this.No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."
This I agree with.No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."
I have been threatened with my own death a few times in my life. I am still here. I do not think any regulation or law against the threats would have stopped anything, nor do I think my life would have been any different if it never happened.This I agree with.
What some here call free speech in the case of threatening Jewish students with murder, and rape just like Hamas has done in Israel and many Jewish students stop going to college is not protected.
I'm not talking about the river to the sea chants I'm talking about the actual threatening that has been going on and law enforcement has done nothing. Or if they have its not been reported.
There is already laws against threatening people. It isn't protecting speech like some think it is.I have been threatened with my own death a few times in my life. I am still here. I do not think any regulation or law against the threats would have stopped anything, nor do I think my life would have been any different if it never happened.
No.Should "hate speech" be regulated?
What is "hate speech"?
No "those people" still need to be silenced!so does this cover the "pineapple on pizza debate?"
Exactly…, censoring is never good it is a tool the Democrats use regularly!No.
It’s a tool to control the dialog. It has no objective standard. It can be anything and it can change from time to time depending on who the people that promote it decide the enemy is.
As was said above, we should encourage people to say what’s on their minds so we can figure out who to associate with and who to avoid.
Do you, truly, literally mean that no speech whatsoever should be regulated?No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."
Where exactly do you draw the line between threats vs. free speech?This I agree with.
What some here call free speech in the case of threatening Jewish students with murder, and rape just like Hamas has done in Israel and many Jewish students stop going to college is not protected.
I'm not talking about the river to the sea chants I'm talking about the actual threatening that has been going on and law enforcement has done nothing. Or if they have its not been reported.
The easiest way to address this type of questioning is by asking: What if there’s actually a fire in the crowded theater?If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater?
I admit I have lots of questions and not many answers.The easiest way to address this type of questioning is by asking: What if there’s actually a fire in the crowded theater?
This question is a category error.
What is being discussed by most if not all is the kind of speech that is a result of expressing throught. Actions that result in harm are in a different category.
I admit I have lots of questions and not many answers.
I've always kind of vaguely considered myself to lean more heavily towards censorship and less heavily towards freedom that the typical "right-wing." But I was greatly surprised to see the number of folks on this board who seem to be in favor of criminalizing speech that supports Hamas. Even I wouldn't have ever thought of going that far. But they seem to be arguing that speech in support of Hamas causes harm, because Hamas murders people. I don't think that's the right way to think about it at all. But it's led me to ask myself if I can clearly define where the line is, and I'm not sure that I can. So I'm wondering how others define it?