You need to defend Trump's freedom of speech even if you don't agree with what he's saying

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

You're answering for Deny Arrogance now? LOL Okay. In rough order of your statements:

Rights are based on trust? By whom or between whom? Are you saying that the existence of "natural rights" is a function of some sort of consensus that we have them?

Who are you to tell me what natural rights I have? How will you enforce your restrictions upon me? You may define a defense of myself and my way of life as aggressive, but I do not. It is fundamental to be able to act in defense of my best interest and survival.

You mention a string of platitudes. Are you trying to claim that every act of protest from Chicago to Tucson has been "violent coercion"? Even you must see that as the blatant exaggeration that it is.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

No offense, but I don't understand what that has to do with me needing to defend Trump's crappy rhetoric. Unless you were saying it as a separate thing. And I think you forgot that I already encourage people to support the Green Party and Libertarian Party over the Dems & Repubs.

Also, I'm a Muslim (as everyone here should know). So yeah, his comments piss me off. And his arrogant spokeswoman's anti-Muslim rhetoric pissed me off even more. Also, I have a lot of immigrant friends and have a lot of love for Mexico. So his comments about them piss me off, too. And on & on...

Children in America are “watching the internet and they want to be masterminds”, Trump said in a speech.

"We're losing a lot of people because of the internet," Trump said. "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening.

“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

How soon Have people forgotten that this asshat wants to restrict freedom of speech

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Actually, it's probably a safe bet to just accept that his supporters like the stuff he's said, including that. There are authoritarians in every demographic. And don't forget how many people willingly give up their rights or want to strip others of their rights every time a disaster or terrorist strike happens. Some people gleefully called for rounding people up and far worse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I say that is a double standard. I say no one's "free speech" is being violated.

“I give him credit for having spirit, he wanted them to take down those horrible profanity laced signs,” Trump said, repeating a campaign statement that Lewandowski did not in fact touch the protester, despite the video. Lewandowski faces a separate criminal complaint for allegedly assaulting a reporter.

Apparently being politically correct is another kind of double standard...

:-)

Oh no - not profanity!

We have a lot to worry about Gryphon - and it's bigger than Donny. The game is afoot

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

We have a lot to worry about Gryphon - and it's bigger than Donny. The game is afoot

Now that, my friend, is among the most insightful things I've seen on ATS in quite some time.

We should forget the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing: we stand before Kali.

The people will reject him. Most people are not as divisive as Trump is.

Hopefully they steal his votes,and make the election an even bigger joke than it is now and give them to Cruz so the corrupt GOP will fold and a third party can rise.

Next time don't push divisive people and embrace people of different cultures/ethnicities and you will win a campaign or two.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
You need to defend Trump's freedom of speech even if you don't agree with what he's saying

You need to defend his freedom of speech. Even if his policies are divisive you need to allow him to express his views. If you are threatening violence because something he something that angers you then your an authoritarian and you are no different from the two authoritarian parties.
I don't agree with his policies nor do I agree with Hillary,Cruz or Bernie.

If we are a free country we have to let people have freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

People using violence(or the threat of violence) as a means of political coercion is wrong. That is what the authoritarians do.

Thank you for saying that and I agree 100%. The right to freedom of speech is just too critical and fundamental to the concept of freedom and democracy for it to be compromised to any extent, even one little inch.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

There are people that are threatening him and telling to drop out or to not speak in public. Clearly violating his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Trump is a big boy with a lot of money, influence and power. Telling him to not speak only spurs him on

He's free to say whatever he wants

He practically owns Twitter - and the press hangs on his every word

How has his freedom been violated? Are we not allowed to tell him what we think of him?

Sounds like you'd be ok to regulate him and his supporters to tweets and social media?

See, you are telling his supporters what you think of them too.

They just might take it the wrong way as it is being presented to them.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Not as much his freedom of speech, as much as the right to discuss matters. The greatest danger to any democracy, is when you are denied to debate a matter, because it infringes on somebody's else's "rights". But when these "rights" are expressed, they are "emotions" and not rights.

