Free Speech, But Not Entirely

Yes, we have free speech here in the USA. I can stand on a street corner and say I don't like the president's policies. I can criticize the police to the chief. I can criticize my school board at any meeting. But I can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. That's against the law because it could cause people to panic and become injured. I can't say, in public, I want to kill the president because that will get me arrested. So, I think it's time we pass a law against anyone in the public square saying "Death to America" ?
"Death to America" sounds like both a threat and hate speech to me. I say lock 'em up.

 

There are already at least two threads about this. America is not a biological entity. It's heart won't stop beating. It won't undergo brain death. To my knowledge, no one has ever been convicted of any kind of crime just for saying "Death to America." Threats have to be more specific than that to be criminal.

 

So.... you're not against "death to america"?? Can you explain this?

 

Only at least 2 more? How many J6 threads are there? 222 per month? Are you trying to say there aren't enough threads about this topic? I can make some more if you'd like.

 

I'll try to simplify things: contrary to what your rightwing extremist fellows have instructed you to say, it is actually possible to both be against the content of speech and for its legality.

 

There are three threads about this topic that I know of, and two of them were started by the same person. The J6 threads likely covered different news about J6. This is not covering anything new. It's just repeating "Saying the words 'Death to America' should be illegal" over and over again. None of the threads produced anything new. But speaking of nothing new, you were about to ignore all of this and just copy/paste your next whataboutism excuse. Don't let me stop you.

 

If someone yells "death to America", what is the actual threat? In order for it to be a crime we have to assess some type of threat level. Are we to take this person literally and think he is threatening to kill ALL of America? How does one person go about killing ALL of America?
Current law does dictate if yelling "death to America" results in violence occurring then the person who yelled it can be arrested for inciting violence. But if the idiot yells "death to America" and no violence occurs and everyone goes about their day happily ever after then what would be the reason for arrest? Would you want the person arrested just because you don't like what he said? Is that where we want to go with free speech?
For the record, I don't like to hear about people yelling "death to America" anymore than the next guy. But I also don't think we should arrest people just for words. Again, if those words incite violence then all bets are off and the person should be arrested.

 

That my friend, is the problem.

 

i want more free speech, not less. People should be free to say whatever the hell they want, whether it is pro or anti American, or pro or against anything at all for that matter.
The slippery slope you want will snowball to the point where people are being arrested for even looking wrong at “important”people or speaking out against the government at all.

I want no limitations on freedom of speech at all, regardless of message, even if it promoted the death of all humanity. There is a huge difference between expressing ideas and actually carrying out those actions.

 

So, no, you cannot explain it. The gratuitous ad hom aside, it doesn't seem like you're able to both advocate for the speech but at the same time differentiate what is, or isn't illegal speech. Instead, it seems, you're more willing to adopt speech, even if it's illegal, that agrees with your preferences....

And yes, it is actually possible to disagree with speech and still support the ability to produce speech.. So, when folks chant for the destruction of the nation, is that something that you 'd still protect? Could you, for example, cite the foundation in the constitution for that belief of yours?

Given that I would create no limits to what folks could say, or write, and yet you have argued here on these forums, that government has the right to determine what speech can inhabit the virtual public square. So, it surely seems incongruous of you to not acknowledge your previous commentary here, to now migrate to this relatively "new" position that everything is okie dokie....

So color me surprised that suddenly there are no limits in your mind. It really seems counter-intuitive to your previous comments.

 

I can explain it and did: you see, adults understand that you can be personally against the content of someone's speech while still supporting its legality. Why are you against this?

 

Odd someone would struggle to grasp such a simple concept.

 

LOL... So still unable to round your corners here. If it's a new leaf you demand we accept that you've turned over, the proof is future performance of it. Ok. So, this is you suggesting that "death to America" is fine. In your mind, what isn't fine? Can you, for example, pray across the street from an abortion clinic? Can you go to church during a pandemic? But advocating for the destruction of the country is fine.... Astounding.

 

Since you continue to pretend to be unable to read, I will repeat: one can be against the content of someone's speech and still be for the legality of exercising it. The fact you find this confusing is actually deeply, deeply concerning. I'm sorry that you want to outlaw all speech that you don't like. Astounding.

 

The main point of free speech, other than liberty being a default position, is to prevent the government from suppressing speech it doesn't agree with. One way a totalitarian government keeps control is by preventing the propagation of messages that undermine them.

As with most rights, its limits largely come into play when other rights of others come into conflict with it. The theater example is about peoples' lives being put at risk. When rights come into conflict, they don't cease to be rights, but must be weighed against each other. "Death to America" can be taken many ways. It is a vague statement. It is not easily taken literally. It could be an extreme criticism of the US government, US culture, both, neither... what it's not is a specific call to violent action. To qualify as a violent threat, it needs to be a specific call for violent action, not just an offensive level of criticism of something many people hold dear. Death to America to me sounds exactly like what the first amendment was meant to protect. Harsh, extreme, offensive criticism of the government, but not violating peoples' rights.

 

Again, there's a point of law here that you're avoiding. Given your advocacy here, you seem willing to overlook the illegality of speech even though you disagree with it, (unlikely) but it's still ok in your book. The next set of questions is, what is the limit? Which is why I asked for concrete examples. Where do you draw the legal line then? Can I expect to advocate against say the Biden regime and expect the IRS not audit me? Should there be a reasonable expectation that that options and the speech/content I create be safeguarded, even if you don't like it? Even if it might be illegal? Since you haven't expressed it, just the top line BS, I suspect we're going to have to watch over time to see just how "liberal" you actually are here... LOL

 

I think people have the right to say "Death to America" and secret services have the right keep the list of such people. I think it will be much more beneficial to America than to makes laws against it.

 

I think he explained it well. I understood what he said. He is talking about the right to say something, you are talking about stopping speach you don't like.

 

Isn't there a law against hate speech? But you can say you hate Jews and that's OK. Just don't say you hate Islam.

 

Is it only the word "Death" that is the issue? Would your new law include "Down" with America? "Destroy" America?

 

I hate Islam

See how easy it was to destroy such a stupid blatantly false narrative?

 

Funny, I didn't hear anything.

 

No, hate speech is not illegal. The Klan and neo-nazis can stand on a corner and spew all the hate they want.

Things like inciting a riot, making bomb threats, making death threats, defamation, and slander is illegal.

 

That’s what happens when one has closed their eyes and ears to truth and instead has embraced propaganda and lies.

 

How about a trade, you get people in jail for saying "death to america" but I get people in jail for saying "make america great again".