KillerBee Comments on the First Amendment

[Indus]

Several x's and snoozes etc, what is it you guys disagree with?

I miss the liberals, they’d defend people’s rights to express whatever ideas people want. They fought against the man trying to silence them, believed in the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", fought for people to have ideas of their own no matter how repulsive. Progressives have overtaken the left and that circle is reaching all the way around to grains of fascism. The attempt to control and suppress ideas is gaining traction. Liberals would be absolutely against that.

We've gone from saying something stupid and crazy to saying nazi's are "very fine people", immigrants are the "worst" thing to happen to germany, there is nothing wrong with "white supremacy", and Trump's fascism is good.

You can speak your crazy shit, but there will be repercussions!

 

[sandorski]

ok, now without using any more personal attacks or making up stuff I didn't say and then trying to justify your opinion with it

Can you make valid point about the topic at hand
and say if you agree or disagree that the First amendment should be edited to cover these areas?
(I already asked if the Title was changed to "CBS Anchor laments - can't we edit The First Amendment" would make you happier )

Why should anyone give you that much respect?

 

[KillerBee]

Another valid point - I rest my case

 

[Vic]

ok, now without using any more personal attacks or making up stuff I didn't say and then trying to justify your opinion with it

Can you make valid point about the topic at hand
and say if you agree or disagree that the First amendment should be edited to cover these areas?
(I already asked if the Title was changed to "CBS Anchor laments - can't we edit The First Amendment" would make you happier )

I can agree that we shouldn't even have to have this discussion. The 1st amendment is never going to be "edited." Nor should it. But my opinion in that regard doesn't mean that I agree that speech should be free from consequences.

 

[UglyCasanova]

What about if your free speech is about how all Jews are masterminds bent on global enslavement, and all blacks are violent criminal thugs, and all Muslims are radical terrorists devoted to forcing Christians under Sharia law? And this speech spreads so that people in those groups are murdered and/or subjugated?
Is that speech still just 'ideas' that doesn't cause any harm?

One of the great failures in this alt-right philosophy is that freedom should exist without moral constraint or ethical responsibility. It's why that movement embraces trolls who do nothing but tell lies for fun, like the OP. Or imagines that their free speech is so important that there should there be no reasonable societal constraints upon their speech, that their speech is somehow infringed when others speak back to disagree, or choose to voluntarily disassociate themselves.

The reason we're having this discussion is because no right can long exist when its abuse is tolerated. IOW, there would be none of this speech of curtailing free speech if people weren't being irresponsible with their right to free speech. Alt-right trolls continue to insist this about speech others disagree with, but disagreement has nothing to do with another shot up synagogue or mosque. It's about a failure to act responsibly.

I will now wait for some douchebag to call this virtue signaling or some BS like that.

What if the hate spewed on this forum towards chritsinans, whites, Republicans, etc causes someone to get attacked or murdered? Should that be silenced? Islam seems to breed bombers and people that drive trucks through crowds, should that be silenced? There are Imam's that preach hate, we can’t have hate. The government's job is to regulate that and silence them.

Ideas run the risk of bad results. Liberals understood this, and had the courage to defend freedom even so. When bad things happen address that, enforce justice. But trying to ban ideas is literally an Orwellian dystopia.

 

[Vic]

Several x's and snoozes etc, what is it you guys disagree with?

I miss the liberals, they’d defend people’s rights to express whatever ideas people want. They fought against the man trying to silence them, believed in the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", fought for people to have ideas of their own no matter how repulsive. Progressives have overtaken the left and that circle is reaching all the way around to grains of fascism. The attempt to control and suppress ideas is gaining traction. Liberals would be absolutely against that.

Liberals have always believed that freedom does not exist without responsibility and consequences. In fact, the liberal ideal is that there shouldn't have to be laws in order for people to act morally, ethical, and responsibly.

Meanwhile, it doesn't look like you're defending to the death the speech of this newsperson. I bet you disapprove of it so much you'd like to see her lose her job because of her speech, amirite?

 

[Vic]

What if the hate spewed on this forum towards chritsinans, whites, Republicans, etc causes someone to get attacked or murdered? Should that be silenced? Islam seems to breed bombers and people that drive trucks through crowds, should that be silenced? There are Imam's that preach hate, we can’t have hate. The government's job is to regulate that and silence them.

Ideas run the risk of bad results. Liberals understood this, and had the courage to defend freedom even so. When bad things happen address that, enforce justice. But trying to ban ideas is literally an Orwellian dystopia.

Your what if has nothing with anything I said, and you and your ilk are always trying to ban the speech in your what if.
You're not defending anyone's freedoms except your own. Deep down, you know this isn't about government regulating or silencing speech (because that isn't actually happening), but about you regulating and silencing speech that disagrees with you. Your emotions have you blinded to that it seems.

 

[Indus]

What if the hate spewed on this forum towards chritsinans, whites, Republicans, etc causes someone to get attacked or murdered? Should that be silenced? Islam seems to breed bombers and people that drive trucks through crowds, should that be silenced? There are Imam's that preach hate, we can’t have hate. The government's job is to regulate that and silence them.

Ideas run the risk of bad results. Liberals understood this, and had the courage to defend freedom even so. When bad things happen address that, enforce justice. But trying to ban ideas is literally an Orwellian dystopia.

You make it sound like no one calls out bad actors on their own side which is a totally ridiculous statement.

 

[alien42]

why is it that when i read the OPs posts, it is in a Russian accent?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Your what if has nothing with anything I said, and you and your ilk are always trying to ban the speech in your what if.
You're not defending anyone's freedoms except your own. Deep down, you know this isn't about government regulating or silencing speech (because that isn't actually happening), but about you regulating and silencing speech that disagrees with you. Your emotions have you blinded to that it seems.

Where have I called for regulating or silencing speech. Show me. You’re making up a position you want me to have to argue against but it’s a blatant lie. Go figure.

 

[Indus]

Where have I called for regulating or silencing speech. Show me. You’re making up a position you want me to have to argue against but it’s a blatant lie. Go figure.

Umm...

The answer is obviously we need the government to regulate speech.

Self pwn much?

 

[Vic]

Where have I called for regulating or silencing speech. Show me. You’re making up a position you want me to have to argue against but it’s a blatant lie. Go figure.

You demanded that I be banned from here because I insinuated that you were a racist.
More to the point, you consistently argue that people are trying take away your free speech because they disagree with your speech. What is the purpose of such hyperbole, I wonder?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Umm...



Self pwn much?

Sarcasm much? Reread through that post of mine you took it from.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You demanded that I be banned from here because I insinuated that you were a racist.
More to the point, you consistently argue that people are trying take away your free speech because they disagree with your speech. What is the purpose of such hyperbole, I wonder?

You are a racist. I don’t care if you’re banned for such.

As far as this: you consistently argue that people are trying take away your free speech because they disagree with your speech

Yes I argue that people seem to be trying to suppress speech (more importantly the ideas), and yes I think that’s a bad direction to go in. Is it hyperbole? I mean what is this thread about then?

 

[dawp]

You make it sound like no one calls out bad actors on their own side which is a totally ridiculous statement.

except on the right, seems they tend to defend the undefendable.

 

[Ichinisan]

You mean that UKIP fascist provocateur Meechan who was pretending to make a joke? Good example for you to pick.

You're a real piece of work if you go along with that smear stuff. That kind of group-think is how they managed to actually convict him for making a joke.

The fact that Nazis are vile and offensive was the joke. THAT'S THE JOKE. Plain and simple. The joke doesn't work if you like Nazis or Nazi ideas.

Regardless, if he was a Nazi guy, it's still ridiculous to arrest him for his joke. The right to free speech is worthless if we can prevent speech we don't like with laws and penalties.

 

[Ichinisan]

That's a common misunderstanding.

Kiddie porn, well yeah because it violates the rights of a child that had no real choice.

Any other kind of porn? Obscenities? Nope. Government doesn't restrict that. Only the FCC restricts free public / unencrypted broadcast.

What regulations are there against "fighting words?" You're allowed to say them, and in some cases a threatened person could be justified in attacking you. Fighting words are not forbidden.

False advertising is simple theft by deception. That's not restricting free speech at all. If a false advertisement didn't cause you to lose money or time, or cause you any other kind of loss, you probably can't do anything about it.

What about if your free speech is about how all Jews are masterminds bent on global enslavement, and all blacks are violent criminal thugs, and all Muslims are radical terrorists devoted to forcing Christians under Sharia law? And this speech spreads so that people in those groups are murdered and/or subjugated?
Is that speech still just 'ideas' that doesn't cause any harm?

It's really fucking simple. Punish acts, not speech.

One of the great failures in this alt-right philosophy is that freedom should exist without moral constraint or ethical responsibility. It's why that movement embraces trolls who do nothing but tell lies for fun, like the OP. Or imagines that their free speech is so important that there should there be no reasonable societal constraints upon their speech, that their speech is somehow infringed when others speak back to disagree, or choose to voluntarily disassociate themselves.

The reason we're having this discussion is because no right can long exist when its abuse is tolerated. IOW, there would be none of this speech of curtailing free speech if people weren't being irresponsible with their right to free speech. Alt-right trolls continue to insist this about speech others disagree with, but disagreement has nothing to do with another shot up synagogue or mosque. It's about a failure to act responsibly.

I will now wait for some douchebag to call this virtue signaling or some BS like that.

If someone believes something that is wrong and immoral, banning their speech prevents any discussion that could actually change their mind.

 

[Ichinisan]

Liberals have always believed that freedom does not exist without responsibility and consequences. In fact, the liberal ideal is that there shouldn't have to be laws in order for people to act morally, ethical, and responsibly.

Meanwhile, it doesn't look like you're defending to the death the speech of this newsperson. I bet you disapprove of it so much you'd like to see her lose her job because of her speech, amirite?

So? If he wanted her speech to be illegal and punishable by law, that would be another thing entirely. Understand?

 

[Ichinisan]

Where have I called for regulating or silencing speech. Show me. You’re making up a position you want me to have to argue against but it’s a blatant lie. Go figure.

Umm...

The answer is obviously we need the government to regulate speech.

