• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freedom of Speech, Does it need Rethinking?

"Freedom of Speech, Does it need Rethinking?"

Nope its good, there are already limits in place and it works just fine.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And if you'd read the investigation by Snopes to its conclusion, you'd have seen that it was proved - proved! - that it was not part of BLM nor the "Million Man March", and there is no indication it was affiliated with either one. But I get it - y'all just gotta blame the blacks, 'cause there's no such thing as racism, and the blacks are making it all up.

BTW, here's Snopes' conclusion:

The clip in question involving chants about "dead cops" was shot in New York City in December 2014, but contemporaneous reporting widely and incorrectly identified its source as Black Lives Matter and Millions March demonstrations taking place in different parts of the city at different times. After shootings claimed the lives of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge in July 2016, the clip resurfaced and was often mislabeled as occurring in one of those locations.
Click to expand...
Black Lives Matter Hypocrisy in Cheering Violence | National Review
 
Beaudreaux said:
Sure. Whatever you say. I read that part. That part was conjecture on their part. By the way, what exactly do you think BLM is, if not a bunch of pissed off people protesting? I hear that BLM is not an organized group, that it's just a bunch of unaffiliated people that come together spontaneously when needed to protest blacks being shot by police.

But, sure. It wasn't BLM. It was just a bunch of unaffiliated people that came together spontaneously for protesting about blacks being shot by police. Nope, not BLM at all.

You may want to re-read the quote from the Snopes article that you posted. I don't think it says what you think it says.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't read it at all...because if you had, you'd have seen the PROOF that it wasn't part of any BLM or MMM march. It was proven by observations made of the time of day - the streetlights were on, so it happened after the other marches:

The video of that particularly venal bromide was taken from a window high above Murray Hill, an upscale neighborhood in the middle part of Manhattan’s east side. It has been replayed and repeated over and over as part of the coverage of the tragic killing of officers Ramos and Liu, including on MSNBC.

And yet, evidence shows the group that engaged in the death chant against police weren’t part of Millions March NYC. And if they did indeed march on Dec. 13, they did so long after the larger protest had moved downtown. They were not part of the main group.

For one thing, according to the video, which was posted to Youtube the same day as the protest, the “dead cops” chant took place after sunset. You can see from the video that city lights are already on. The group starts by chanting “hands up, shoot back,” before switching to the death chant, and then an unintelligible chant at the end of the approximately 2 minute clip.

That's the proof. PROOF.

But I get it - you just can't stop yourself from blaming BLM.

Oh, and one more thing - you're claiming it couldn't have been spontaneous? I guess that means that the riots that took place nationwide after the first Rodney King verdict were all secretly coordinated by BLM (which of course didn't exist yet) in a secret location deep inside Harlem....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, you didn't read it at all...because if you had, you'd have seen the PROOF that it wasn't part of any BLM or MMM march. It was proven by observations made of the time of day - the streetlights were on, so it happened after the other marches:

The video of that particularly venal bromide was taken from a window high above Murray Hill, an upscale neighborhood in the middle part of Manhattan’s east side. It has been replayed and repeated over and over as part of the coverage of the tragic killing of officers Ramos and Liu, including on MSNBC.

And yet, evidence shows the group that engaged in the death chant against police weren’t part of Millions March NYC. And if they did indeed march on Dec. 13, they did so long after the larger protest had moved downtown. They were not part of the main group.

For one thing, according to the video, which was posted to Youtube the same day as the protest, the “dead cops” chant took place after sunset. You can see from the video that city lights are already on. The group starts by chanting “hands up, shoot back,” before switching to the death chant, and then an unintelligible chant at the end of the approximately 2 minute clip.

That's the proof. PROOF.

But I get it - you just can't stop yourself from blaming BLM.

Oh, and one more thing - you're claiming it couldn't have been spontaneous? I guess that means that the riots that took place nationwide after the first Rodney King verdict were all secretly coordinated by BLM (which of course didn't exist yet) in a secret location deep inside Harlem....
Click to expand...

Okay, here's the sentence: "but contemporaneous reporting widely and incorrectly identified its source as Black Lives Matter and Millions March demonstrations taking place in different parts of the city at different times." which does not provide any proof, yet they state unequivocally that the contemporaneous (meaning reports at the time the video was taken, not later as the Snopes report is) and again, they provide no PROOF.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Okay, here's the sentence: "but contemporaneous reporting widely and incorrectly identified its source as Black Lives Matter and Millions March demonstrations taking place in different parts of the city at different times." which does not provide any proof, yet they state unequivocally that the contemporaneous (meaning reports at the time the video was taken, not later as the Snopes report is) and again, they provide no PROOF.
Click to expand...

So let me see here. If Groups A and B are doing something in a part of a city...and Group C is doing something else in a different part of the city at a different time and there is nothing else whatsoever that links Group C with Groups A or B, you still believe that Group C was STILL part of Groups A or B.

Oh, wait - I get it - since Group C (the ones in the video) had the same color skin as those in the other groups, they MUST all be working together!!!!!

