What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of private citizens being able to take steps to stop speech which the government cannot. Citizen justice.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, you can. But you're going to jail for it.
 
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.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

burd said:
I have a feeling it helps to be from Alaska or Montana to fully appreciate jimjames' take on this. I'm not being sarcastic.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

ScoobyDoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lemme have a few beers first, so I take a really long leak. :D
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Jimjamesak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

burd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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*
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Jimjamesak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

burd said:
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?
Click to expand...

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Kepler said:
Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Click to expand...

Or "fighting words," but jimjames is saying white supremacist speech is, by its very nature, harmful. More like obscenity. Or child pornography, though child porn is unprotected because of the harm to the actors, not the listener/viewer.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

burd said:
Or "fighting words," but jimjames is saying white supremacist speech is, by its very nature, harmful. More like obscenity. Or child pornography, though child porn is unprotected because of the harm to the actors, not the listener/viewer.
Click to expand...
I do see white supremacist speech as harmful, it's view that says that certain people are not human nor deserving of rights because of their skin color, that's inherently violent and threatening. The courts have disagreed and protected their speech. I don't like that but it's the law and because of that I understand these people have the legal right.

I advocate violence, specifically a good punch to the face, against white supremacists because experience has taught me that is the proper response. I understand there are consequences as well but I view that as acceptable.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

If you accept the consequences, then as I said, that changes the discussion a bit. You will be punished, as you should be, and if you are fine with that, then go for it. Not advocating that route, but I am not as bothered, as you will accept your punishment. You are taking responsibility, which is a trait that is severely lacking in this country overall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top