America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by tailgater. 44 replies replies.
Free speech
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I find it difficult to embrace the notion of "free speech" when the message is so clearly horrifying.

NAMBLA pedophiles
The Westboro Baptist low lifes.
The nazi racist kkk supremacist idiots.

But for years I heard from good people with good intentions and strong arguments that we have to accept these vile atrocities if we are truly a nation with free speech.

Until now.

Now it has become political. So people want to prevent it.
Which I'm fine with.
Except their opposition has become just as vile and violent and hate filled as those who they oppose.

But if we say this out loud, we're labeled as racist.
We can't say that "both sides" are wrong. Because the simple minds regard this as sympathizing with the nazis.

But I will say it.
Both sides are wrong. And both sides should be arrested when they step out of line and break laws through violence or threats or vandalism.
Both sides.

So suck it.


bgz Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Yep, violence and vandalism is not speech.

Free Speech must be protected, it's what separates us from the Canadians.

Edit:

Oh ya, found this, interesting read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-canada_b_2324999.html
Gene363 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
Number one for sure and number three most likely, are speaking of committing crimes, they should be able to speak their minds as they stand in front of a firing squad. The second group are just annoying, heartless, blasphemous a z z holes.
tailgater Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Gene363 wrote:
Number one for sure and number three most likely, are speaking of committing crimes, they should be able to speak their minds as they stand in front of a firing squad. The second group are just annoying, heartless, blasphemous a z z holes.


Yes and no.
A white supremacist could theoretically hate non-whites but not want to hurt them.
Not a crime.
Just despicable.

Gene363 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
tailgater wrote:
Yes and no.
A white supremacist could theoretically hate non-whites but not want to hurt them.
Not a crime.
Just despicable.



Those pedophile sick F's call their idea, "love" but they still need killing.

It's hateful thinking, it's 1984 and it's a Brave New World, thinking bad things will be verboten before we know what happened.
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Yup.
delta1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Free speech for KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists? Hell YES!!! It allows the rest of us to see the malignancy in their hearts and souls...

But if they assert those rights as a pretext to commit acts of violence... to initiate violent confrontations... and demand to carry torches, bats, spears disguised as flag poles, and semi-auto weapons as they speak....then NO. Free speech does not apply to attempts to incite violence. Just as one may not say "FIRE" in a crowded theater, one may not say "Kill that Neegga" in a public place...

Boston and Dallas showed, mostly, that all groups can be allowed to exercise their rights to free speech: careful regulation of Time, Place and Manner, plan for safety and security of the speakers and those who attend to support or oppose, and especially the presence of sufficient numbers of neutral peace-keepers. Interesting that few far right people attended a rally when those TP and M regulations were put in place, showing that their real purpose was a show-down to draw attention to themselves duking it out with people, not to advocate that their views are legitimate.
Hillbillyjosh770 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-09-2014
Posts: 2,999
If you don't contribute your a drain. That simple.

Black, white, yellow, purple, pink. Whatever your color of skin looks is. If your out of school, and is not old, or injured you should be working.

If you loose your job or quit. You should sell your sports car if it's your single mode of transportation.

Quick story: last week a boy, pulled up in a corvette. As I was loading groceries in my truck.

He begins to tell me his in school. Taking class s to be a mechanic. He needed gas money.

He quit his full time job to go to school.

I may have missed something. But don't you get a job so you can afford schooling.

That's what I did.
Anyway.

I told him I won't be giving him gas money.
And he don't need to be quitting a job to go too school. Terrible excuse
tailgater Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
Free speech for KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists? Hell YES!!! It allows the rest of us to see the malignancy in their hearts and souls...

But if they assert those rights as a pretext to commit acts of violence... to initiate violent confrontations... and demand to carry torches, bats, spears disguised as flag poles, and semi-auto weapons as they speak....then NO. Free speech does not apply to attempts to incite violence. Just as one may not say "FIRE" in a crowded theater, one may not say "Kill that Neegga" in a public place...

Boston and Dallas showed, mostly, that all groups can be allowed to exercise their rights to free speech: careful regulation of Time, Place and Manner, plan for safety and security of the speakers and those who attend to support or oppose, and especially the presence of sufficient numbers of neutral peace-keepers. Interesting that few far right people attended a rally when those TP and M regulations were put in place, showing that their real purpose was a show-down to draw attention to themselves duking it out with people, not to advocate that their views are legitimate.


