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.

 

[Criticalt]

As far as ive seen with people being fired for celebrating Kirks death have nothing to do with free speech. The owners of these companies choose to not have people like this work for them. The bosses aren't required to allow "free speech" in their business. If you tell your boss they are an ugly piece of shit, they just may fire you.
These business owners would rather not have their businesses represented by such filthy people.
These people celebrating are not just disgusting, they are bad for business. At the end of the day, its a bosses job to protect the business from bad business decisions...like keeping these people employed.
People seem to forget that the first amendment only protects you from the government. If these people celebrating Kirks death start getting arrested, then you have an issue.

 

[Phazer]

As far as ive seen with people being fired for celebrating Kirks death have nothing to do with free speech. The owners of these companies choose to not have people like this work for them. The bosses aren't required to allow "free speech" in their business. If you tell your boss they are an ugly piece of shit, they just may fire you.
These business owners would rather not have their businesses represented by such filthy people.
These people celebrating are not just disgusting, they are bad for business. At the end of the day, its a bosses job to protect the business from bad business decisions...like keeping these people employed.
People seem to forget that the first amendment only protects you from the government. If these people celebrating Kirks death start getting arrested, then you have an issue.

Many employment contracts include a morality clause. So, if an employee does something that will harm the reputation of the company, even something completely legal, they can be released from employment.

 

[JunkBoxFull]

As far as ive seen with people being fired for celebrating Kirks death have nothing to do with free speech. The owners of these companies choose to not have people like this work for them. The bosses aren't required to allow "free speech" in their business. If you tell your boss they are an ugly piece of shit, they just may fire you.
These business owners would rather not have their businesses represented by such filthy people.
These people celebrating are not just disgusting, they are bad for business. At the end of the day, its a bosses job to protect the business from bad business decisions...like keeping these people employed.
People seem to forget that the first amendment only protects you from the government. If these people celebrating Kirks death start getting arrested, then you have an issue.

Kinda like how it works in forums. You don`t tow their line, you`re gone!

 

[Phazer]

 

[Cooolone]

Is funny how easily the masses are diverted, distracted from the issue at hand!

Speech, guns, politics... Ehhhh... Just nats at a picnic!!!

Problem should be identifying a demographic which has of late, exhibited a propensity for violence in order to elicit a prescribed response! Mentally manipulation of weak minds that are susceptible to such givings.

Speech? Say whatever you want, but like in all things, be ready to bear the consequences of that speech! You advocate violence or harm to others? Ok, but are you prepared to be on the receiving end yourself if it backfires?

THAT right there is the problem... Which makes me think of this old TV show that basically sounded off... Don't do the CRIME if ya can't do the TIME!

Speech... Speech isn't the fucking issue! Dig a little deeper folks! Y'all got it in ya'... THINK!

What is the objective here? What possibly could be the driver of the constant discontent of the masses (weak minds)? Couple it to a dislocation and disenfranchisement from Law & Order, let alone enforcement... Incarceration!!! Put it all in the soup pot... What's the recipe calling for?

Speech!?!? Nah... Is like arguing about living wages, just lol!

 

[Brawny71]

Is funny how easily the masses are diverted, distracted from the issue at hand!

Speech, guns, politics... Ehhhh... Just nats at a picnic!!!

Problem should be identifying a demographic which has of late, exhibited a propensity for violence in order to elicit a prescribed response! Mentally manipulation of weak minds that are susceptible to such givings.

Speech? Say whatever you want, but like in all things, be ready to bear the consequences of that speech! You advocate violence or harm to others? Ok, but are you prepared to be on the receiving end yourself if it backfires?

THAT right there is the problem... Which makes me think of this old TV show that basically sounded off... Don't do the CRIME if ya can't do the TIME!

Speech... Speech isn't the fucking issue! Dig a little deeper folks! Y'all got it in ya'... THINK!

What is the objective here? What possibly could be the driver of the constant discontent of the masses (weak minds)? Couple it to a dislocation and disenfranchisement from Law & Order, let alone enforcement... Incarceration!!! Put it all in the soup pot... What's the recipe calling for?

Speech!?!? Nah... Is like arguing about living wages, just lol!

The undermining of a social structure which has lead the world for centuries.

The eroding of each of the pillars already discussed is to destabilize the collective. Unity is Strength. Division is Weakness

 

[Saltwater60]

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.

I’ll disagree with the first part on the permit. Doesn’t say freedom of speech with a permit from the government. I understand why the government thinks they want to know or are entitled to know that but the constitution doesn’t say we need a permit. Same with guns. Also if they followed the laws and arrested the liberals blocking roads and thruways then I’d be more understanding. These rules only seem to be onesided as most are

 

[Brawny71]

I’ll disagree with the first part on the permit. Doesn’t say freedom of speech with a permit from the government. I understand why the government thinks they want to know or are entitled to know that but the constitution doesn’t say we need a permit. Same with guns. Also if they followed the laws and arrested the liberals blocking roads and thruways then I’d be more understanding. These rules only seem to be onesided as most are

I should have written better. SOME municipalities require a permit to assemble more than X. I don’t disagree with your main point. My direction with that is most of the nonsense in the past 10 years has in no way been peaceful and DID restricted others from their daily routines and public way. No not in The Bill; a symptom of facilitated behavior.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I am a free speech absolutist. People should be able to say or otherwise express anything, to anyone, at any time. Even intentionally incite riots. People are responsible for their own behavior. A rioter is responsible for their actions, not the person who suggested they riot.

Like guns and oh so many other things, the government has shown time and time again that it is incapable of enforcing limits on anything without almost immediately stepping out of bounds. As such, the government has no place attempting to regulate speech in any capacity. No limits, no permits, no nothing.

Where does that right to free speech end? When crimes are being committed. Like, say, blocking a highway.

 

[dsdmmat]

I am a free speech absolutist. People should be able to say or otherwise express anything, to anyone, at any time. Even intentionally incite riots. People are responsible for their own behavior. A rioter is responsible for their actions, not the person who suggested they riot.

Like guns and oh so many other things, the government has shown time and time again that it is incapable of enforcing limits on anything without almost immediately stepping out of bounds. As such, the government has no place attempting to regulate speech in any capacity. No limits, no permits, no nothing.

Where does that right to free speech end? When crimes are being committed. Like, say, blocking a highway.

It has always been my understanding that free speech ends at the endangering or infringement of other people’s rights. You have the right to be stupid in public but as soon as your stupid infringes on my freedom of movement you are now beyond your rights. You can go around with a bullhorn shouting your nonsense during the daylight hours but purposely point that bullhorn at my ear to damage my hearing or parade around the outside of a house at midnight with it and you are out of bounds.

 

[JunkBoxFull]

It has always been my understanding that free speech ends at the endangering or infringement of other people’s rights. You have the right to be stupid in public but as soon as your stupid infringes on my freedom of movement you are now beyond your rights. You can go around with a bullhorn shouting your nonsense during the daylight hours but purposely point that bullhorn at my ear to damage my hearing or parade around the outside of a house at midnight with it and you are out of bounds.

THIS ^^^

And you better have a permit for that bullhorn too, in public. Amplified equipment falls under certain rules regulations in populated areas. If someone puts a bullhorn in my face/ear, you`ll be horizontal so quick you`ll never see/feel/felt, the ground come up and hit you.

 

[dwa12479]

I absolutely cant stand terms like "hate speech". Its the equivalent of "assault weapon". Its a made up term that liberals want to use to demonize things they dont agree with.

You should absolutely be free to espoused your opinions. But you're not free from the consequences. When you have a job, you're a representation of that employer. Whenever im out in public in my work clothes (that clearly has my employers name on) I tend to be a little extra conscious of what im doing. Same holds true for posting online. You can say whatever you want, but if im your employer and I feel youre bringing bad press to my business, I'll use MY freedom to terminate you. And then I'll use MY freedom of speech to make that public.

Never say something online that youre not willing to say to the same person/group dorect to their face.

 

[spat]

It has always been my understanding that free speech ends at the endangering or infringement of other people’s rights. You have the right to be stupid in public but as soon as your stupid infringes on my freedom of movement you are now beyond your rights. You can go around with a bullhorn shouting your nonsense during the daylight hours but purposely point that bullhorn at my ear to damage my hearing or parade around the outside of a house at midnight with it and you are out of bounds.

What you do on public property can be curtailed slightly more than what you do on private property.

Simply because by being public, it is a common good, and your use of it can't infringe on other people's use of it.

It gets very tricky to balance that.

But think of it like reserving the pavilions at a campground in a state park.

You want to hold your family reunion there, but someone else wants it for their birthday party at the same time. There needs to be an official, fair, and publicly managed mechanism to deconflict that.

None of that applies on private property. The owner of the property gets to decide who, what, and how it gets used. He is the deconfliction process.

Some things, like amplified sound, can carry from private property outside to affect the public or other private property owners. When it does, that becomes a public matter too, but that must also be handled in a fair and reasonable manner.

 

[Celt]

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.

They have free speech to celebrate someones death, we have free speech to call them out for their morally broken speech, and employees have the freedom to fire them also.

When they are actively celebrating, and encouraging/inciting violence there is a fuzzy line where their speech becomes a danger and could be considered criminal.

I dont want to see restrictions on free speech, but i am very glad people are losing their jobs because they are taking their masks off. Especually people in positions of authority like police or teachers.

 

[Zerex]

Hate speech, was invented by libs to stop any opposition to their deranged degeneracy.

"Hate speech" is most always rooted in truth, tradition, religious values, and history.