That doesn't even make sense.Vernedead wrote:
Exceptions To Free Speech.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man who told a small child that santa claus did not exist.
Agreed...ATG wrote:
No doubt somebody has posted the ravings of this lunatic before. It is not my point just to say " hey looky at this guy " and post the video. My point is to say free speech is not so valuable as to allow these people to spew their vile, insane words. They need to be stopped.
Stopped from protesting soldiers funerals, stopped from broadcasting or running a website. Stopped from being able to speak at all perhaps.
Free speech be damned.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1178304529&p=1
I'm trying to find the part where I'm wrong. Inciting people to violence is telling them to harm someone, which is neither saying you want them to die nor need them to die.blisteringsilence wrote:
You are all wrong. You can say you want someone to die. You can say someone needs to die.Bubbalo wrote:
Also inciting people to violence is a crime, no?
So, should you be allowed to declare that elected US officials need to die, ATG?
What you can't say is "I am going to kill [Joe Blow]." That's a threat.
And any other mayor who is supplanting the legal system of the United States. . .aka Gavin Newsome up here in SF!!!ATG wrote:
I've never told anyone to harm the mayor of L.A.
I said, IMO they are actively working within the legal system to supplant the laws of the United States, and they need to be taken out.
You simpleton, I meant by the ballot.
what about people who take light hearted comments far too seriously?blisteringsilence wrote:
That doesn't even make sense.Vernedead wrote:
Exceptions To Free Speech.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man who told a small child that santa claus did not exist.
What about all the cultures that don't say santa clause exists? The japanese folks from next door where I grew up didn't tell there kids there was a santa clause. When they asked, they said santa didn't exist.
There are exceptions to free speech. That, however, is not one of them.ATG wrote:
No doubt somebody has posted the ravings of this lunatic before. It is not my point just to say " hey looky at this guy " and post the video. My point is to say free speech is not so valuable as to allow these people to spew their vile, insane words. They need to be stopped.
Stopped from protesting soldiers funerals, stopped from broadcasting or running a website. Stopped from being able to speak at all perhaps.
Free speech be damned.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1178304529&p=1
Which is why you didn't object to me assuming you meant kill them when you said it before?ATG wrote:
I've never told anyone to harm the mayor of L.A.
I said, IMO they are actively working within the legal system to supplant the laws of the United States, and they need to be taken out.
You simpleton, I meant by the ballot.
Not true. There is no guarantee to free speech over the public airwaves. There IS a guarantee to free speech in public.Ridir wrote:
The single largest current restriction of free speech right now in the United States is the FCC which fines radios and Television for using words on their respective broadcasting systems I believe, I know it's off topic from what you two are rambling about but just food for thought.
That's South Dakota for you...BN wrote:
If they can curb this womans freedom of speach
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle. … _plate.txt
why not these sickos?
LOL... Agreed...JahManRed wrote:
Let them rant away...don't let them erode your freedom of speech. Just ignore them as they are getting what they want with all the media attention.
The TV and news stations should group together and agree not to give them any more coverage and they will go away. Ohh and no media coverage of the hairy bikers beating the shit out of them either.....hopefully.