Of course their views aren't legitimate.
And it wasn't about "free speech".
But in Boston the only arrests were the opposition. Numbers would dictate this, but it shows that this is purely political. Because once the KKK was escorted out the crowds should have cheered, not kept up with vile chants against our President. Which they did.

Politics.
Not race, religion or statues.
Not a higher decency.
Just shallow politics as usual.
If we're honest enough to admit it.





delta1 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I didn't see all the details, but people protesting the KKK were arrested??? Great... I'm sure they were arrested for some violation of law, and weren't arrested for what they were saying, however vile those words are to some people...and that is as it should be...public protests against a sitting President are not new in America, and I'm sure they are disconcerting to him and his supporters...

Can't remember any Presidents acting offended and making public statements condemning those protesting them though...Trump should ignore the noise and get on with the work of his office...
tailgater Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
I didn't see all the details, but people protesting the KKK were arrested??? Great... I'm sure they were arrested for some violation of law, and weren't arrested for what they were saying, however vile those words are to some people...and that is as it should be...public protests against a sitting President are not new in America, and I'm sure they are disconcerting to him and his supporters...


I think the racists should have been punched in the throat.
The arrests were the "stop hate" crowd hating on everyone who didn't chant with them.

delta1 wrote:

Can't remember any Presidents acting offended and making public statements condemning those protesting them though...Trump should ignore the noise and get on with the work of his office...


100% agree.
I'd agree more if it were possible. POTUS and thin skinned is not a good mix. It's embarrassing.
Speyside Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Both sides should be ignored by the media. They seek an audience which the media is providing them. The media should report the facts and stop sensationalising. But we know that will not happen. Whoever committed a crime should be arested.
Burner02 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
Speyside wrote:
Both sides should be ignored by the media. They seek an audience which the media is providing them. The media should report the facts and stop sensationalising. But we know that will not happen. Whoever committed a crime should be arested.



The media has been ignoring one side for at least 8.5 years (nothing to see on the left).

They need to report and not push their agenda.
bgz Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
#12
#13

Agree on all accounts. Saw too many crimes go unpunished during some of these "protests". Anyway, I'm all for people saying what they have to say, I would just like to see it be done without violence.
delta1 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
^ yep
jjanecka Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Just a thought, what if the people organized and demonstrated against the media? What if the CEOs and figureheads had to deal with constant oppression not by the government but rather by the people?
gummy jones Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Speyside wrote:
Both sides should be ignored by the media. They seek an audience which the media is providing them. The media should report the facts and stop sensationalising. But we know that will not happen. Whoever committed a crime should be arested.


the sensationalizing is also glamorizing and brings all the loonies out of the woodwork, empowering their "cause"
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
**** them all!

We have ******* free speech in this country!

We can say whatever the **** we want!

And nobody can ******* censor us!

MACS Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
tailgater wrote:
**** them all!

We have ******* free speech in this country!

We can say whatever the **** we want!

And nobody can ******* censor us!



You haven't learned the trick to curse, obviously... shit.
Speyside Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Cut that out or Hank will ***** slap you.
SteveS Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
Speyside wrote:
Cut that out or Hank will ***** slap you.


**** Hank and the horse he rode in on
frankj1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
MACS wrote:
You haven't learned the trick to curse, obviously... shit.

must...know...now
tailgater Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
must...know...now


Dude.
You're like Mrs. Brady (Florence Henderson, not Giselle).
You think "stinker" is a swear word.

Stop.
Just...stop.

frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
how did you get ******* past the censors?
I can't even get the Steely Dan guy Donald ****an by them.
Hillbillyjosh770 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-09-2014
Posts: 2,999
Fuckfuckityfuckfuck.

Just testing. I apologize
I don't swear
Hillbillyjosh770 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-09-2014
Posts: 2,999
...... ****.
Ewok126 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
Laughing my ass off.
bgz Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
shit, didn't work.
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Marsha Marsha Marsha!
delta1 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
See? It is possible to be offensive without using curses...
Buckwheat Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
So who gets to decide what is "good" or "bad" free speech? Just because it is sick, unpopular &/or morally reprehensible doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to peacefully state these views as long as they don't break the law.
TMCTLT Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Buckwheat wrote:
So who gets to decide what is "good" or "bad" free speech? Just because it is sick, unpopular &/or morally reprehensible doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to peacefully state these views as long as they don't break the law.



