POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

But if government knows that this hate speech is causing such harm that citizen justice is warranted, doesn't government have an obligation to protect its citizens by suppressing the speech in the first place?

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brent, I'm gonna spell it out very clearly: I am not arguing against free speech. Not. At. All. Every person has a right to say what they want without consequence from the government. But I also have the right to respond to your free speech.

Brent you need to understand a very basic principal: You have the right to free speech, but you do not have the freedom of consequence from said speech.

But if government knows that this hate speech is causing such harm that citizen justice is warranted, doesn't government have an obligation to protect its citizens by suppressing the speech in the first place?

Are you distinguishing between the First Amendment laws we live under now that those laws we would live by if you had your druthers?

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

There have been recent articles stating that these extremists are afraid of being identified in their home communities. That makes sense, given that they are cowards. If true, it would not be difficult to get face shots of them and publish them on social media and other online venues. But these vermin are probably the way they are partly as a result of suffering shame in their lives, and dishing out more of it might just make them angrier and farther underground.

I have a little issue of that (doxxing) also. From what I hear, a couple folks have been mis-identified, and that is really a shame. That is not good.

And Jim, if you are willing to accept the consequences, that does change the discussion. Swing away, I suppose. I won't support it, but if you are willing and able, *sigh*

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

There have been recent articles stating that these extremists are afraid of being identified in their home communities. That makes sense, given that they are cowards. If true, it would not be difficult to get face shots of them and publish them on social media and other online venues. But these vermin are probably the way they are partly as a result of suffering shame in their lives, and dishing out more of it might just make them angrier and farther underground.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Let me spell it out for you:

You do have the right to respond. But it's not by assault. That is illegal, as it should be. You have the right to counter-protest (for lack of a better term) their speech. You have a right to shout them down. You do NOT have the right to use violence against them outside of self-defense.

I understand it's illegal and will accept any consequence from my actions, I don't care though. I am still going to respond because that is the proper response.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brent, I'm gonna spell it out very clearly: I am not arguing against free speech. Not. At. All. Every person has a right to say what they want without consequence from the government. But I also have the right to respond to your free speech.

Let me spell it out for you:

You do have the right to respond. But it's not by assault. That is illegal, as it should be. You have the right to counter-protest (for lack of a better term) their speech. You have a right to shout them down. You do NOT have the right to use violence against them outside of self-defense.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I'm sure it would shape an opinion but arguing against free speech? That is..........I don't know how else to say it, really..............quite laughable if you believe in what this country stands for.

We can say what we want to say and many other countries yearn for that right. Some might DIE for that right. And some in this country want to do away with it. I shake my head at that.

Brent, I'm gonna spell it out very clearly: I am not arguing against free speech. Not. At. All. Every person has a right to say what they want without consequence from the government. But I also have the right to respond to your free speech.

Brent you need to understand a very basic principal: You have the right to free speech, but you do not have the freedom of consequence from said speech.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

No reason to punch the Nazi's. Just take down their ****ing statues. And when you're done take a pee on the statue and wave at the Nazi's while they watch.

Lemme have a few beers first, so I take a really long leak.

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

That's interesting theory, but sooner or later you have to face the dicey problem of deciding when intolerant speech is effective enough to threaten a tolerant society and therefore must be suppressed.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Point taken, and already understood. Jim, on the other hand, fails to understand that.

No I understand that there are consequences for it and accept that.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I have a feeling it helps to be from Alaska or Montana to fully appreciate jimjames' take on this. I'm not being sarcastic.

You're not wrong. I come from a place where a seriously advocated solution to homelessness is to "round up the Natives and send them back to the village." That "too many minorities" is the sign of a bad school. That X race is the reasoning for the all violence in Anchorage.

I've seen this stuff first hand because I live in an area sadly full of it. Like I said, you gain nothing trying to debate them on an intellectual level and the whole "nonviolent confrontation" tactic just makes them laugh ("look at all the triggered liberals!"). These people are like schoolyard bullies and deserved to be treated as such, with a good pop to the face and very stern "no."

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

No reason to punch the Nazi's. Just take down their ****ing statues. And when you're done take a pee on the statue and wave at the Nazi's while they watch.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Well, you can. But you're going to jail for it.

Point taken, and already understood. Jim, on the other hand, fails to understand that.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

It is quite the paradox. Again, you can speak out against intolerance, and take other legal actions against it. Just no violence, unless in self-defense/other legal means. Cannot just walk up and punch a Nazi in the face, no matter how much you want to.

Well, you can. But you're going to jail for it.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It is quite the paradox. Again, you can speak out against intolerance, and take other legal actions against it. Just no violence, unless in self-defense/other legal means. Cannot just walk up and punch a Nazi in the face, no matter how much you want to.