1st Amendment right of Free Speech debate

[Grimscale]

I am a firm believer of the statement "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".
At the risk of alienating some here who have had strong feelings about certain kinds of speech that arose after the Charlie Kirk assassination, I would like to have a debate about how far "Free Speech" should be allowed to go.

We all know the stories about "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" as an example that there are limits on Free Speech. The thing is, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. There are no laws saying "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater". What actually happens is a person is arrested for inciting a panic and causing injury or damage. If no one panics, and no damage or injury occurs, the person who shouted 'fire' is rarely, if ever, arrested.

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk I have been seeing more and more people calling for the firing, arrest, or outright murder of those who "celebrate" his death. While repulsive, why does their comments not fall under "free speech"? They are not necessarily calling for his death, just declaring that they feel the world is 'better' for it having happened.
People are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, having their families threatened, by those who normally state they support our Rights. Aren't they permitted their opinions as much as we are permitted ours?
I feel we are on the cusp of that slippery slope we always talk about for 2A Rights, but for the 1st A. Are we not just trying to silence those we disagree with?

*note: those who actively call for the assassination of others, or promote violence, should be called out and investigated. But what I've been seeing is people who are happy to see a Conservative silenced. Is that any different than when Conservatives "celebrate" the death or financial ruin of ... say: a trans person, or abortion provider, or communist?

**mods: if this is the wrong forum please move this to the correct location. Thank you.

 

[Beerman]

People tend to shout that their rights are being trampled when they disagree with the group/authority that is restricting those rights. The same people will holler for the exact same restrictions on those they oppose. See “hypocrisy” fir more details.

 

[Saltwater60]

I’d say you can take it as far as saying I’m going to harm you in this manner. Getting mad and saying I’m going to kill you is just something people say. To me you need to have more than that like I’m going to shoot you or stab you or something.
In addition I get the you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater theory. I get it because you would cause panic and people could get hurt or killed running out of the theater.
I get that you said there is no law against this and there isn’t because you can’t really write a law for that because it would have to encompass so many situations and scenarios.
I also think it’s lawful to use racial whatever you want to call them. Morally it’s wrong but we’re not talking morals here. This is a tough one.

 

[Beerman]

I get that you said there is no law against this and there isn’t because you can’t really write a law for that because it would have to encompass so many situations and scenarios.

The NYS Senate, Assembly, and Governor just collectively asked, “Oh, really?” Then they laughed and passed a bunch of intentionally ambiguously worded bills. The End.

 

[Cavalry]

The biggest problem is people do not think and are addicted to posting their opinions on social media. They literally are bringing problems upon themself for zero benefit only risk.
Unless the company they work for has a professionalism or social media policy that is violated or the person is making threats or otherwise breaking the law, they should not be fired from their position for their views or statements made no matter how tasteless.

 

[spat]

I am a firm believer of the statement "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".
At the risk of alienating some here who have had strong feelings about certain kinds of speech that arose after the Charlie Kirk assassination, I would like to have a debate about how far "Free Speech" should be allowed to go.

We all know the stories about "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" as an example that there are limits on Free Speech. The thing is, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. There are no laws saying "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater". What actually happens is a person is arrested for inciting a panic and causing injury or damage. If no one panics, and no damage or injury occurs, the person who shouted 'fire' is rarely, if ever, arrested.

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk I have been seeing more and more people calling for the firing, arrest, or outright murder of those who "celebrate" his death. While repulsive, why does their comments not fall under "free speech"? They are not necessarily calling for his death, just declaring that they feel the world is 'better' for it having happened.
People are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, having their families threatened, by those who normally state they support our Rights. Aren't they permitted their opinions as much as we are permitted ours?
I feel we are on the cusp of that slippery slope we always talk about for 2A Rights, but for the 1st A. Are we not just trying to silence those we disagree with?

*note: those who actively call for the assassination of others, or promote violence, should be called out and investigated. But what I've been seeing is people who are happy to see a Conservative silenced. Is that any different than when Conservatives "celebrate" the death or financial ruin of ... say: a trans person, or abortion provider, or communist?

**mods: if this is the wrong forum please move this to the correct location. Thank you.

The left invented cancel culture.

