Discussion in 'The War Room' started by F1980, Oct 22, 2019.
I think we have a right to be offensive, yes. I do not think being offensive is incitement.
I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that no right is absolute. They ALL have limits.
Freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to implement a cast system.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to bear arms doesn't mean you get to privately own live anti-air missiles.
Every single right extends only up to the point where they affect the well-being and freedom of other individuals or society.
YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE BEGIN.
And yes, that means that your right to say whatever you want ENDS where the right of other people not to be harassed on the street based on the color of their skin begins.
freedom of speech my ass
Freedom hating douche. You want peopme kocked up for words? What kind of pussy shit is that?
Do sounds hurt you?
That's not how we do things here in America. Unlike the shithole that is Peru, we can offend people here and expect not to be arrested.
Albanian and a Turk...
They are white, yes but if they were victims of something the media would call them brown, middle easterner or whatever.
I'm not even going to address the absurdity of this idea but I'm just curious... Did they pull that word out of a hat or something? Bitch is not even that problematic. Why not , , ? Why start with bitch?!
Guess what? They are not liberals anymore!
The OP assumes that various nuisance ordinance such as the one used here are against free speech. They are not.
If they lead to folks being arrested on charges of ridicule, which is how this is reported in the link, then yes it certainly seems like it is.
The fact that people have been convicted over there for decades by the same laws your bitching about now kind of disproves you.
you seem caught up in the name of the law. The intent and application of the law seem to fit in just fine with what we would call nuisance laws and I am ok with that if applied judiciously. This instance, imo certainly applies.
There is overlap with nuisance laws, as myself and others have extensively discussed here. In that sense, I have no problem that these young men were arrested. They seemed to be disturbing the peace. However, arresting miscreants for "ridicule" is begging for an appeal by toeing that line of prior restraint. Probably the reason it has not been challenged is only because the result seems to be a slap on the wrist.
It's speech. People shouldn't feel so upset that they feel the need to assault others due to a general insult. Arresting them is just basically saying that blacks are too fearful and or dumb to control their emotions.
Yes anyone reasonable who takes the time to understand what was said and with what intent is going to agree this instance is not worth the outrage vent and tears re the destruction of the 1st Amendment.
I can show case many examples in Canada with our Human Rights Tribunals that I complain about that are genuine and gross free speech abuses. This one just does not qualify.
What? No, it's well worth complaining about. My point was that I don't think anyone has challenged it in court because they are getting slapped on the wrist and it would be a multi year commitment to get that overturned.
Speech laws are always a slippery slope. Aarresting people for ridiculing others in governmentally disapproved ways is a unhealthy step towards an HRT.
And he’ll be reported and end up with double yellows....
So that dude who got dbl carded last month for calling me a racial slur should have got arrested?
Separate names with a comma.