Nope that's true, but they'll also get to enjoy the possible fallout that inevitably comes as a bi-product of that kind of hateful speech.....regardless of color creed or race.
DrafterX Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Some free speech going down in Phoenix tonight.. Trump speech that is.. but anti-Trumpers are showing too... You think they'll be wearing helmets and carrying bats..?? Huh
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Police lobbied what they say is pepper spray at protesters who threw rocks and water bottles at them as Trump's rally broke up. Clouds of the gas filled the night air as the president's supporters began leaving the downtown Phoenix Convention Center.


That didn't stop the two groups from shouting at each other — in a few cases with offensive language — and some skirmishes broke out. At one point, a Trump supporter and protester shoved each other. In another exchange, the two groups shouted at each other before moving on.

At one point, a half-dozen people carrying military-style rifles and dressed in fatigues joined the protesters. Members of the group, who called themselves the Redneck Revolt, described themselves as an anti-fascist group who were offended by the president's policies and comments in the aftermath of the Charlottesville violence
.

Film at 11... Think
dstieger Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Buckwheat wrote:
So who gets to decide what is "good" or "bad" free speech?


Constitution, Judiciary and ultimately the courts....always was that way, anyway.

TBH, I'm not all that concerned about the free speech conversations as they relate to groups protesting in person. There's enough history, precedent, coverage, legal recourse...that those questions will likely be settled to my satisfaction

I think the freedom of speech questions as they relate to what's on the interwebs is a far more interesting question. Google, godaddy, cloudflare, facebook, etc
Private entities controlling a hugely important 'utility' with full autonomy, if not authority to censor, steer, filter, etc. I HATE government regulation in principle...and am a huge proponent of net neutrality....but these interweb content providers, pipelines, enablers, search result drivers, etc. are in a unique position in our history and I'm more than a little concerned that self regulation is not the answer anymore
delta1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Well put...just adding my 0.02 to the last point....

...and that self control is too often absent...
Buckwheat Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
TMCTLT wrote:
Nope that's true, but they'll also get to enjoy the possible fallout that inevitably comes as a bi-product of that kind of hateful speech.....regardless of color creed or race.


Paul I agree 100% with you on this. Applause

dstieger wrote:
Constitution, Judiciary and ultimately the courts....always was that way, anyway.

TBH, I'm not all that concerned about the free speech conversations as they relate to groups protesting in person. There's enough history, precedent, coverage, legal recourse...that those questions will likely be settled to my satisfaction

I think the freedom of speech questions as they relate to what's on the interwebs is a far more interesting question. Google, godaddy, cloudflare, facebook, etc
Private entities controlling a hugely important 'utility' with full autonomy, if not authority to censor, steer, filter, etc. I HATE government regulation in principle...and am a huge proponent of net neutrality....but these interweb content providers, pipelines, enablers, search result drivers, etc. are in a unique position in our history and I'm more than a little concerned that self regulation is not the answer anymore


My comment was because it increasingly looks like many people on both sides want to make these judgement calls for everyone else. horse
delta1 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
yah...fact checking nowadays is first to see who is doing the speech, not hearing/listening to what is said, and then deciding if they should be shouted down......
tailgater Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
See? It is possible to be offensive without using curses...


You've met Hillary?

delta1 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
d'oh!
frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
You've met *******?


wow!
Stinkdyr Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
This is supposed to be the land of free speech.
Teach your kids to be critical thinkers.
Then none of the crap that religion, gubment, terrorists, haters, illiberal lefties, nazis, KKKs etc shovel at them will matter.


Sipping tea
DrafterX Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
You could just said CNN... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Stinkdyr wrote:
This is supposed to be the land of free speech.
Teach your kids to be critical thinkers.
Then none of the crap that religion, gubment, terrorists, haters, illiberal lefties, nazis, KKKs etc shovel at them will matter.


Sipping tea


That's not entirely true.
It's not enough for a typical college student to be a critical thinker. It also takes conviction.

Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude that's widely on display within an internet cigar forum, to speak out against the crowd. Especially when that crowd is as friendly and fun loving as the "anti-hate" antifa scum buckets.
Users browsing this topic
Guest