|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 04 2017 05:49 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. The Constitution is a guarantee from the government to its citizens, not citizens with each other. I feel like this point is often overlooked when people bring up free speech rights.
Well, normally its moot because there's freedom of expression as a concept and freedom of expression as a right.
But since Sermokala specifically refers to constitutional rights, he's basically completely wrong.
|
On March 04 2017 05:49 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. The Constitution is a guarantee from the government to its citizens, not citizens with each other. I feel like this point is often overlooked when people bring up free speech rights.
People like to extend it to universities and require them to provide further protections because they receive public fund. Which is weird because a lot of places receive public funds, but have no such requirement.
|
On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists.
If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for.
|
On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for.
did i miss something in this article or are you just making shit up to claim the moral high ground?
|
On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for.
From what I understood, your Second Amendment literally enshrines the mob as a constitutional right.
|
On March 04 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. From what I understood, your Second Amendment literally enshrines the mob as a constitutional right.
Nope.
|
On March 04 2017 05:54 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. did i miss something in this article or are you just making shit up to claim the moral high ground?
Did Berkeley use its police force to force back the protesters thereby allowing Milo to speak?
EDIT: And beyond that, the argument being advanced by Ouchy and others is that it is okay for government to allow protesters to shout down, disrupt, and prevent others from speaking.
|
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking.
|
On March 04 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:54 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. did i miss something in this article or are you just making shit up to claim the moral high ground? Did Berkeley use its police force to force back the protesters thereby allowing Milo to speak?
was berkeley mentioned in the article?
|
On March 04 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:54 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. did i miss something in this article or are you just making shit up to claim the moral high ground? Did Berkeley use its police force to force back the protesters thereby allowing Milo to speak?
Are you asking if the police violated people's right to assembly?
|
On March 04 2017 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:54 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. did i miss something in this article or are you just making shit up to claim the moral high ground? Did Berkeley use its police force to force back the protesters thereby allowing Milo to speak? Are you asking if the police violated people's right to assembly?
Here's a hint: the right to assembly isn't unlimited.
|
On March 04 2017 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:54 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. did i miss something in this article or are you just making shit up to claim the moral high ground? Did Berkeley use its police force to force back the protesters thereby allowing Milo to speak? Are you asking if the police violated people's right to assembly? Here's a hint: the right to assembly isn't unlimited.
But neither is speech, right? They are both things that have very fuzzy barriers.
|
On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking.
This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events.
|
On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for.
The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh.
|
On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events.
i don't know what the regressive left is doing, but i know you are cherry picking and straw manning your way away from answering whether you (and frankly i was responding directly to danglars but if you're trying to speak for him) whether the protesting falls under your definition of free speech or not. especially in relation to how protected the speaker is/should be.
everyone and their mom knows you may not like what people say, but unfortunately whether or not you like it doesn't mean they can't say it (with exception to encroaching on others freedoms)
and again, id like to use this opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy in insinuating my own or others' 'dishonesty' while you resort to straw manning for the moral high ground and name calling to dismiss others.
|
On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for.
but... isn't that exactly the point? The government did not impact it? Unless you're claiming that the police is lying about it turning into a dangerous situation
|
On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking.
Ask yourself this, does Milo feed into or attempt to mitigate the escalation of aggression around his speech? Does he do everything in his power to try and keep his appearances peaceful? Do you feel he contributes to it?
|
On March 04 2017 06:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. Ask yourself this, does Milo feed into or attempt to mitigate the escalation of aggression around his speech? Does he do everything in his power to try and keep his appearances peaceful? Do you feel he contributes to it?
Doesn't matter.
The moment you start acting violent, then you are the problem.
|
On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events.
So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak.
|
On March 04 2017 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. How are you not allowed to talk about stuff? I haven't shot you or kidnapped you. Tell me which civil right I'm violating and exactly how I'm violating it protesting you. And yes, there are topics on TL that end up with the thread shut down every single time. Certain topics people can't handle. Not talking about free speech in general with this statement, but a specific incident.
Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL.
You should read what the post is quoting to sometimes. Especially when they are quoting you. The civil rights was your right to free speech but I was useing it to illustrate how like the KKK and WBC you were acting when useing their logic to justify yourself.
On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak.
Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
