OK. And you should read this
First Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition | Constitution Center
Where my free speech people at?
- Thread starter dbjork6317
- Start date
OK. And you should read this
First Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition | Constitution Center
Why do you want me to read about a thing you don't agree with? Our country very clearly has limits on free speech:
Limits on Speech
And again, you tell me where I said any of this should be illegal. You can't, because you're a person of low moral fiber.
I decided to help you with what I said on hate speech, because reading is hard:
Where my free speech people at? - Page 7 - Forums
https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-meme-tennessee-arrest-larry-bushart-02b445f454bcfb657a48e8fa7e8ddfc9
You think saying that transing kids is immoral is hate speech? That IS the problem.Why do you want me to read about a thing you don't agree with? Our country very clearly has limits on free speech:
Limits on Speech
And again, you tell me where I said any of this should be illegal. You can't, because you're a person of low moral fiber.
I decided to help you with what I said on hate speech, because reading is hard:
Where my free speech people at? - Page 7 - Forums
https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-meme-tennessee-arrest-larry-bushart-02b445f454bcfb657a48e8fa7e8ddfc9www.on3.com
Why? Incumbent in all of that is the idea that being trans is bad. Disparaging people on immutable characteristics is hate speech in my book. I've maintained that hate speech shouldn't be a crime but I don't even know where those goal posts of yours have gotten to, at this point. You post a thing, as if we agree with it. We all say we don't . Then you pivot to something different because you can't keep your outrage boner up otherwise.
For the record, I think it's probably wise to not let children have sex change procedures. I've yet to see a compelling argument that puberty blockers are dangerous and that's the thing I'm most vehemently defending. And yes, I believe that if you think you shouldn't be allowed to give puberty blockers to minors that hate is your underlying justification.
An immutable characteristic is your gender. Gender = immutable. I think it is medical malpractice to practice gender ideology. It is poison. I have no hate in my heart, i just don't want children mutilated.
But yes, this is the essence of the problem. Someone always has to be the arbiter, and to say that calling out gender ideology is hate speech is patently absurd and downright evil.
What about saying that illegal aliens should be deported? Is that hate speech also?
I think it takes a special type of as shole for someone to think they can regulate what someone else says.
You're a pitiable creature, going around inventing things to be mad at because I've never said that this type of speech should be regulated. I hope that whatever hole you have in your life gets filled with something warm and happy.
Im not mad. I never said that you personally said it should be regulated.
I posted a link to Spain absolutely calling to censor speech, specifically hate speech. I point out that hate speech is subjective and should not be regulated. I also point out that democrats are aligned with Europe on many topics, often citing those countries as models for the social democracy they want here. Therefore, it would not be a stretch to see democrats support those kinds of things. To make my point, I call you out on what is is/not considered hate speech and your ridiculous stance that not agreeing with transing kids is hate speech.
People like you don't want free speech. You just want to be the censor. No anger, just making observations.
Alright, this has been a miserable experience for me. I sincerely hope it has been for you too. You seem to be pathologically incapable of having a worthwhile conversation about this so I'm going to excuse myself.
These two statements in the same post is incredible work. And exactly what he is complaining about.
You agree he has said it shouldn't be regulated. But by the end of your single post, you turn around and say people like him want it regulated. You couldn't make it one post before pivoting back to putting opinions on people they don't hold.
"putting opinion on people, like him." fixed it for you.
I am making a comparison between his views and those of Europeans. I don't think it's a leap to say that democrats here will want what the Europeans are doing. They use Europe as a model for their socialist fantasies all the time. You really think it's a stretch that democrats here won't adopt European views on speech? I think that is very naive. Especially with the views that FLAW has. While his views are not exactly the same, they are a diet version already. That's why we have the first amendment, so he can't fall off his diet and go full commie. You can just sense his desire to censor.
