Cut that out or Hank will ***** slap you.

Speyside wrote:

You haven't learned the trick to curse, obviously... shit.

MACS wrote:

must...know...now

frankj1 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.

Buckwheat wrote:

So who gets to decide what is "good" or "bad" free speech?

Buckwheat 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.

TMCTLT 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

dstieger wrote:

See? It is possible to be offensive without using curses...

delta1 wrote: