Trigger happy Yanks

DonDeeHippy

Active member
I believe that we must allow all speech, without official penalty, censure, etc, from the government. (This excludes the usual illegal things.)

We may ridicule certain speech. We may disagree. We can hate the message. But our obligation as Americans is always to allow it and not to interfere with it.
Yes free speech is fine, but free speech has consequences , if she is a USA senator and sprouting conspiracy theories and telling flat out lies then those that she has hurt are allowed to ask why a elected official is allowed to do this....
Her integrity is compromised with these actions and put a shadow on her judgement...

Hasn't Jan 6 taught you anything, words have consequences...

A public figure has to be responsible for what they say.....For to long USA has ignored this.....

Free speach is not a "Get out of Jail" card
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
I believe that we must allow all speech, without official penalty, censure, etc, from the government. (This excludes the usual illegal things.)

We may ridicule certain speech. We may disagree. We can hate the message. But our obligation as Americans is always to allow it and not to interfere with it.
....
....


Societies that broadly ban 'portions' of Speech they don't like for any reason, do not have the Right to Free Speech, they merely have legislation that permits some Speech as the legislators deem fit, which is forever at risk of alteration at the government's whim.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Yes free speech is fine, but free speech has consequences , if she is a USA senator and sprouting conspiracy theories and telling flat out lies then those that she has hurt are allowed to ask why a elected official is allowed to do this....
Her integrity is compromised with these actions and put a shadow on her judgement...



At election time, her constituents have the power of their vote to voice their opinions if they disagree with how she is representing them.

This also includes the public's right to her recall, & possible replacement, if they have the numbers to recall her when there isn't a general election taking place, & the procedure is available to the people in State law.

But that still does not negate her Right to exercise her Free Speech as an American Citizen, & to put her thoughts about whatever issues she chooses up for public debate, regardless of how much the public might disagree with what she says, or how what she says might make them feel, even if they are deeply offended by her thoughts & words......


➤➤ Regarding Flat Out Lies:

Does the First Amendment Protect Lying?


Source: Exploring Constitutional Law
In New York Times v Sullivan (1964), the Court extended First Amendment protection to false statements of fact in a defamation suit. The Court held such statements, when made about about a public official, could not be the basis for awarding damages, at least without evidence that the false statements either were made recklessly or with knowledge of their falsity. The Court suggested that, while false statements contribute nothing of value to political discourse, they need protection to allow "breathing room" for statements that are true. Without this protection, the Court noted, true statements might not be made either out of a fear that the speaker could be later proven wrong, or that a biased jury might find the statements to be untrue even when they are not. While the Court's majority refused to extend protection to deliberate lies, three justices would have gone further and held that public officials and public affairs can be discussed "with impunity."
..
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Yes free speech is fine, but free speech has consequences , if she is a USA senator and sprouting conspiracy theories and telling flat out lies then those that she has hurt are allowed to ask why a elected official is allowed to do this....
Her integrity is compromised with these actions and put a shadow on her judgement...

Hasn't Jan 6 taught you anything, words have consequences...

A public figure has to be responsible for what they say.....For to long USA has ignored this.....

Free speach is not a "Get out of Jail" card
Yes, free speech has consequences. But those consequences may not be imposed by our government, nor is speech an excuse for violence by anybody against another person. (Now again, I am not referring to the usual forms of illegal speech.)

People who don't like it should leave this country and live in a place like UK or Australia where speech is more strictly controlled by the government and where people are comfortable with that.

I will absolutely support the right of Antifa, Communists, or Anarchists to write and speak about what they believe in - unmolested and unthreatened. When I served in the Army and in the police, I stood up for those rights, and I still do. You know I don't like Antifa. But I will defend their rights to speak and write about their beliefs to my last drop of blood. I will NEVER defend their thuggery and violence, but I will relentlessly defend their right to express their beliefs with speech and writing.

It's the same thing with extreme right, racist groups. As long as they don't cross the usual lines that separate legal speech from illegal speech, I 100% defend their right, even though I hate their message.