It will not go away until they start getting burned by it.

While I agree with you in principle, that is not where we are as a society right now.

If you want to fix things you need to play by the existing rules, not the ones you wish you had.

 

[Phazer]

ALL speech is allowed in the public square. Period.

There is no such thing as "hate speech," just speech that one finds objectionable.

BUT...free speech is not consequence-free.

Let the time of heavy consequences begin!

 

[Brawny71]

I am a firm believer of the statement "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".
At the risk of alienating some here who have had strong feelings about certain kinds of speech that arose after the Charlie Kirk assassination, I would like to have a debate about how far "Free Speech" should be allowed to go.

We all know the stories about "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" as an example that there are limits on Free Speech. The thing is, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. There are no laws saying "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater". What actually happens is a person is arrested for inciting a panic and causing injury or damage. If no one panics, and no damage or injury occurs, the person who shouted 'fire' is rarely, if ever, arrested.

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk I have been seeing more and more people calling for the firing, arrest, or outright murder of those who "celebrate" his death. While repulsive, why does their comments not fall under "free speech"? They are not necessarily calling for his death, just declaring that they feel the world is 'better' for it having happened.
People are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, having their families threatened, by those who normally state they support our Rights. Aren't they permitted their opinions as much as we are permitted ours?
I feel we are on the cusp of that slippery slope we always talk about for 2A Rights, but for the 1st A. Are we not just trying to silence those we disagree with?

*note: those who actively call for the assassination of others, or promote violence, should be called out and investigated. But what I've been seeing is people who are happy to see a Conservative silenced. Is that any different than when Conservatives "celebrate" the death or financial ruin of ... say: a trans person, or abortion provider, or communist?

**mods: if this is the wrong forum please move this to the correct location. Thank you.

Spot on. Besides the loss of a young life, husband and father, this is a direct relation to the 1st Adm. Kirk was VERY good at letting the other person begin the discussion and topic. He was also VERY good at having/ making them support or explain. THIS showed his understanding and preparedness. It also showed his target demographic (the indoctrinated memicers) how they had been eating regurgitation.
“Prove me wrong “ but I never heard him tell someone they were wrong. He only showed them his supporting proof of the failure of their logic. THIS IS THE BASE OF FREEDOM OF SPEACH AND EXPRESSION. You can say whatever you want UNLESS IT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF THE US OR TO HARM SOMEONE ELSE. Not feelings, assault.

A LOOOOOONNNGGGG time ago, one of the very respected men (at my time most were WWII or Korea vets with Vietnam vets coming into the huddle) who said very little. You could tell the rest of the town deeply respected him because when he did say something, no matter how much beer had been recycled, EVERYONE shut up. The discussion was regarding an American Nazi event. Many of these folks had fought against that. And the basic griping was “How the hell do we allow that shit in our Country?” This guy started to talk and everyone went silent. What he said was “Folks, as long as bullshit like that is allowed to take place, peacefully, we know we live in the Country we love and believe in. Anyone is allowed to be stupid as long as it only effects them. The day we see that type of stuff not allowed or attacked when legally done, we need to be watching our backs very carefully.”

 

[Saltwater60]

Spot on. Besides the loss of a young life, husband and father, this is a direct relation to the 1st Adm. Kirk was VERY good at letting the other person begin the discussion and topic. He was also VERY good at having/ making them support or explain. THIS showed his understanding and preparedness. It also showed his target demographic (the indoctrinated memicers) how they had been eating regurgitation.
“Prove me wrong “ but I never heard him tell someone they were wrong. He only showed them his supporting proof of the failure of their logic. THIS IS THE BASE OF FREEDOM OF SPEACH AND EXPRESSION. You can say whatever you want UNLESS IT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF THE US OR TO HARM SOMEONE ELSE. Not feelings, assault.

A LOOOOOONNNGGGG time ago, one of the very respected men (at my time most were WWII or Korea vets with Vietnam vets coming into the huddle) who said very little. You could tell the rest of the town deeply respected him because when he did say something, no matter how much beer had been recycled, EVERYONE shut up. The discussion was regarding an American Nazi event. Many of these folks had fought against that. And the basic griping was “How the hell do we allow that shit in our Country?” This guy started to talk and everyone went silent. What he said was “Folks, as long as bullshit like that is allowed to take place, peacefully, we know we live in the Country we love and believe in. Anyone is allowed to be stupid as long as it only effects them. The day we see that type of stuff not allowed or attacked when legally done, we need to be watching our backs very carefully.”

