Where my free speech people at?
- Thread starter dbjork6317
- Start date
I agree and wouldn't like addresses being shared, but that is absolutely not the implication that comes along with real time updates of where ice agents are. I feel fairly confident he wasn't sharing their location while they were sitting on their couch, but rather which neighborhoods they were actively in, etc.
Oh, I don't have any problem with citizens passing info as to where agents are. Point op was making was that info on agents is available, I believe he said SS numbers and salaries. (might be wrong on SS numbers)
Names and salaries. His point was their names are already public, so doxxing their names wouldn't matter.
thanks for the correction. Personally, I don't think that anything good comes from putting ICE agents, or any government employees names in the public domain. I'm going to assume that people who want those names are not interested in delivering flowers, sending them checks or anything positive for their lives. We have a lot of people who are on the edge and have extremely negative feelings about ICE, border patrol police, defense attorneys..etc. All we need is for one of those people to take aggressive actions against an agent's family.....
I'll give him 5 days before he decides it's 'cool' and 'warranted' once the Maga spin is released in response
Here's something else not cool. How many people are aware that visitors from ESTA countries have to hand over all social media from the last five years? The irony that we lecture those countries about free speech.
"This matters even more as the US prepares to host the next Football World Cup, welcoming athletes, supporters and families from across the globe. Security and safety are essential — but so are serenity, trust and individual freedoms. And this comes from the same political voices lecturing Europe on free speech. JD Vance warned us about censorship here, while endorsing indiscriminate digital scrutiny there. When the “Land of the Free” starts vetting opinions, hypocrisy is clear — and liberties long admired worldwide are put at risk."
"ESTA countries" refers to the nations whose citizens can use the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) to visit the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) for short stays, including countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Chile, and many European nations (Austria, France, Germany, Spain, etc.). These citizens must get an approved ESTA before traveling, as it's a pre-authorization for entry, not a visa, for tourism or business for up to 90 days.
Who Needs an ESTA?
Citizens from the following countries are part of the VWP and can apply for an ESTA:
- Europe: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
- Asia/Pacific: Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan.
Americas: Chile.
I love running into a movie theater and yelling fire. I don’t even have to see a fire first, just want to take my first amendment rights for a spin.
The phrase "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" is a myth that's been debunked repeatedly by legal experts
**No, it is not necessarily illegal** to yell "fire" in a movie theater.
This common belief stems from a widely misunderstood and often-misquoted line from the 1919 Supreme Court case *Schenck v. United States*, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Key points to understand:
- The case had nothing to do with actual theaters or fires — it involved anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, and the "fire" example was just an analogy (dicta, not binding law) to illustrate speech that creates a "clear and present danger."
- That decision was later significantly limited and effectively overturned by *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969), which set a much higher bar — speech can only be restricted if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.
- Today, simply yelling "fire" (even falsely) is generally protected by the First Amendment unless it meets very specific criteria, like intentionally inciting immediate panic that leads to lawless behavior (e.g., a riot or stampede).
In practice:
- If there's actually a fire (or you reasonably believe there is), yelling it is not only legal but protected and encouraged.
- If you falsely yell it as a joke or to be disruptive but no one panics or gets hurt, you might get kicked out or charged with something minor like disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace (state/local laws), but it's not automatically illegal, and the First Amendment would likely protect you.
- If you do it with intent to cause a dangerous panic and it results in imminent harm (e.g., people get trampled), then yes — you could face serious charges like inciting a riot, reckless endangerment, or even manslaughter if someone dies. But that's about the consequences and intent, not the words themselves.
The phrase "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" is a myth that's been debunked repeatedly by legal experts — it's not, and never was, a literal rule of law. It's often misused to justify censoring speech people don't like.
You want to go to all the theaters in Greenville and give it a shot? It’s real fun.
feel free to give me a call when you make it to jail. I’ll come bail you out.
It didn't but I do appreciate you clarifying.
It’s important that you understand what happened last night.
Last night, Stephen Colbert interviewed Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, a candidate who, by all accounts, is on track in the polls to flip Texas blue.
In response, Trump’s FCC reportedly threatened CBS if the interview aired.
CBS caved and pulled the segment, citing “financial reasons.”
In modern American history, no president has been more hostile to free speech than Donald Trump.
But censorship always backfires.
Here’s the full segment Trump didn’t want you to see.
As of 12 PM ET, view counts on the most-watched Colbert clips on his FCC-censored Talarico interview:
YouTube: 1.3M
Instagram: 1.6M
TikTok: 2.4M
Twitter: 5.1M
For context, Colbert's show averages 2.3 million viewers on linear TV.
More European lefty nonsense. Macron Is such a cuck. Getting slapped around by his tranny wife.
No doubt in my mind lefties here want these speech controls. They adore Europe and their government.
This makes me dislike French people. Ugh
No doubt in my mind lefties here want these speech controls. They adore Europe and their government.
This makes me dislike French people. Ugh
Last edited:
Was it this one? Personally, I'm for removing it because I don't think we should glorify traitors, but it sounds like it's being ordered to be taken down because they won't lower it to the required height or change the size of it to the acceptable sizing. (Those reasons from the county are probably just ******** because they don't want to see the confederate flag flown, though.)
Confederate flag flying over interstate comes down following court ruling
The judge gave the camp until February 5 to comply.
abcnews4.com
Yep that’s it. I’m not advocating for that. I don’t think it’s appropriate. But I think that’s a slippery slope. I just thought it was interesting. My wife and I saw it and she immediately said that’s good, I agreed but also said that means they can start picking and choosing any flag basically.Was it this one? Personally, I'm for removing it because I don't think we should glorify traitors, but it sounds like it's being ordered to be taken down because they won't lower it to the required height or change the size of it to the acceptable sizing. (Those reasons from the county are probably just ******** because they don't want to see the confederate flag flown, though.)
Confederate flag flying over interstate comes down following court ruling
The judge gave the camp until February 5 to comply.
Yeah, if there are specific codes, and they weren't abiding then thats on them. Would be the same deal for a pride flag legally. Similar argument for those against the rainbow crosswalks I believe.
You know I drive all over the Carolina’s. I think that there’s a group of CSA veteran families or something that own land near a lot of the “main” roads. There’s huge confederate flags off of roads like 221 and 176 all over NC and SC. And many other roads and parts of the interstate. I mean huge flags on huge poles, not the kind you and I would have at our homes.
Another clear violation of free speech by the Democrat admin. Didn’t hear any squawking back when it happened. They didn’t seem to care when they were in power.