Despite no one here on the board agreeing with the Europeans, and our constitution being different from those countries. So once again we are back to having views put on people that don't hold them. Because you think they might. Are there any right leaning countries around the world you admire? Then we could look at how they treat free speech and put those thoughts on yourself and other conservatives since those nations lean right. You have also supported treating allies poorly if they don't hold to our exact values on free speech. And yet, I haven't heard the same thoughts from you when we gave money to Argentina. https://www.pen-international.org/n...-of-expression-under-javier-mileis-government
And while you've showed light disagreement with things this administration has said or done, it is always in response. You are never coming here railing about the many times they've shown themselves to be against free speech, but rather you have repeatedly attacked FLAW for example for positions he doesn't hold, because a left leaning country somewhere in the world has stricter laws than he says he even actually wants.
"You are never coming here railing about the many times they've shown themselves to be against free speech"
What should i be outraged about?
Quite a few things, not that I expect you to evaluate them like the shoe were on the other foot (loss of FCC independence, suing news agencies, press pool removals, arrests of reporters, using federal funds as a threat if protests aren't handled the way the admin likes, not allowing mergers or acquisitions until someone critical is fired, being against cancel culture until someone saying something they don't like then doing the exact opposite).
You also didn't response to any of the other points.
Timely article from today's WP
In October, a retiree emailed a DHS attorney to urge mercy for an asylum seeker. Then DHS subpoenaed his Google account and sent investigators to his home.
He had decided that the America he believed in would not make it if people like him didn’t speak up, so on a cool, rainy morning in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Jon, 67 and recently retired, marched up to his study and began to type.
He had just read about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s case against an Afghan it was trying to deport. The immigrant, identified in The Washington Post’s Oct. 30 investigation as H, had begged federal officials to reconsider, telling them the Taliban would kill him if he was returned to Afghanistan.
“Unconscionable,” Jon thought as he found an email address online for the lead prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, who was named in the story. Peering through metal-rimmed glasses, Jon opened Gmail on his computer monitor.
“Mr. Dernbach, don’t play Russian roulette with H’s life,” he wrote. “Err on the side of caution. There’s a reason the US government along with many other governments don’t recognise the Taliban. Apply principles of common sense and decency.”
That was it. In five minutes, Jon said, he finished the note, signed his first and last name, pressed send and hoped his plea would make a difference.
It's a long article and more characters than On3 allows so I'll cut and paste some of the highlights:
'Though the U.S. government had been accused under previous administrations of overstepping laws and guidelines that restrict the subpoenas’ use, privacy and civil rights groups say that, under President Donald Trump, Homeland Security has weaponized the tool to strangle free speech."
“There’s no oversight ahead of time, and there’s no ramifications for having abused it after the fact,” said Jennifer Granick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “As we are increasingly in a world where unmasking critics is important to the administration, this type of legal process is ripe for that kind of abuse.”
Since the start of Trump’s second term, the ACLU has repeatedly heard from people whom Homeland Security targeted with administrative subpoenas, the organization says. It’s taken on three of those cases, but none of them, its attorneys say, illustrate how the agency has exploited that legal power better than Jon’s.
“This subpoena was part of a criminal investigation,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, noting that Homeland Security Investigations has “broad administrative subpoena authority” under the law.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"He told the men about The Post’s investigation and his dismay over Homeland Security’s attempt to deport the Afghan who’d supported the U.S. war effort.
When they asked how he knew Dernbach’s email address, Jon, whose only social media is Facebook, told them he found it through a basic Google search.
He also shared the notice from Google, which, he said it seemed, they had not seen. Someone from Homeland Security’s headquarters in Washington had told their office to interview Jon, the men shared, though they didn’t give a name."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The investigators who questioned Jon told him Homeland Security couldn’t obtain his emails, documents, photos or other content with an administrative subpoena, he said, but the breadth of what federal investigators did ask for shook him.
