I’ve given up trying to reason with them. Now I just say “yup, Biden stole the election and Trump just took it like a pussy. Why didn’t he declare martial law? Looks like your guy just can’t play with the big boys and got his fat ass handed to him. Too bad he let Biden ride up and grab him by the pussy and take the presidency away from him. And now we are going to put trump in jail on false charges and there’s nothing the fat fuck can do about it. You followed a loser!”
You. I like you.
Oh, I’m using this.
I may have to create a Facebook account so I can see my uncle’s racist Facebook profile posts again. Just so I can post that.
Go for it, and report back!
Even this kind of goes along with their (false) narrative. No one’s “trying to put Trump in jail”. These are career prosecutors and investigators following the evidence and charging for the crimes they find, like they do all the time. Trump’s just so used to his lifetime of special treatment (even for a rich, white, American politician) that any kind of accountability is “a partisan witch hunt”…
“I’m being denied the right to free speech because a private company doesn’t want to broadcast my speech” - Also right-wing extremists
Look, if enough people see Hunter Biden’s dick it’ll make Trump win the 2020 election… er, somehow.
I think it’s worth noting:
Nice dick, bro.
Dude’s definitely well hung.
Probably explains their fascination
Private companies seem to control 99% of the platforms so them shutting people out could be an actual issue.
Societal problem? Sure. They ban leftists far more agressively than violent righties.
Either way it’s not a free speech issue. It’s a monopoly issue, but people don’t seem to understand that there doesn’t have to literally be ONE choice to start suffering severely from the same exact problems.
Those private companies controlling the message and who and what is said in general is the problem.
Oh no, freedom of speech absolutely means you can say whatever you want, threats included.
What most people don’t include is that people are free to absolutely react to what you say and you suffer whatever consequences, be it good or ill, your words have.
Threatening people with violence is either assault or assault and battery, different jurisdictions call have different names but those are the two that making threats against someone would cover generally.
deleted by creator
Ok. Call in some bomb threats to a school or government office and get back to us with an update after they find you.
Which… proves my point?
I’m free to call schools and government offices with bomb threats. However, they are free to call the FBI and tell them “hey, some dipshit made a bomb threat, here’s their number”. So I suffer the consequences my bomb threats have, which is most likely
suicide by two bullets to the back of the headjail.You’re definitely pushing the semantics on what constitutes free speech, I’ll give you that much.
More so conflating the fundamental capacity of decision making versus the spirit of the law protecting free speech.
You are correct, I’m just tired of explaining to some people that speech that gets you fined, arrested, thrown in prison, legally liable for damages due to fraud or defamation, etc isn’t really protected free speech and transcends the mere social punishment of people not liking or wanting to do business with you.
This doesn’t really make sense.
Bomb threats are not protected free speech, and your own admission that the government would be the one providing consequences makes that quite clear.
A better example of fair consequences of free speech is someone saying some hateful stuff, their employer hears it and dislikes it, and the employer fires the employee. Consequences, no government involvement.
Free speech does protect you from the bomb threats. But it doesn’t protect from any other laws that you might have broken in the process. In this case making illegal threats.
The laws don’t effect the available words in your speech, but the actions of those words. Like in this case making people fear for their life because of a bomb threat. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be words. It could be a letter, but it still holds the same consequences.
If you get in trouble for the speech, aka the speech being an illegal threat, it’s not protected speech.
Fair enough.
I just misread the original as "Free speech’ and not “Protected speech”.
Nope. Violent threats are not protected. Fighting words are also not protected in that if someone beats your ass, you technically started it.
If I say I’m going to kill all the foreign people I’m pretty sure that, at the very least, I’m going to get some police attention, and if I keep saying stuff like that and wave my arms around enough, I’ll probably end up on some FBI watch list.
So I’m not quite sure what “allowed to say” means in this context.
When people, often right wingers, say they want free speech what they actually mean is they want freedom from consequences of their speech. The Constitution only protects you from the government preventing your speech.
Relevant XKCD
Exactly. Free speech ends where my freedom to ignore starts.
I love this xkcd
Free speech is being allowed to say your opinion. It doesn’t mean people can’t have an opinion on your opinion
It’s soooo bizarre how people treat Trump like he’s the second coming of Christ… total wackos
From what read he apparently hits plenty of points in the Bible for being the Antichrist.
I’ve seen a web site going through those points. Some were quite a stretch but others fit well. On the other hand, he does check all the boxes for the 7 deadly sins
pride
greed
lust
anger
envy
gluttony
sloth
Facebook echo chamber is to blame.
Facebook
Qanon
Republican states having lower education standards
Republican states have higher numbers of Christian evangelicals.
Do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around and that’s why we’re where we’re at
The only thing we can afford to be intolerant of is intolerance.
There’s no justification or reason to grant the rights of free speech to those who would deny it to others.
A threat of violence indicates that the threatening party doesn’t respect the right of the other party to speak freely. There’s no free speech when you’re in fear for your life, or dead.
Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Free speech doesn’t mean the freedom to say “bro it was just a joke relax” to nullify any anxieties you’ve created out of the situation. (americans) have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You threatening others right to LIFE with your free speech (even if you yourself know it will only ever just be speech) might be hazardous to your own well-being (unless prison sounds like a fun vacation for you).
this can also apply for religions
True Free speech means exactly that, you can say what you want including threats to others, But the consequences are your own ( there is no free pass on that).
deleted by creator
What is the point then? There is the cultural aspiration to freedom of speech, which ignores the relation to law, and there’s the US constitutional freedom of speech which protects you from government retaliation for speech.
If you suffer consequences in both instances then what is actually “free” about it?
I’m not arguing in defense of hate speech or threats, I’m just curious what the point is of saying anything about freedom of speech (in the cultural sense) if it isn’t actually free from consequence.
I personally don’t think we have freedom of speech, which is ok, because there should be consequences for your actions. Say hateful shit, win hateful prizes.
“Oh, I thought this was America!” Stan Marsh could be heard to say, as he was stuffed into a police car following his attempt to plant a bomb in what he calls a “free speech demonstration”. Also, crocodiles, in your child’s crib? It’s more likely than you think. More at 11.
