Free Speech Matters

Do you believe that a citizen of the United States should be able to say anything he or she wants to say?

Well..."Fire, Fire" in a crowded theatre when there isn't even smoke would be an exception.

 

Sure I do. With the standard caveat such as not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

The standard caveat of not being free to yell fire in a crowded theater has to do with intent. If there' an actual fire, there's nothing wrong with that.

If you're saying "I have a gun and I'll shoot you if you don't give me all your money" it's illegal because you are intent on coercing me into giving me your money on pain of being shot.

 

I agree if there is actually a fire. I said if there wasn't even smoke

 

after editing it, yeah...

 

Even if they could,

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

On one hand, I rather know what type of people I'm dealing with. On the other hand, certain things people say incite or give blessings for violence against others. If there is no strong deterrent for harming others, then people should feel some sort of pressure to watch what they say.

The government has jailed people for speaking out against it and against elite corporations. The alternative was to allow people to be incited to fight against government actions.

 

You could agree with a church killer (ISIS, that terrorist at the church the other day), but if we are at war with church killers, that is Congress has acted, it is stupid to let people recruit church killers with "free" speech; many times the only way to identify the enemy is not a flag on their uniform, a weapon carried openly, a geographic location, but speech. So the answer would be "no," but I consider Obama and Clinton to be traitors to the Constitution, "consent of the governed," and these are a violation of oath of office:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

Replace "others" with the name of any church killers.

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [Dylann Roof]." (Obama)

 

I haven't read any evidence that Roof was recruited by anybody. Do you have some?

 

Only if I agree with them.

What about perjury--is that freedom of speech too? Death threats?

 

“Ideas do not need Visas to cross borders.”

Do you understand that?

If you want his recruiting officer I would say it was Obama:

“The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not ‘terrorism’ because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not ‘terror’ because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” (Remarks by Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan at CSIS)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ecurity-and-counterterrorism-john-brennan-csi

All he was trying to do was purify his community, like a pair of bellows, like a good little Jihadist, and instead of Arab supremacy it is White Supremacy. There is no difference. He heard the call to Jihad from Saddam, many times, and you said there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do with it, so what does it matter?

That is why Obama’s first reaction was gun control; it is not the gun, it is the idea (Jihad, holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of White Supremacy, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community).

I wish one of you bright bulb “liberals” would tell us how you intend to purify one’s community; THX 1138?

 

So you are holding proof that I did that? Which I didn't!

Go climb a tree somewhere!

Also....most of the right wing idiots who post here would be well advised to do a lot of editing.

 

So in other words, you made it up. There is no evidence that this young man worked with anybody else.

BTW, Who are you calling a liberal?

 

I did not make anything up except a sentence. I did not say he did.

“it is stupid to let people recruit church killers with ‘free’ speech”

There is nothing made up or evidence presented that the young man worked with anybody else, it was an opinion.

“Liberals,” should learn to read and comprehend.

My house is a “castle,” but it is a beach bungalow. (See “Correct English” by Tanner.)

“Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22:6&version=NKJV

If he went to public school (please notice the “if” starting the sentence, this is included for “liberals” who have clearly demonstrated a failure of basic reading comprehension), the “liberals” responsible for stopping my English teacher in public school from writing that on the blackboard, along with quotes from Plato…were people who worked with him or on him. And that is why I was looked at funny by my child’s so-called “educators,” when I brought up teaching ethics in elementary school. Separation of Church and State is also Separation of Ethics and State: just teach the three R’s and you get monsters.

 

I love the liberal attempts at deflection and diversion going on here.

The basic question is quite simple. Is the most important right assumed by the PEOPLE of the United States inviolate?

Remember, the government doesn't "give" us this right - WE established it when the amendment was ratified.

Here's an even more important question - at what point does the government have the authority to CENSOR what you or I with to talk about.

In my not so humble opinion - Never!

And, when it comes to censorship, who leads the way? Liberals? Conservatives?

 

"Freedom of speech" is fairly clearly defined. The freedoms are against being arrested etc.
You are free to insult someone (i.e. you can do it and not be arrested) but there may be a consequence (i.e. getting punched in the throat - of course violence is not a freedom and they would be arrested for doing so).

 

Well, I have yet to see any evidence that Roof was at all recruited by or influenced by anybody else. I'm honestly not sure what my exchange with Divine Comedy is about, as he seems to agree with that statement, but is too busy calling people "liberals" to understand that simple statement.