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license and Social Security numbers.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“It doesn’t take that much to make people look over their shoulder, to think twice before they speak again,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, one of the ACLU attorneys. “That’s why these kinds of subpoenas and other actions — the visits — are so pernicious. You don’t have to lock somebody up to make them reticent to make their voice heard. It really doesn’t take much, because the power of the federal government is so overwhelming.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just before Christmas, the couple left for Puerto Rico. At the airport outside San Juan, they waited at baggage claim until every other passenger had left. Their luggage, they were told, remained in Philadelphia.
“Is this a coincidence?” he asked his wife.
The bags arrived at their cruise ship later that night, and the couple opened them in the cabin.
Nothing looked out of place in his wife’s, but in Jon’s, he found a notice from the Transportation Security Administration.
“Your bag,” the standard form read, “was among those selected for physical inspection.”
It did not explain why.
Homeland Security is targeting Americans with this secretive legal weapon
Under President Donald Trump, DHS has weaponized administrative subpoenas to attack free speech, according to privacy and civil rights groups.In October, a retiree emailed a DHS attorney to urge mercy for an asylum seeker. Then DHS subpoenaed his Google account and sent investigators to his home.
He had decided that the America he believed in would not make it if people like him didn’t speak up, so on a cool, rainy morning in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Jon, 67 and recently retired, marched up to his study and began to type.
He had just read about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s case against an Afghan it was trying to deport. The immigrant, identified in The Washington Post’s Oct. 30 investigation as H, had begged federal officials to reconsider, telling them the Taliban would kill him if he was returned to Afghanistan.
“Unconscionable,” Jon thought as he found an email address online for the lead prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, who was named in the story. Peering through metal-rimmed glasses, Jon opened Gmail on his computer monitor.
“Mr. Dernbach, don’t play Russian roulette with H’s life,” he wrote. “Err on the side of caution. There’s a reason the US government along with many other governments don’t recognise the Taliban. Apply principles of common sense and decency.”
That was it. In five minutes, Jon said, he finished the note, signed his first and last name, pressed send and hoped his plea would make a difference.
It's a long article and more characters than On3 allows so I'll cut and paste some of the highlights:
'Though the U.S. government had been accused under previous administrations of overstepping laws and guidelines that restrict the subpoenas’ use, privacy and civil rights groups say that, under President Donald Trump, Homeland Security has weaponized the tool to strangle free speech."
“There’s no oversight ahead of time, and there’s no ramifications for having abused it after the fact,” said Jennifer Granick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “As we are increasingly in a world where unmasking critics is important to the administration, this type of legal process is ripe for that kind of abuse.”
Since the start of Trump’s second term, the ACLU has repeatedly heard from people whom Homeland Security targeted with administrative subpoenas, the organization says. It’s taken on three of those cases, but none of them, its attorneys say, illustrate how the agency has exploited that legal power better than Jon’s.
“This subpoena was part of a criminal investigation,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, noting that Homeland Security Investigations has “broad administrative subpoena authority” under the law.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"He told the men about The Post’s investigation and his dismay over Homeland Security’s attempt to deport the Afghan who’d supported the U.S. war effort.
When they asked how he knew Dernbach’s email address, Jon, whose only social media is Facebook, told them he found it through a basic Google search.
He also shared the notice from Google, which, he said it seemed, they had not seen. Someone from Homeland Security’s headquarters in Washington had told their office to interview Jon, the men shared, though they didn’t give a name."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The investigators who questioned Jon told him Homeland Security couldn’t obtain his emails, documents, photos or other content with an administrative subpoena, he said, but the breadth of what federal investigators did ask for shook him.
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license and Social Security numbers.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“It doesn’t take that much to make people look over their shoulder, to think twice before they speak again,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, one of the ACLU attorneys. “That’s why these kinds of subpoenas and other actions — the visits — are so pernicious. You don’t have to lock somebody up to make them reticent to make their voice heard. It really doesn’t take much, because the power of the federal government is so overwhelming.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just before Christmas, the couple left for Puerto Rico. At the airport outside San Juan, they waited at baggage claim until every other passenger had left. Their luggage, they were told, remained in Philadelphia.