There is no democracy, if we can't discuss delicate matters ... one such "item" is "the holocust", another is "9/11", and another "roswell". All of these issues are dealt with, by "labeling" the individuals who bring them up ... either as "Nazi", "crazy", "racist" or any other term ... which intent is to end the debate.

Donald Trump, is an example of this ... I don't agree with the guy on any issue, really ... and even those I agree with him on, I don't believe for an instant, that this "business man", who only goal is to make money. Is going to "close the doors" of money laundering, for the rich and powerful.

But, the US has one of two ways to go ... wake up ... or lose their democracy.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Gryphon66
I never said the government was censoring Trump.

There are people that are threatening him and telling to drop out or to not speak in public. Clearly violating his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

So you want to ban other peoples right to free speech, but let Trump say what he wants with no redress then?

I thought as a previous poster has already said, the amendment you are talking about is congress allowing free speech, it's nothing to do with individuals.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Sounds like you'd be ok to regulate him and his supporters to tweets and social media?

Is that what it sounds like?

:-)

They just might take it the wrong way as it is being presented to them.

Kinda like you just did here?

Your post only reinforces what I've been thinking for a while now. This country might just be screwed for the forseeable future - and it isn't gong to be the fault of TPTB

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The people will reject him. Most people are not as divisive as Trump is.

Hopefully they steal his votes,and make the election an even bigger joke than it is now and give them to Cruz so the corrupt GOP will fold and a third party can rise.

Next time don't push divisive people and embrace people of different cultures/ethnicities and you will win a campaign or two.

Good post - I hope you're right

I think we need more than 3 parties, but as far as 2016 goes - it is what it is. All we can do is pay attention, speak out minds, vote - and hope for the best

Just so you know - I fully support Trump's right to say whatever nonsense he feels like pulling up from his lower bowel. I also believe (so very much) that nobody should ever be prevented from hearing it

I also believe that we all have the right to speak out against that. It might not be polite. Or politically correct. It might actually be disruptive - it is a protest after all :-)

So long as nobody gets hurt - it's all fair

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you ever think we would all be where we are right now?

It's going to take a special kind of patriotism to make this all work out. I gotta say one more time - I admire your patience, stamina and resolve

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you ever think we would all be where we are right now?

It's going to take a special kind of patriotism to make this all work out. I gotta say one more time - I admire your patience, stamina and resolve

:-)

Not in my lifetime.

I guess we'll see which way the winds of the Zeitgeist will blow ... and I have great admiration for your posts as well!

The only freedom of speech I wont defend is The Westboro Baptist Church. Look at what Farrakhan and Al Sharpton say at their speeches, 'kill crackers" ,,,do we try to shut the down ? Trump mentions the word "LOVE" hundreds times more than Bernie and Hillary put together,

Maybe they should just speak out about wanting Trump to have scrutinized speeches written out by a team of experts instead of saying what he wants ? I don't think "nonsense" got him to the top. Reminds me of the early 70s when people laughed at the idea of a microwave oven because they couldn't see fire, now everyone has one and some use them daily. All things are laughed at first before they become great .

a reply to: Medicator

I think the point is to defend anyone's right to speak.

Not so much to defend the content of what they say, but just their ability and freedom to actually say it.

Freedom of Speech is only for Progressives. It doesn't count for anyone else:

From what I've seen, with the outliers excluded on both sides, is that Mr. Trump encourages violence in his rallies.

People fight and scuffle. It's wrong, but it happens.

People trespass and block highways (stupid) as civil disobedience. They want to be arrested to bring attention to their cause.

Violence is wrong, generally speaking.

Trespass is wrong.

Flipping birds and screaming in someone's face is wrong (assault).

And these acts should be dealt with as the law allows, although, as a leftist, I am not in favor of letting the State take care of everything for us.

HOWEVER.

For a figure like Mr. Trump, who seeks to be the President of the United States, arguably the most POWERFUL position in the world to instruct his followers to kick, beat and send opponents out on stretchers rises to a different level of WRONG in my mind.

THIS is the level at which Trump is directly comparable to the fascist, right-wing, authoritarian nutjobs of the past.