Were there. Watch your back folks.

 

[Brawny71]

We’ve been there. Again, Kirk set the bar at doing it right.

What is NOT lawful assembly or speech would be assembly without permit (in most states and municipalities to allow for crowd control and protection), blocking public ways, intimidating actions, provoking speech, damage to property. Which is so very 2014 and beyond.

 

[Brawny71]

The biggest problem is people do not think and are addicted to posting their opinions on social media. They literally are bringing problems upon themself for zero benefit only risk.
Unless the company they work for has a professionalism or social media policy that is violated or the person is making threats or otherwise breaking the law, they should not be fired from their position for their views or statements made no matter how tasteless.

One of the biggest problems. The other is the lack of accountability when their words (Inflammatory Speech) incites actions. Good examples where during the Roe leak and the justices being intimidated at their own homes. Any actor presenting “News” on most networks use inserted words applying subjective (Unproven, biased, and emotional) words into stories. Yellow Journalism is a real thing look it up. It has been used in many parts of the world (and now our part) to debase and overthrow governments. Add to this elected officials doing the same (“prepare to reap the whirlwind”, “Go to where ever they are and let them know they are not welcome”) and …..well here we are.

 

[Zerex]

Former Colorado professor Ward Churchill defends 9/11 statements

Ward Churchill claims he was fired for referring to victims of the 2001 attacks as 'little Eichmanns'

www.theguardian.com

Ward Churchill.

Free speech is controversial.........................the most troubling is; who reveals their criminal insanity and intent, for all to see. Mobs really bring out the hidden, deranged child/adult into full view.

They should be carrying guns, clubs, knives, rocks, molotov's. fireworks .............oh they already do.

The cities are ungovernable, as are college campus'.

ICE agent wounded today in Chicago.

The great unpleasantness is upon us.........

Cut off the $$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Brawny71]

Former Colorado professor Ward Churchill defends 9/11 statements

Ward Churchill claims he was fired for referring to victims of the 2001 attacks as 'little Eichmanns'

www.theguardian.com

Ward Churchill.

Free speech is controversial.........................the most troubling is; who reveals their criminal insanity and intent, for all to see. Mobs really bring out the hidden, deranged child/adult into full view.

They should be carrying guns, clubs, knives, rocks, molotov's. fireworks .............oh they already do.

The cities are ungovernable, as are college campus'.

ICE agent wounded today in Chicago.

The great unpleasantness is upon us.........

Cut off the $$$$$$$$$$$

Ice agent got drug down the road primarily because the bobbleheads and supporting cast of Non-Profits have openly said it is legal to resist, there is no legal justification for them to detain or question you, and it is ok to do what you have to to “Stay Safe” . To someone already scared, here illegal or even given a pretend sorta but not really legal piece of paper, those instructions seem real. And ….. here we are. Inflammatory speech resulting in injury of a LEO doing their duty and the death of a person used as a pawn.

Question: How long did the Watergate reporters (you know, folks who did research, sought out facts and specifics) wait to publish and why? When was the last time that has happened? Another ethics and legal control which as become toilet paper. Now you just say sorry on twitter or publish a retraction on page 25 while someones life is destroyed.

 

[spat]

ALL speech is allowed in the public square. Period.

There is no such thing as "hate speech," just speech that one finds objectionable.

BUT...free speech is not consequence-free.

Let the time of heavy consequences begin!

There *are* immediate threats. You can't pull a knife on someone and yell "I'm going to kill you" and then say it's just "free speech". Even if the guy you directed it to doesn't shoot you dead on the spot (and justifiably so), you should still be able to be prosecuted for the threat.

 

[Phazer]

There *are* immediate threats. You can't pull a knife on someone and yell "I'm going to kill you" and then say it's just "free speech". Even if the guy you directed it to doesn't shoot you dead on the spot (and justifiably so), you should still be able to be prosecuted for the threat.

Exactly my point: CONSEQUENCES.