It is true patriotism and loyalty to America and her Constitution to defend the rights of people to spew the most odious beliefs, most of which live in the far right and left fringes. We must unequivocally defend their 1st Amendment rights, for, by doing so, we defend the 1st Amendment rights of all of us.

Seth salute 🇺🇸
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
At election time, her constituents have the power of their vote to voice their opinions if they disagree with how she is representing them.
But her speech affects a lot more people than jut those in her constituency.

Whilst I agree she should not be stopped from saying what she wants, no matter how ridiculous, I don't think it should be free of consequences if her speech has the potential to cause harm.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
But her speech affects a lot more people than jut those in her constituency.

Whilst I agree she should not be stopped from saying what she wants, no matter how ridiculous, I don't think it should be free of consequences if her speech has the potential to cause harm.
If it only has the potential to cause harm, then that speech would protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Only if it is directly focused at someone in particular, expressly causing that person in particular to break the law, & cause harm, then it may run afoul of the Constitutional Protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, but that can only be determined by an appellate court of law, & possibly the United States Supreme Court, if the lower court(s) determine it to be non-protected speech, & the person it affects decides to take the appeal that high. In all likelihood, if the case gets to the SCOTUS, all court costs & attorney fees will be absorbed by the US Government, especially if the ruling is in the Citizen's favor.


..
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
But her speech affects a lot more people than jut those in her constituency.

Whilst I agree she should not be stopped from saying what she wants, no matter how ridiculous, I don't think it should be free of consequences if her speech has the potential to cause harm.
We have to limit illegal speech to within very narrow parameters. The illegal speech must be very specific. For example, Inciting a Riot by advocating to go out and burn the city. A Conspiracy to commit a crime involves speech between two or more people.

But how do we decide what speech has "the potential" to cause harm? And who decides that?

We just had a Democrat member of the House of Representatives declare that the entire House Republicans membership were white supremacists.

Do we want her to decide?

And, come to think of it, could her speech have "the potential" to cause harm?

What shall we do with her then? And who decides what we do with her?

Do you see the slippery slope we get on here?
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
it's time the yanks updated their laws.
Nahhhh, it's been an American RIGHT for over 230 years fella, we kinda like it.....we'll keep it.......wouldn't let anyone change it either............& best of all, the government can't change it.........any of it.............only us American Citizens can through a Constitutional Amendment, or the SCOTUS via a subsequent decision stating something to the contrary!!


..
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
We the People don't see it as a problem. We like always being in control of our own future, & we enjoy the Rights & Freedoms that you & others only wish you could have.....

The American way of life is often imitated, but never equaled or surpassed. Unlike yourselves, Americans don't know what it's like to be left wanting for better........because Americans have it......Americans live it every day.
 
Last edited:

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Couldn't ask for better......I come & go as I please
.......Have for the better part of the last 30 years.......gotta love takin' advantage of both worlds..........the exchange rate has been all one sided....mine.......if it weren't for this Slant Wuhan Virus, I'd prolly be Stateside right now, enjoyin' some of the best beaches in the world, fishin' wherever I want with no licenses, no catch limits.....nobody lookin' over my shoulder......3-4 months a year there on holiday, firearms fun, huntin'
, & 8-9 months here making the wife happy, cuddlin' her grandchildren, & enjoyin' everything I want here, lookin' forward to my next trip to the Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
yeah in other words a total scumbag.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman





Remember, I get to go back to the States for up to 3-4 months every year (except this year--only 1 month), & play with my guns.......(yes I kept them all, just have my son takin' care of them fer me)
Do the US authorities KNOW THIS..?

You'd be a person of interest, wouldn't you.?
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Oh, she knows, she lived there with me for over 2 years.....she loved it.......but in the end she missed her kids & grand-kids here too much, & it was easier for us both to move here, & vacation there as often as we wanted.......things will eventually open up, & we will go back to doing everything we want to.........whenever we want to......
........just as we always have - bar this year.......

