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

gauva is projecting. He will not denounce alt right and conservative neo-fascism, he has no evidence whatsoever for his claims about the left, and he always is worth knowing that he has no versatility: he cannot improvise but has to go with the company patter.

 

Nope your message #6 to which I responded

 

What is there to denounce? The guy said it was a good thing the government doesn’t have the means to limit free speech. What does it matter what his personal views are if he doesnt act to impose those views on others?

I agree on not making claims you can’t backup. Just opens you up for easy jabs.

 

It is just another example and I take him at his word.

 

Nothing false those were his words.

 

No falsehoods, just dishonesty in selectively quoting what was said.

 

LOL What a shocker you can't see it.

Its pretty clear you need a basic education in what he actually said

" "I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don't get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so"

Now you can try to spin and justify it however you like even he tried to backpedal after he said it but you cannot give us any justifiable reason he said that whatsoever and your refusal to condemn it is so painfully predictable from a liberal perspective.

 

Only after he made the statement that he would personally love to regulate speech. Keep digging that hole.

 

It was in the same statement. It is what is known as a "concluding thought." Once again, functional literacy > paranoia. Being able to read isn't "digging."

 

He stated his opinion, and followed up by saying its for the best that the governemnt doesn’t allow him to enforce his opinion. I see no difference between that and a person saying they are against abortion, but acknowledge their opinion shouldn’t dictate law pertaining to people’s righta to body autonomy.

Neither statement needs to be denounced.

 

Bluesguy, you did not respond to #6. You are not able to say that Lieu's statements reflect that of other Democratic congressman. Your statement is not fact. You need evidence, which you don't have.

 

He said he wanted to do it but 1st Amendment was in the way, and not only wanted to do it but would LOVE to do it.

 

And he said that the government shouldn't do it and that it is a good thing they don't do it.

 

Where did a right wing insurgency try to shut down a liberal speaker? And the Trump administration looked at libel law and whether that should be changed.

 

Speaking generalizations, please elaborate on what you are referring to for clarity.​

 

When did it become illegal for people to protest a speaker at an event? Is that not part of free speech? Did it become illegal for a venue to respond to protests by dropping a speaker? Is that not their right?

 

Protesting is one thing, interrupting the event to which they are not the owner or renter of the space is the illegal part.

 

But he would LOVE to do it and then tried to walk it back.

 

The claim was made there was a right wing insurgency trying to shutdown liberal speech. And no, trying to quelch someone else's free speech is not a part of free speech especially when violence is used.

 

Then it would be on the venue to press charges if they saw fit.

 

Minus a call to action.

 

Or personally hired security to escort the protesters out of the venue.

 

He finished a thought. It wasn’t a backpedal.
But I don’t know why I’m responding here. This has already been made clear. Are you just annoyed that people read your article and found what you intentionally omitted?

 

It was in the exact same statement. It is called a concluding thought. Functional literacy > paranoia. You say you take him at his word, but that's blatantly untrue. You cherry pick.

 

You’re right that violence is not an acceptable means, but protesting someone else’s speech is absolutely free speech. Freedom of speech protects you from government interference, not private citizens.