It seems like a little refresher of what "Freedom of Speech" means is needed

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: kruphix

BS...they're a group of some of the most disgusting racist black people just as bad as Neo Nazis or KKK people. They tried to hide it under a very thin veil but I'm pretty sure we have enough live video footage to show the true colors. Maybe there was a small part of BLM who weren't about all the racism however they got flooded out by far and I haven't seen any footage of them standing up to the majority racist portion of that movement in any of the video footage I've seen of them being disfusting racists, unless you got some.

That is just your alt-right talking points speaking.

Compare BLM's message to the KKK's message.

Here is BLM:
blacklivesmatter.com...

#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

I'll let you go find the KKK/Daily Stormer/Vanguard America/Neo-Nazi's message.

If you still think they are exactly the same...have a nice life.

a reply to: kruphix

Well hopefully they decided,it was a bad idea to go, however I would bet it was that crowd who started the idea to protest removing the monuments. As for who caused violence it sure seems like both sides had a hand in that, and as I said lock em all up and sort it later. Anyone who brought weapons and the likes should have been arrested on the spot as well. I grew up in VA and have seen KKK rallies before. In fact as a kid a friend of mine was planning to attack their rally and word got out. Cops arrived and arrested him and held him until the rally was over, which is how that type of thing should be handled. Ensure the right of everyone to peaceably assemble and remove those who break the law. Pretty simple right? That, however was not what we saw play out here...and I'm sure those cops saw where this was headed and didn't really do anything to stop any of it...I would figure because they didn't like either of the groups involved and figured why not let it play out then sweep em all up.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kruphix

Are you saying that some people don't have a right to freely express themselves?

Ummm.....no.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

a reply to: kruphix

Actions speak louder than words and if a picture is worth a 1000 words then all the disgusting footage from BLM events speaks literal volumes!

Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kruphix

Are you saying that some people don't have a right to freely express themselves?

Ummm.....no.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Really? Apparently you have a problem with people expressing ideas that you disagree with.

Please clarify if I'm wrong.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: kruphix

Actions speak louder than words and if a picture is worth a 1000 words then all the disgusting footage from BLM events speaks literal volumes!

Ok, have a great life.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

I wonder how it went off topic?

Hmmmmm?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

Uh, no, he's actually right considering the argument context. When people shriek like flying monkeys over their freedom of speech, they're waving around the !st as their proof, like it's argument kryptonite.

Except it isn't, because it applies to what the government can (or rather, can't) impose on the people, not what the people can or can't impose on themselves. The laws pertaining to the latter are a different ball of legal wax.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kruphix

Are you saying that some people don't have a right to freely express themselves?

Ummm.....no.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Really? Apparently you have a problem with people expressing ideas that you disagree with.

Please clarify if I'm wrong.

No problem at all. I'd rather people with idiotic outdated views publicly out themselves.

I also don't have a problem with consequences for idiotic people publicly outing themselves. You can free speech to your hearts content about how racist you are...just don't cry when you get fired from your job because of it. You can organize all the hatefully rallies you want...just don't be surprised when people organize against you.

People are free to express all the idiotic views they want, but don't cry about people not liking them. And don't try to hide behind "freedom of speech" when the consequences catch up with you.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

Uh, no, he's actually right considering the argument context. When people shriek like flying monkeys over their freedom of speech, they're waving around the !st as their proof, like it's argument kryptonite.

Except it isn't, because it applies to what the government can (or rather, can't) impose on the people, not what the people can or can't impose on themselves. The laws pertaining to the latter are a different ball of legal wax.

Again, conflating the first amendment with free speech will get you nowhere.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

I wonder how it went off topic?

Hmmmmm?

Likely because the topic was a nonstarter.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

I wonder how it went off topic?

Hmmmmm?

Likely because the topic was a nonstarter.

Or because you are intentionally trying to derail the topic because you have little else to defend the actions of people using the "freedom of speech" argument.

Or maybe you really believe your silly semantics arguments...which is even worse imo.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

Uh, no, he's actually right considering the argument context. When people shriek like flying monkeys over their freedom of speech, they're waving around the !st as their proof, like it's argument kryptonite.

Except it isn't, because it applies to what the government can (or rather, can't) impose on the people, not what the people can or can't impose on themselves. The laws pertaining to the latter are a different ball of legal wax.

Again, conflating the first amendment with free speech will get you nowhere.

You do realize you just proved the OP's point, right? People conflated the two already and slap the Freedom of Speech on the 1st amendment as if they're one & the same.

Clearly this thread full of "experts" on the topic of discussion is the blind leading the blind. Not gonna get into it here. A lot of gray areas regarding this. I know enough about the 1st amendment and the freedom of expression. So Have fun everyone.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, conflating the first amendment with free speech will get you nowhere.

Go tell that to all the people on this board using the first amendment to defend the actions of "Unite The Right".

Your failed semantics, which is your fallback, will as usual get you nowhere.

You have a great life, nice non-chatting with you.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Let's all take a step back and also a refresher on the arguments of the OP, since it wasn't long before this subject went off topic.

Let's all take a step back and remember what "Freedom of speech" entails. Quite simply, it is the 1st amendment.

Quite simply, it was false.

Uh, no, he's actually right considering the argument context. When people shriek like flying monkeys over their freedom of speech, they're waving around the !st as their proof, like it's argument kryptonite.

Except it isn't, because it applies to what the government can (or rather, can't) impose on the people, not what the people can or can't impose on themselves. The laws pertaining to the latter are a different ball of legal wax.

Again, conflating the first amendment with free speech will get you nowhere.

You do realize you just proved the OP's point, right? People conflated the two already and slap the Freedom of Speech on the 1st amendment as if they're one & the same.

If both the OP and the neo-nazis want to conflate the first amendment with the principle it is designed to defend, that isn't company I wish to keep.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, conflating the first amendment with free speech will get you nowhere.

Go tell that to all the people on this board using the first amendment to defend the actions of "Unite The Right".

Your failed semantics, which is your fallback, will as usual get you nowhere.

You have a great life, nice non-chatting with you.

Its not semantics. You conflated two different things as if they were one and the same. It's a massive fallacy.

Enjoy life in ignorance.

a reply to: kruphix

Exactly.

Freedom of speech is exercised by those who voice an opinion, and those who stand against that opinion.

Both are guaranteed the freedom of speech, by the Constitution.

a reply to: kruphix

My grandmother used to say in an Edith Bunker like voice, "If you don't have anything nice to say shut your God dam mouth!"

I never understood my grandmother's obsession with manners. She told me many times over and over again, "Never say or do anything other people might find offensive." Eventually it sunk in so when I see or hear other people being rude it makes me think of my grandmother.