Trump proposes stronger libel laws, weaker first amendment

[spin]

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

Perhaps that's why I said it

 

[gigantalor]

Perhaps that's why I said it

Ah, so we're both in agreement about the current president being thin-skinned. Cool.

 

[Hallelujah]

You don't understand. Our enemy uses the 1st amendment against us. They have no honor or integrity and will happily attack peaceful activists. They are not for free speech. They want their enemies dead or in jail. Wake up kid we're at war.

 

[Throttlehead]

You don't understand. Our enemy uses the 1st amendment against us. They have no honor or integrity and will happily attack peaceful activists. They are not for free speech. They want their enemies dead or in jail. Wake up kid we're at war.

So adopting this is a good thing? Can't beat em join em?

 

[ncordless]

You don't understand. Our enemy uses the 1st amendment against us. They have no honor or integrity and will happily attack peaceful activists. They are not for free speech. They want their enemies dead or in jail. Wake up kid we're at war.

1. You are a hysterical vagina. 2. If to win we become them, what are we fighting for? 3. Freedom of speech makes us stronger, not weaker.

 

[Sidecontrol87]

If someone blatantly lies, it's not free speech. Free speech would be the right to express your opinion. Just my two cents.

 

[The Diplomat]

If someone blatantly lies, it's not free speech.

Sure it is, it's just the burden of proof is on the liar. They would have to back up their lies with evidence, and suffer the consequences either way. A journalist being fired and losing all journalistic credibility and being blackballed in their industry due to a false article, or spreading lies is the consequence of their right to freedom of speech. The government can't, nor should, have the right to censor or get involved in anyway - unless it's a matter of national security.

 

[Hallelujah]

1. You are a hysterical vagina. 2. If to win we become them, what are we fighting for? 3. Freedom of speech makes us stronger, not weaker.

1. You probably love the TV. 2. When our enemy lacks honor/integrity we must change our tactics. 3. You yourself are probably against free speech.

 

[Hallelujah]

So adopting this is a good thing? Can't beat em join em?

Yes give the commies free speech rights so they can create racial division, SJW's, feminism, teach 2nd graders about anal sex, tell 5 year old whites their pb&j sandwich is racist, pump perversion and pornography, trash our founders, erase our history. You just do not understand how the scam works. Answer me this kid, how did the communists without an army conquer so many nations around the globe?

 

[ncordless]

1. You probably love the TV. 2. When our enemy lacks honor/integrity we must change our tactics. 3. You yourself are probably against free speech.

1. Interesting guess, but no. Barely watch it except for sporting events.

2. Free speech isn't a tactic, you twat. You should learn what the words in your opinions mean before you share them.

3. Nice one. Really got me there. Leaving aside my first amendment scholarship and donations to free speech organizations, and my regular exhortations about the virtues of the freedom of speech, you are right. Totally against it.

 

[ncordless]

Yes give the commies free speech rights so they can create racial division, SJW's, feminism, teach 2nd graders about anal sex, tell 5 year old whites their pb&j sandwich is racist, pump perversion and pornography, trash our founders, erase our history. You just do not understand how the scam works. Answer me this kid, how did the communists without an army conquer so many nations around the globe?

Well, they did have armies for one thing. And its an ideology. Like your fascism, it spreads through idiots who spew it.

 

[Hallelujah]

1. Interesting guess, but no. Barely watch it except for sporting events.

2. Free speech isn't a tactic, you twat. You should learn what the words in your opinions mean before you share them.

3. Nice one. Really got me there. Leaving aside my first amendment scholarship and donations to free speech organizations, and my regular exhortations about the virtues of the freedom of speech, you are right. Totally against it.

1. Watch it or not it's apparent you believe in it's message.
2. You're like UFC 1 Royce whereas I am like GSP.
3. So you're voting Trump good to know.

 

[Hallelujah]

Well, they did have armies for one thing. And its an ideology. Like your fascism, it spreads through idiots who spew it.

They took over Russia through military force? Then they invaded China, NK, Cuba etc etc? Man I guess I've been reading the wrong books lmao. I'm not fascist but you're proving #1 and #3 just like I said.

 

[ncordless]

They took over Russia through military force? Then they invaded China, NK, Cuba etc etc? Man I guess I've been reading the wrong books lmao. I'm not fascist but you're proving #1 and #3 just like I said.

If you believe the bolsheviks, the Maoists, the viet cong, castro, etc. didn't grab, keep, and expand their power through the use of military force, you haven't read many books and don't understand the ones you've read.

You are a fascist. You might be too stupid to know it, but you are espousing fascism.

 

[ncordless]

2. You're like UFC 1 Royce whereas I am like GSP.

A poof who lay and prays?

 

[Fawlty]

Sure it is, it's just the burden of proof is on the liar. They would have to back up their lies with evidence, and suffer the consequences either way. A journalist being fired and losing all journalistic credibility and being blackballed in their industry due to a false article, or spreading lies is the consequence of their right to freedom of speech. The government can't, nor should, have the right to censor or get involved in anyway - unless it's a matter of national security.

The burden of proof is on the accuser in the US in defamation cases involving a public figure. It's more complicated than that, but the more famous you are, the harder it is for you to win a defamation suit. If the accuser has strong evidence of malicious lies, then obviously you're going to have to work harder to defend yourself, but it's not correct to say the accused carries the burden of proof.

 

[Sansara]

If someone blatantly lies, it's not free speech. Free speech would be the right to express your opinion. Just my two cents.

Freedom of speech encompass freedom to tell a lie and freedom to offend.
When you start limiting what one can says or not there is no such thing anymore as freedom of speech.

There are so many media vehicles that you check the veracity of a information comparing sources. There is no point in censuring news medias ''trying to protect'' the people. You end up hurting the people, not helping them,

 

[Fawlty]

When you start limiting what one can says or not there is no such thing anymore as freedom of speech.

This isn't true and it was never meant to be true in America. It has only ever been a question of whether we limit our rights too much or too little, and whether those limitations are made legitimately (by consent of the people).

 

[KeepingItReal]

Yes give the commies free speech rights so they can create racial division, SJW's, feminism, teach 2nd graders about anal sex, tell 5 year old whites their pb&j sandwich is racist, pump perversion and pornography, trash our founders, erase our history. You just do not understand how the scam works. Answer me this kid, how did the communists without an army conquer so many nations around the globe?

That's what happens when you hand education over to the government. And when you hand over your right to free speech the same thing is going to happen to that too. The communists didn't conquer so many nations by allowing free speech that is for sure.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Yes give the commies free speech rights so they can create racial division, SJW's, feminism, teach 2nd graders about anal sex, tell 5 year old whites their pb&j sandwich is racist, pump perversion and pornography, trash our founders, erase our history. You just do not understand how the scam works. Answer me this kid, how did the communists without an army conquer so many nations around the globe?

Finally we found this lady's Sherdog account: