Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment Stops Me

what is trump trying to walk back?

 

This is right out of the bully playbook. The Right can do or say anything they like about others, but squeal extra loud when they get hit themselves.

 

He said perhaps not an absolute as you claimed. Please be more honest about the actual words used.

No direct quotes from Trump only a fired chief of staff who only said "we" Try again.

You really need to read what you are quoting because it does not support what you claim.

I'm still amazed why you find this so difficult. This is a legislator not a person on the street with the power to introduce bills and vote on laws that can limit free speech and he is openly saying he would love to do so. That's no small matter no matter how many times you try to dismiss it.

 

I would LOVE it if I could stop Nazis from parading down my street, but since I beleive in free speech, I won't try to stop it.
So am I someone who is trying to curtail free speech in your opinion? YES OR NO?

Speaking of Love, since clearly most of you here don't understand what Lieu is actually saying, I'm guessing that it's the word 'love' that has you all spun around. How the **** do you account for Trump saying 'we fell in love' about one of the worlds most murderous despot, with the most antidemocratic govt ever?

 

ymmv. not a hill i would choose to die on. however, a far cry from the context of this thread.

 

not sure how you think that would be relevant to this topic.

 

if you would love to stop them, you actually don’t believe in free speech.

 

So if he tells you that he would really like to violate young ones, but the law prevents him from doing so, why, it's on to high office!

 

It certainly was for Trump.

 

His opponent was Hillary who giggled over the bloody panties of a 14 year old rape victim and cackled over the murder of the Leader of Libya who was sodomized with a knife. So you can take your sanctimonious self-righteous attitude and shove it where the sun does not shine.

 

Sure, she did, Zorro. Sheesh.

 

Oh yeah - it's EXACTLY like that.

 

Incorrect; Clovis loves free speech MORE.

 

12 year old girl.

HClinton is one evil reptile for sure.

 

i have no idea what that means.

 

She loves free speech more than she'd love to see the Nazis refrain from marching.

Go back & re-read the comments?

 

She did.... She did.

Fun fact: Hillary threw a vase at Bill Clinton and hit him in the eye, forcing a makeup team to cover up the slight bruise so nobody really knew. So, Hillary was actually guilty of assault and battery against a sitting President.

 

the poster did not say s/he would love to see the nazis refrain from marching, rather, now watch what i do here... quoting the actual poster, “I would LOVE it if I could stop Nazis from parading down my street...”

careful not to hurt yourself moving that goalpost. they’re quite heavy and often well-anchored into the ground.

 

My words were that he had his people look into amending the 1st Amendment. He did. He openly talked about "opening up" libel laws, which would require changing the 1st Amendment, and so the WH looked into it.

Feel free to play make believe that the WH Chief of Staff was talking about a mouse in his pocket and not, you know, the WH. I can't fathom that kind of willful self deception.

So many fallacies here it is hard to know where to start, yet again. For one, no, he did not say, as you claim, that he would love to introduce bills and vote on laws that can limit free speech. That's completely disingenuous. This is the opposite of what he said. In fact, he vocally supported the 1st Amendment and said it was for the best, and that it wasn't the place of government to suppress speech . . . the exact opposite of your claim.

Second, if he wanted to limit free speech and had the power to do so, then you should have no problem showing where he made such an attempt. Pony up. I'm still amazed why you find this so difficult.

As a matter of objective fact, Trump has done far more to speak against the 1st Amendment than Lieu has.

 

Both are inherent rights violations.

 

Nonsense; you're being disingenuous.

 

Ludicrous & absurd.

 

You used to make better arguments. Whatever you have changed, you should change it back.

 

In this instance, there is no better argument.

Your claim is absurd; ludicrous; baseless.

Re-read the thread if you need further clarification.

TIA