via government, It should come via us socially shunning their idiocy.
who'd a thought boston was full of pussy neo-wankers.
wouldn't even show.
Were you itching for a bit of the ol' ultraviolence again?
Wouldn't expect you to get a Kubrick reference. Sad!
I would expect you to misuse and mis-attribute the term.
You did not disappoint.
where's the danger is that position?
free speech absolutism is not a civil policy, isn't you ignorant, hateful, dangerous mother er.
Defending the free speech rights of those you disdain used to be a liberal tenant.
Yep, and used to drive me to distraction.
I said it some time ago - you don't protect the 2nd, you'll lose the 1st. Liberals think the 1st Amendment is sacred but their ilk on the fringe are ok with restricting that one as well, as long as they get their people into power.
Don't want to hear the ing when you lose your right to free speech. On 2nd thought, you'll not be able to tell me.
Bash the fash. Who's the fash? Everyone who disagrees with me.
where's the danger is that position?
free speech absolutism is not a civil policy, isn't you ignorant, hateful, dangerous mother er.a claim you make based on absolutely nothing.
Those idiots have the right to say whatever they want, just like they have the right to assemble.
Still is. I don't see any reasonable liberals calling for the restrictions of the 1st amendment. In fact, slate (a liberal rag) disagreed with how tech companies reacted.
How it works on both sides of the fence now is you find these irrelevant microcosms of really outrageous behavior and try to characterize the whole movement as being like that. Like today with the peaceful demonstrations in Boston if you're right wing you find the handful of people who acted re ed and ignore the other 99%.
It's like a daily battle of largely irrelevant microcosms for the most part
Indeed. Social media is the culpit here. You can make a situation look more relevant than it actually is.
I'm a minority you dumb , and not a "white minority" but an actual minority. I don't have a dog in this fight.
Where is that even mentioned in what i saidThey have the right to freedom of speech. What they don't have, is the right to freedom of consequences from exercising that right
He wiped the in floor with your in ass
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
