Free Speech, But Not Entirely

It’s really amazingly easy to discern the righties and lefties in this thread.

The righties want to criminalize speech they don’t like and the lefties don’t.

 

That's why this whole MAGA thing is just a giant Orwellian experiment, and I doubt Trump has read Orwell, but pretty sure Steven Miller has.

 

Justice Holmes in 'his ruling on the Schenck case: “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.” But while his analogy struck an emotional chord, it really had nothing to do with constitutional law.'

'For the next 50 years, clear and present danger was the accepted—and slightly vague—metric for discerning if spoken or printed material was protected speech. Then, in 1969, the Supreme Court overturned Schenck in Brandenburg v. Ohio.'

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater

 

So, funny you should bring up "speach" ... Obviously a new standard... Thanks for bringing it up... LOL

So, is this you, also, suggesting that fighting words is legal speech?

 

Rut roh hypocrisy alert hypocrisy alert

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

 

The subject is about CRIMINALIZING speech. So where did Fullmetaljack say he wanted to CRIMINALIZE speech?

 

I can see why its all fuzzy wuzzy. Which is threatening hate speech? Death to Jews, death to the Klan, death to Iran, death to America, death to OPEC, death to Blacks..... Probably none of those statements are, because they are wishes. You don't like them and wish them dead. An opinion.

 

Thank you @ECA for so effectively gutting @Oldyoungin 's typical rightie post.

He took a post on a different topic and conversation, censorship of deliberately false,malicious, libelous posts on social media,
and tried to turn it into a justification for criminalizing free speech that he doesn't like.

Nice try, @Oldyoungin , but we expect this from righties. When they can't argue the facts, they just make up stuff. When their falsehoods get called out, they just keep repeating them to their sheep who just keep bleating.

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGA.

(BTW, this post is an example of free speech and it even has the truth to back it up)

 

OK, you just want to "censor" free speech you don't like. Got it. LOL.

 

QED

I love it when righties confirm my description of them with their very own words and actions.
Thank you , O !

 

You also love censoring speech you don't like apparently.

 

"Apparently" ? So you're not sure ?

Is that the topic of this thread ? Or the other thread from which to pulled my quote ?
Do you even know ?

 

Here's another good one:

Oh yeah you a big free speech guy ! LOOL.
The funny thing about lefties on this forum is their party flip flops on issues so much you don't have to go to far back to find hypocritical post like the one above where Fullmetaljacket wants jones to "suffer consequences" because of what he said.

 

It was so easy to do. He's always trying to "catch" me and always fails. He has a habit of conflating different things and therefore being flat out wrong.

 

Censor?

 

Deflecting again because you got caught in another fabrication? I love it !
LMAO

BTW, a JURY said Jones gets to "suffer consequences" because of what he said. Clearly what he did was not free speech and was malicious.
And I happen to agree with them.

Strike 2 on @Oldyoungin !

 

This is actually false. You can state that you want to kill the President. What makes it criminal is in the planning of actually doing it.

 

You said you wanted him to suffer because of his speech. Those are YOUR quotes, not mine.

How does wanting Alex Jones to suffer for his speech show that you support free speech?

 

Nah. I think its about the same as flag burning. It is legit speech and shouldn't be a crime.

Should be totally legal to refuse to serve or do business with flag burners and 'Death to America' chanters tho.

 

Very simply. What he did was not free speech. And there is a jury verdict that affirms that fact.

Don't see the word "free" in there , do you ?

STRIKE THREE ! You're outa here !

 

What made his speech not free speech, in your opinion?

 

The verdict. Which is now fact.

 

So if they convicted someone for hate speech for saying "death to america" , you would agree that speech shouldn't be protected as free speech due to the verdict?

 

That's a question that isn't specific enough and with an assumption that isn't necessarily valid.
Saying "death to America" by itself might not meet the definition of hate speech sufficient to permit a conviction, as a matter of law.

However, since you're desperate for an answer, IF "death to america" was part of a larger diatribe that included language or threats or incitements that met the legal definition of "hate speech" and a conviction was obtained, then YES, it shouldn't be protected as free speech.

 

You just said the verdict is how you determined whether someones speech is free speech or not. So wouldn't that hypothetical verdict on the "death to america" , if we are being consistent, lead you to believe that speech is not free?