Regarding Drumpf's right to "Free Speech"; evidently folks need an occasional reminder.

[TalkingDog]

I'm always surprised when people on a political chat board don't understand their own government.

[Kip Humphrey]

1. I just love stick figures! (especially when they espouse facts and common sense!)

[Kittycat]

2. Love this.

[eggplant]

3. (for the unfamiliar) The source is xkcd.com n/t

[TalkingDog]

12. Thank you... I forget that not everybody is on the same page.

appreciated.

[dhill926]

4. Perfect…

[zeemike]

5. So as long as the government does not do it it is OK?

Speech is not free if you can be punished for it no matter who is doing the punishing.
Being yelled at ignored or banned from an internet community is not being punished, but being fired from your job or attacked is.
I stand on the side of tolerance and that is for things I don't agree with as well as those I do...anything less is wrong.

Free speech in the USSR and Nazi Germany was not done by the government alone but by social pressure.

[MNBrewer]

7. Freedom of speech is a Liberal principle

Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? While I understand that the First Amendment doesn't apply here, the principle of Free Speech does, IMO.

[noamnety]

9. What you are describing isn't "free speech"

You'll need to find a different phrase for that - like "offensive speech with no consequences" or something. Free speech has a very precise definition for a reason.

On the topic of what you are advocating, I can't even agree with that. A police officer, for example, runs a facebook page where he uses the N word, advocates shooting black people on sight, etc. Should he be fired because his public statements during off duty time reveal that he cannot or will not protect the rights of everyone he has sworn to protect, and because his words degrade public confidence in the department as a whole? What if all the members of a police force chime in and agree with him online?

I'm fine with firing the whole lot of them.

[zeemike]

20. Well if offensive speech is not free than what is?

No one wants to ban non offensive speech do they?
Quite the contrary, the whole purpose of banning speech it to turn all speech into non offensive speech.

But the fact that we have the "N word" is telling in itself. We use it all the time but just as a letter not the whole word and you want to fire people who use the whole word.
I think that is silly myself...I would rather know a racist by his speech than have it hidden from us.
Nothing is gained by driving it underground. And in fact makes them victims in their own mind and in the eyes of too many people.

I probably should not have posted here...I know I will be in a lot of shit for it. And will be placed in the ranks of the haters.

[gratuitous]

27. No one is stopping the cop from saying "nigger"

It's just that he's unlikely to keep his job when it becomes apparent he won't be able to offer the same level of service to all citizens because of his prejudice. The black citizens and taxpayers don't have to pay for a prejudiced law enforcement officer. The officer, once relieved of his badge and gun, is still free to say "nigger" to his heart's content. Nothing has been banned.

[zeemike]

28. And because of that he keeps it underground.

At least if he has a brain.
And what was accomplished by that but to provide cover...as long as he don't use the word you can't call him a racist.
When we take our attention off of words and put them on actions things look different.

[noamnety]

29. And if an entire city's police force is attending KKK rallies

in their spare time, there's no problem with that??

[zeemike]

30. That is the actions I am speaking about.

Not words.

[gratuitous]

31. Funny thing about racists

The brains they have don't work very well. Thoughts become words. Words become actions. Actions reveal the prejudice. Perhaps if the chain gets broken before the action phase, a brain might just get engaged.

[basselope]

10. The first amendment does not apply to your job

You can get fired for saying the wrong thing... even outside of your job.

I agree with you on general tolerance, but that is a personal thing.

My wife was warned at her job if she continued to support Howard Dean in 2003/2004 she would be fired from her job. It was an insurance company owned by radical republicans. There wasn't much she could do about it, except keep her support for Dean quiet.

[TalkingDog]

11. The RIGHT to free speech and the 1st Amendment has to do with governmental constraint.

Using it to justify the ability to promote or engage in hate speech is one of those things that makes people look doubly ignorant.

I don't think anybody here, even the cartoon, is suggesting people be fired or attacked.

But if people don't like the message a person (say Trump) is putting out, the opposition also have a right to speak their mind against that person (again, say Trump).


The point of this post is to get people to stop confusing a legal Right, with radical freedom (a philosophical concept, not a legal one).

You have the right (small "r&quot , under radical freedom, to do or say any damned thing you like. And so do the people who oppose you. Legally however, steps can be taken to prevent people from harming each other, as long as their legal "Right" not to be suppressed by the government for speech THE GOVERNMENT doesn't like is upheld.

Confusing, but so is life.

[zeemike]

15. It's not confusing to me.

In fact it is as simple as the school yard chant of "sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never harm me"

But the danger is in throwing principles under the buss. And when you do that it opens up a can of worms and allows a soft tyranny that is just as effective or more so than if the government did it.
And in fact totalitarian governments rely on that soft tyranny to enforce it.

But the left has regressed sense the free speech movement of the 60s...now the end justifies the means.

[forjusticethunders]

24. Oh god not this shit again

What you are calling "free speech" is in actually, the right to speak without anyone disagreeing with you.

[zeemike]

25. Not at all.

In fact what I am defending is the right for anyone to disagree.
Because those who are trying to shut people up do so because they hear disagreement with what they say or believe.

But "not this shit again" should be my line because this is exactly the same reasons against the free speech movement in the 60s

[basselope]

6. One of those fun things no one in America seems to understand.

Idiot: "You can't fire X for using the N word to describe someone... FREE SPEECH"

Me: *Sigh*

[MrModerate]

8. That's as may be . . .

But deliberate disruption of political rallies? Regardless of who's doing the disrupting, that's very scary. There's a fairness component in public debate, and it means you let the other guy speak. We abandon that at our peril.

Is it surprising that this degraded behavior first got really serious at a Trump rally? No. Donald's race to the bottom has left everybody else on the 'Lican side sucking his vacuum. The Brownshirt action is just the next step.

And of course this boiled over big time at a Trump rally. (Previous incidents this election season, like Early Bernie vs BLM, have been pretty minor.) Trump is pure Id, and his fans the monsters he's stirred up from the deep.

And those on the progressive side need to look at this as a cautionary tale.

If we're going to take extraordinary action to prevent Trump becoming president (by which I mean public outcry outside the ordinary campaign rhetoric), then we'd better know exactly what we're unleashing. The social fabric is already worn and stressed -- we don't want to shred it any further, if we can help it.

[felix_numinous]

13. Trump is pushing the limits of free speech

toward inciting violence and hate speech. I grew up taught that you couldn't yell 'fire' in a theatre, or falsely accuse someone of something without consequences, that there were certain limits to free speech.

How is it that Trump is getting away with inciting violence and hate speech? Does he know the law that well, have legal advisors that do or is he getting away with it because he is rich?

[SusanaMontana41]

18. The standard is high, as it should be.

But he's crossed the line numerous times. Someone needs to file charges.

From Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation

except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or

produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

[felix_numinous]

22. You posted just what I was looking for

Trump needs to be nipped in the bud now.

[SusanaMontana41]

23. Yes. He's not just a GOP problem anymore.

He is this nation's problem.

[DesertRat]

14. k&r!

[saidsimplesimon]

16. k&r

This reminded me of an old story. There are many in the media who have pointed out for some time that #rump and George Wallace's presidential campaigns have a lot in common.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[SusanaMontana41]

21. I've been saying "This is not going to end well"

since he revealed to a crowd Sen. Graham's private phone number.

Look at what happened to George Wallace.

[Jenny_92808]

17. Trumps use of the word "Fervor"

today, reminds of the use of the word in "Nazi Fervor" (google it).

[Mc Mike]

19. Yeah, it's extremely entertaining to hear dRumpf's nazi repugs wailing away about their 'free speech

rights'.

[malaise]

26. K & R

for truth