[/QUOTE]
typical arsehole.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Sorry to sound so cynical, Don, but if it hadn't been in Chicago, it might get more attention. If the suspect was white instead of black, and the victims were black, it would be gigantic news. But he was black, so ho hum ...

A black man going on a shooting rampage in Chicago doesn't fit the narrative for outrage, outrage, outrage.

"Nothing to see here, folks!" - the liberal media
That sounds stereotypic, racists, cynical, and condescending. Exactly what a supremist would say. As though PUBLICITY and PUBLIC OUTRAGE was the relevant issue here. Since Whites have committed over 3 times the number of shooting rampages and mass shootings, THAN BLACKS, it really should be the other way around. But lets just ignore the circumstances behind each event, or the cause behind each rally, right?


What exactly are you trying to say, Seth? That people should demonstrate equally based only on the race of the shooter? Bugger the justification or the circumstances behind the shootings? Do you think people can't discern between a good and bad shootings? Or between the number of unarmed Blacks being killed, and those armed felons(regardless of race) in the commission of a crime?

How many public demonstrations, are about a person taking a shot at the police, and gets killed in the process? NONE!!
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Hey arsehole.. I didn't get given anything...I worked for what I have.

I wouldn't live in the US if you paid me. And NEITHER WOULD YOU. !! HAH.!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
That sounds stereotypic, racists, cynical, and condescending. Exactly what a supremist would say. As though PUBLICITY and PUBLIC OUTRAGE was the relevant issue here. Since Whites have committed over 3 times the number of shooting rampages and mass shootings, THAN BLACKS, it really should be the other way around. But lets just ignore the circumstances behind each event, or the cause behind each rally, right?


What exactly are you trying to say, Seth? That people should demonstrate equally based only on the race of the shooter? Bugger the justification or the circumstances behind the shootings? Do you think people can't discern between a good and bad shootings? Or between the number of unarmed Blacks being killed, and those armed felons(regardless of race) in the commission of a crime?

How many public demonstrations, are about a person taking a shot at the police, and gets killed in the process? NONE!!
Why do you troll me like that?

My remarks addressed the selective outrage that our media engages in. The incident DonDeeHippy referenced happened around January 10th. It got a mention in the news, and was forgotten by the next day. Three or four people were killed. And, as of January 25th, 44 murders have occurred in Chicago this month.

The media doesn’t care. The politicians aren’t talking about it. And there are no groups publicly protesting this carnage.

The victims and suspects in these murders in Chicago are overwhelmingly black. And yet, judging by the media coverage, we see nothing but the usual apathy.

Why?

Imagine that this same carnage was happening in an upper middle class city, and the suspects and victims were upper middle class white teenagers and young adults instead.

Would the media and politicians be so apathetic then? I doubt it.

You accuse me of racism and, in your zeal to accuse, you miss the point by a country mile, disparaging me in the process.

In the incident DonDeeHippy brought up, it would have been national news if the suspect had been white and killed 3 or 4 black people. Politicians would have spoke, protests in the street, and a narrative of the growing threat would have been front and center.

But alas, that wasn’t the case, so ....

You see, I don’t see that selective outrage or that apathy as benign. I don’t see it as inadvertent. I see it as deliberate and malicious.

I see it as racism. And I see cold-hearted, cynical politics behind the decisions in the back rooms of our media and politicians as to what we will use and what we won’t.

At least the KKK is honest about their racism. It’s overt and unmistakable.

The racism of the media and politicians is far more subtle because it is not the racism expressed in their words, it is the racism expressed by their silence. I think I could make a case that this silence - this covert racism- is far more destructive than the words of half a dozen jackasses in white robes at a rally attended by a half dozen other jackasses, probably related to them.

So this racism perpetrated by the liberal media and politicians, their cynical use of someone else’s tragedy to advance a political narrative, and their silence when it doesn’t fit their narrative, it angers me.

And YOU accusing me ... YOU are the reason why we can’t talk about any of this in the U.S. YOU shut down the discussion. YOU are perpetuating the silence. YOU are the reason why nothing changes. And YOU are the one who makes people just turn away.

YOU did this. YOU own it.
 
Top