 

Free speech is necessary for “consent of the governed,” but if “We the People” are at war with a group that believes it is okay to kill Christians (separating out Blacks, is irrelevant to the issue), only their speech may be the identifier. Not censorship, killing them...

 

So he just came up with the belief, it was Okay, on his own? Where did he go to school?

 

But it was stated there is "nothing holy or legitimate ... about murdering innocent men, women and children".

 

How do you define the word “innocent?” Obama’s use of the word was meaningless, because you must define it in context, and if you can’t denigrate beliefs, you cannot define it. So do you reject the community purification, and reject the communications?

“[7.37] Who is then more unjust than he who
forges a lie against Allah or rejects His
communications? (As for) those, their portion
of the Book shall reach them, until when Our
messengers come to them causing them to
die, they shall say: Where is that which you
used to call upon besides Allah? They would
say: They are gone away from us; and they
shall bear witness against themselves that
they were unbelievers” (posted August 30, 2001 10:35 PM)

And those that reject his version of White Supremacy are unjust, not innocent?

Defining “innocence” is not having anything to do with the video:

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

How is that compatible with freedom of speech?

 

There is no evidence at this time about how he got the white supremacist ideas. That is my point.

 

As you say the attempts at deception and to bait and switch all while attempting to sound superior while making huge mistakes are comical, I am serious. I first thought I had misread the leftist remarks but nooooo', they were serious attempts to make an analytical sounding statement criticizing the intelligence of those that lean to the right, ie; "Also....most of the right wing idiots who post here would be well advised to do a lot of editing". Truly a Non Sequitur, and logical fallacy (the blanket statement) all wrapped up in one sentence! Anyway I dont understand all the attacks the anger etc. We should save those emotions, not for our USA and PF brothers and sisters, rather we should give the shaft to the nuts that are trying to destroy us.
reva

 

But he came up with them after attending public school and flunking the 9th grade, was there nothing to counter such a belief?

 

He would hypocritical if he didn't use the word innocent as we kill people too - we send soldiers who kill combatants. I don't see that as murder because those being killed are most certainly not innocent but deemed to be guilty in our eyes and therefore have justified deaths.

 

We kill people too, but usually because of their beliefs and actions of them (or their government&#8230 from those beliefs, it usually involves them having killed someone or a threat to kill.

Can you fight ISIS as a law enforcement issue? Some think we are all guilty if we do not.

There is a reason we need to really teach in our schools, and we need to teach what we want people to believe. How to define and determine who is innocent.

Say for instance the teachers at his public school told the church shooter he “must” have done something wrong after being randomly attacked by a black at school? Unless he feels himself inferior, think of it from the learning that takes place, he now knows that the blacks must have done something wrong, they are not innocent, no matter what he does.

When the white public school teacher said, “You must have done something wrong,” after my child was randomly attacked, I went the principal’s office, the white assistant principle he saw nothing wrong with it, so I insisted he write up a complaint, and also the white Superintendent of Schools saw nothing wrong with it. It is what a NAZI would say to a Jew, maybe you have heard it. So a couple of years later a black kid asked my kid why he was the only white going to that Christian school, I told him next time to say, “I had a dream.” Reality is, I was pretty certain that a single white kid in a black Christian school would be less likely to get randomly attacked and must have done something wrong, because I trust Christians, of any color, more than any majority white public school. Why? It has nothing whatsoever to do with race. The Educators at the public schools I went to, and my children went to, proved a point; like the time I went to get the kiddie for a doctor’s appointment and the public High school was playing rap on the public address system teaching the students to pop a cap.

Speech is very important. It identifies the enemy. Say for instance someone said of the victims of the church shooting, “they must have done something wrong.” Being black? Being Christian? Made a video The United States of Hillary Clinton absolutely rejects?

“You must have done something wrong.” That does not allow for innocence; if the school can use it others can too, for the victims of the church…

Is it freedom of speech that is taught in our State’s Public Schools or freedom of immorality? How do you define the word “innocent” with freedom of immorality?

If it is just freedom of speech we teach, and in that teaching you cannot denigrate the religious or any beliefs of others, you cannot denigrate the purity of a Trojan Horse delivered by the gods, you cannot define innocence.