“Is this a coincidence?” he asked his wife.
The bags arrived at their cruise ship later that night, and the couple opened them in the cabin.
Nothing looked out of place in his wife’s, but in Jon’s, he found a notice from the Transportation Security Administration.
“Your bag,” the standard form read, “was among those selected for physical inspection.”
It did not explain why.
Last edited:
My point exactly. Europe’s speech laws are already influencing the US.
Democrats love Europe. It’s perfectly reasonable to think they will adopt Europe’s speech laws because well it’s already happening.
Absolute free speech.
Minnesota cancels conservative comics 6 sold out shows under guise of security and safety.
He clearly struck a nerve with the wrong people and now they silenced him.
www.zerohedge.com
He clearly struck a nerve with the wrong people and now they silenced him.
Minnesota Club Cancels Comedian's Sold Out Show Over Good Joke<!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
You cannot dox a public servant. That's dumb a ****. I can go on da guberment website and tell you the salaries and names for all charlotte police.
Public servants are not private citizens. So...
The UK arrests on average 35 people per day for speech. The left absolutely wants some version of that. They all but did it during Covid, and they wanted people locked up then for misinformation. You are correct in your assessment that they want free speech where it suits them. There is ZERO medical data showing preferential outcomes with puberty blocking treatments, but they’ll railroad any medical professional that says that or that says covid vaccines do not work, yet here we are talking about free speech.
Happens more than you’d think. Rogan has guys on a good bit that get shows cancelled. I guess it’s the prerogative of the venue tho.Minnesota cancels conservative comics 6 sold out shows under guise of security and safety.
He clearly struck a nerve with the wrong people and now they silenced him.
Minnesota Club Cancels Comedian's Sold Out Show Over Good Joke<!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
The comedy clubs canceled his tours because he made a crude joke about Renee Good. That's their prerogative as they're private businesses. The government had nothing to do with the 6 clubs canceling his shows.Minnesota cancels conservative comics 6 sold out shows under guise of security and safety.
He clearly struck a nerve with the wrong people and now they silenced him.
Minnesota Club Cancels Comedian's Sold Out Show Over Good Joke<!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
Definitely the Streisland effect for him. Never would have heard of him otherwise, now he is getting tons of publicity. He should milk it more lol.
It was a tasteless joke, but that is what free speech is all about. I recognize the club is well within their rights to cancel, i just think they are stupid.
I saw that one of the comics unions are not letting their members perform at the venue until the situation is rectified. It will hit them in the wallet, who knows how bad it will hurt. On the flip side, the comic gained a ton of popularity he would have otherwise never gotten.
I just find it interesting. To me, it takes a narcissist of the highest order to believe you should be able to censor the speech of others.
I saw that one of the comics unions are not letting their members perform at the venue until the situation is rectified. It will hit them in the wallet, who knows how bad it will hurt. On the flip side, the comic gained a ton of popularity he would have otherwise never gotten.
I just find it interesting. To me, it takes a narcissist of the highest order to believe you should be able to censor the speech of others.
So Trump.
Kimmel as an example, but many,many more over the years. Thanks for making my point for me.
I’m fine with all that. Now what do you think about the bakeries being forced to provide wedding cakes for homosexuals? Should that be ok too? For the record I agree with you on this, the club has the right to pull him but I’m curious how you’d justify one and not the other.
I think private businesses should be able to do whatever they want - within reason and within the law. I don't agree with forcing a private business to force someone to bake a cake for someone. I believe that businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone, within the legal limits of the law. Refusing to serve someone because of their race/creed/etc is something I don't agree with, BUT I think a private business has that right and I believe the market (read: masses) will punish those businesses without the need of government intervention.
WTF is this? This is bullshvt and I hope it’s not accuarate. If it is accurate I hope they stop and fire some people. Bush league stuff. Why is the government allowed to get that information? We need stronger privacy laws and stronger speech protection laws.
Agreed that’s BS. But tracks with things they’ve been caught saying.
Edit to add: and thank you for the consistency.
Last edited:
Did he share their home address? Or just share where they were in the city?
My waze app tells me when a cop is on the side of the road.
We need to worry about censorship here at home before we worry about what other countries are doing, especially since those same concerns don't seem to apply to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar - just Europe.
Trump targets since he took office:
Media Organizations and Journalists
- The Associated Press (AP): Barred from White House events after refusing to use the term "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico".
- CBS News / 60 Minutes: Sued for $10 billion (later settled for $16 million) over an interview with Kamala Harris.
- ABC News / George Stephanopoulos: Settled a $15 million lawsuit regarding reporting on E. Jean Carroll.
- The Wall Street Journal (WSJ): Reporters banned from Air Force One after a story on Trump's interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.
- NPR and PBS: Targeted for federal funding cuts and subjected to investigations regarding their coverage.
- The New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, Washington Post: Regularly attacked as "fake news" and "enemy of the people".
- Des Moines Register & Ann Selzer (pollster): Sued over a poll predicting a Kamala Harris win in Iowa.
- BBC: Sued over a documentary featuring footage from the Jan. 6 attack.
- Jimmy Kimmel: Targeted for suspension on ABC after jokes about the MAGA movement.
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Documents removed, including the NOAA Radar Next Program.
- Centers for Disease Control (CDC) & FDA: Targeted for removing health data and terminology related to "gender ideology".
- Department of Energy (DOE): Research papers removed from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Environmental justice mapping tool (EJScreen) removed.
The administration has pushed to remove or limit the use of certain terms in government documents and websites, including:
- "Gender," "transgender," "non-binary," and "gender-affirming care."
- "Climate change" and "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI).
- "Vaccines" and "safe drinking water."
- TikTok: Following a US takeover, users reported the suppression of content critical of the Trump administration.
- European Researchers: The administration attempted to ban European researchers who study online disinformation, accusing them of being "foreign censors".
- Meta (Facebook/Instagram): Targeted with threats aimed at ending fact-checking programs.
- FCC (Federal Communications Commission): Under Brendan Carr, the FCC has investigated TV networks for "news distortion" and threatened to revoke broadcast licenses.
- Department of Justice (DOJ): Rescinded policies that protected journalists from having to reveal sources.
- Department of State: Moved to ban visas for foreign officials deemed to have censored American social media platforms.
Absolutely... I think some folks need to reread that amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's all about what congress CAN NOT do, not what people can do. No where does it say that you can say whatever you want. It says congress can't make a law keep you rom saying whatever you want. There are some limits, for instance, you can't:
- Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that is intended to, and likely to, incite immediate violence or illegal acts is not protected, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting a riot ACLU of Arizona, FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
- True Threats: Statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a specific person or group.
- Defamation: False statements of fact that harm a person's reputation, which include libel (written) and slander (spoken).
- Obscenity: Material that appeals to a prurient interest in sex, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Fighting Words: Personal abuse or personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.
- Child Pornography: The creation, distribution, or possession of child pornography is not protected speech.
- Fraud/Perjury: Speech used to perpetrate fraud or commit perjury is not protected.
From what he posted I don't know. But there are stories about addresses, pictures of families of ICE agents on the web. Realistically some of that is going to happen, but I think that DHS and the government is attempting to limit it.
Some might not like ICE, but putting addresses and family pictures out there goes a little too far IMO. There are a lot of people that operate "on the edge". Just look at stories about nurses who talk about letting agents bleed out, or injecting them with items to make them sick. It's not a big step for someone just a little more out there to harm an agent's wife or kids.