Self pwn much?

You're obviously too dense to understand sarcasm or a rhetorical statement.

 

[Ichinisan]

You demanded that I be banned from here because I insinuated that you were a racist.
More to the point, you consistently argue that people are trying take away your free speech because they disagree with your speech. What is the purpose of such hyperbole, I wonder?

Expecting moderators to maintain a civil discussion on a private forum has NOTHING to do with government-regulated speech.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You're a real piece of work if you go along with that smear stuff. That kind of group-think is how they managed to actually convict him for making a joke.

The fact that Nazis are vile and offensive was the joke. THAT'S THE JOKE. Plain and simple. The joke doesn't work if you like Nazis or Nazi ideas.

Regardless, if he was a Nazi guy, it's still ridiculous to arrest him for his joke. The right to free speech is worthless if we can prevent speech we don't like with laws and penalties.

"Smear stuff?" You mean he didn't join UKIP? He hasn't tried to hitch his wagon to fascist shits like Yaxley-Lennon?

The guy appears to be just another fascist shit with the typical "aww, can't you libs take a joke?" bullshit. He can go fuck himself with a copy of Mein Kampf a few times.

UKIP candidate Mark Meechan linked to racist forum posts

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48094266

No need to "smear" that little shit. He does a great job of it all by himself.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's a common misunderstanding.

Kiddie porn, well yeah because it violates the rights of a child that had no real choice.

You're half right about this, and 100% wrong in all your remaining comments.

In the US, even if the actor is 18 or over, it's still kiddie porn if he or she is portraying a fictional character who is under 18. In such cases, the actor could be 24 years old and it's still kiddie porn. So it need not be a violation of the rights of a minor. We just punish it because we don't like the effect the portrayal has on people watching it. We don't want people to see it.

Any other kind of porn? Obscenities? Nope. Government doesn't restrict that. Only the FCC restricts free public / unencrypted broadcast.

Entirely incorrect. Under Miller v. California, the state may prohibit "obscenities" meeting a definition set forth by the SCOTUS in that case. It's a vague standard, but the federal government and all 50 states have obscenities laws. Traditionally they've only enforced them against the most extreme pornography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

For example, the pornographer Paul Little aka "Max Hardcore" spent 2 and 1/2 years in federal prison in Texas on obscenities charges, from 2009-2012. He was also charged at various times with kiddie porn but it was the obscenities charges that landed him in jail.

Apparently the state lost a major obscenities case about 5 years back and both the feds and states haven't been enforcing these laws since. They remain on the books, however. And since they're structured to meet the Miller standard, they are constitutional unless Miller is ever overturned.

What regulations are there against "fighting words?" You're allowed to say them, and in some cases a threatened person could be justified in attacking you. Fighting words are not forbidden.

Do you even check sources before opining on legal issues? I'll just link wiki for you on this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

False advertising is simple theft by deception. That's not restricting free speech at all. If a false advertisement didn't cause you to lose money or time, or cause you any other kind of loss, you probably can't do anything about it.

You're wrong again. Liability for false advertising isn't based on harm caused. States have false advertising statutes to punish false advertising whether or not there is harm or a complaining citizen. But the standards are quite permissive. They are allowed to engage in mere "puffery" which is something like better than lying but worse than telling the truth. It has to be an out and out factual lie to be subject to liability.

It's a criminal action typically pursued by the state's AG against the advertiser. Private individuals have no right to pursue the theory, only the state. Individuals can sue advertisers if they suffered financial harm, but then it would be fraud, not false advertising. The state can pursue it just for being false. It's not often pursued, but I believe all 50 states have such laws. Example:

https://www.shouselaw.com/false-advertising

Four strikes and you're out.

 

[zinfamous]

The freedom to say whatever you want even if it falls into those other areas makes America great. They’re trying to ban ideas, that’s 1984ish

why are you so concerned that Nazis might not get their ideas open and heard as you want them to? Why does this keep you up at night?

 

[cytg111]

Several x's and snoozes etc, what is it you guys disagree with?

I miss the liberals, they’d defend people’s rights to express whatever ideas people want. They fought against the man trying to silence them, believed in the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", fought for people to have ideas of their own no matter how repulsive. Progressives have overtaken the left and that circle is reaching all the way around to grains of fascism. The attempt to control and suppress ideas is gaining traction. Liberals would be absolutely against that.

Manson had a lot to say also.. I can gather your thinking on that one as well..
At some point it becomes a cult not only poisonous for the cult members but society at large... If you want to see libs fight for the right to fucking speak look to voter suppression and anti gerrymandering... UC... have you been watching Fox again? We talked about this...

 

[darkswordsman17]

Another valid point - I rest my case

And that's the problem. You rested your case before you even started typing a post because you put zero actual thought into anything. You're just spewing out the shit that others have thrown at the wall and told you to smear everywhere. There were many valid points made and you just kept wanting to go back to your original false point because you have nothing else. Just like all these other idiots that keep trying to make the same flawed points over and over while getting mad when people point out that they're fundamentally flawed, and then after they try it for the 20th time just refute their simple lies and don't bother with the rest because its not worth playing your dipshit games.