Brilliant. Absolutely freaking brilliant. They're the same color, so they must all be working together as one group - that's apparently what you're thinking.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So let me see here. If Groups A and B are doing something in a part of a city...and Group C is doing something else in a different part of the city at a different time and there is nothing else whatsoever that links Group C with Groups A or B, you still believe that Group C was STILL part of Groups A or B.

Oh, wait - I get it - since Group C (the ones in the video) had the same color skin as those in the other groups, they MUST all be working together!!!!!

Brilliant. Absolutely freaking brilliant. They're the same color, so they must all be working together as one group - that's apparently what you're thinking.
Click to expand...

The path they take to come to the timeline they do is bastardized, and just plain ignorant. In the city during that time of year it starts getting dark between the big buildings at ~4:00 and from above it looks darker in the streets than it does from street level, and the lights are starting to come on.

You know what... never mind.

Look, you believe what you want to believe. If you honestly wish to believe that BLM is pure and innocent and that the hyperbole and hate filled rhetoric that they continue to spew has nothing to do with cops dying, then you keep that wish and belief.

I choose differently.
 
Geoist said:
There are already laws against libel, slander, and direct threats. What exactly needs to be changed?
Click to expand...
Which laws you are talking about?
 
calamity said:
Everyone has a bitch about something someone said. But, is there a limit to what people say?
Click to expand...
We already have limits. We just need a few adjustments.

You can be sued for defamation. Trump wants to change the laws, because he loses defamation cases in court. He is not the poster boy for modifying libel laws.

There is nothing wrong with conservatrons blowing their... horns via talk radio, tv news, right-wing websites and so forth. That is exactly what the 1st Amendment was supposed to protect.

It is already illegal to directly incite violence via speech. E.g. if a protestor says "Murder those cops on the corner over there," they can be held responsible. Chanting a slogan at a rally does not qualify.

I see little indication that stricter regulations on hate speech has made France or Germany safer or better places to live. Tougher restrictions, as we see in Ecuador or Turkey or Venezuela, definitely are not beneficial.

What really needs to be fixed is electoral and candidate spending. It needs to be made fully transparent and better regulated.
 
calamity said:
BLM shouts "Death to Cops!" Shortly afterwards, cops get assassinated.

Right Wing Radio and TV blasts 24 hour propaganda pushing one party, the GOP, while vilifying the other.

Trump wants to redo libel laws, perhaps because he is sick of being compared to an orangutan.

You know the drill. Everyone has a bitch about something someone said. But, is there a limit to what people say? Is there a such thing as hate speech, especially the kind that needs to be curbed like they do in places like Germany?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

:lamo

all media is propaganda, of the right and left
 
Master PO said:
:lamo

all media is propaganda, of the right and left
Click to expand...

Fox News and talk radio is pretty blatant about it though. I lost track of the number of lies said on Hannity yesterday when he was describing Hillary's speech to the NAACP. And, I might have believed them too, had I not read the damned thing earlier in the day.
 
calamity said:
Fox News and talk radio is pretty blatant about it though. I lost track of the number of lies said on Hannity yesterday when he was describing Hillary's speech to the NAACP. And, I might have believed them too, had I not read the damned thing earlier in the day.
Click to expand...

are you kidding, i have heard CNN, CNBC make many statements.
 
Master PO said:
are you kidding, i have heard CNN, CNBC make many statements.
Click to expand...

The closest the Liberals have to endless hours of talk radio is comedy. I'll admit, the Leftists own the comedy circuit like the Wingnuts own daytime radio.
 
calamity said:
Maybe I should rethink my wording. At what point does speech itself cross the line?

Is it OK for someone to get on a podium and suggest lynching Blacks? How about a preacher or cleric saying his followers need to kill gays?
Click to expand...

As long as the speech in either case were not directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action AND likely to produce or incite such action, it would be protected by the First Amendment.

Can we egg on a friend to beat someone up or rape a drunken woman? How about incite a group of ruffians to start a riot at a game?
Click to expand...

See the standard from Brandenburg v. Ohio above.

Surely there is a line.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of lines. Obscenity, including child pornography, is not protected speech. Neither is defamation. Neither is false advertising. Neither is the speech from a sound truck driving through a residential neighborhood at 3 A.M. It's likely that any government action that forces the private operators of a wedding chapel to let it be used to celebrate homosexual marriages violates their freedom of speech, if they oppose homosexual marriage. But cross burning may be protected speech, and topless dancing certainly is. So is marching in full Nazi regalia through a town populated mostly by Jewish concentration camp survivors, provided the marchers have the usual permit.

And it should go without saying that the First Amendment does not protect the right of anyone to say anything which might make any pseudo-liberal feel the least invalidated or yucky. I think there should be federal laws imposing long prison sentences on mean reich-wingers who think nothing of hurting the tender feelings of others.
 
calamity said:
The closest the Liberals have to endless hours of talk radio is comedy. I'll admit, the Leftists own the comedy circuit like the Wingnuts own daytime radio.
Click to expand...

you are living in another world

media is bias in both directions, the right does have more radio, the left more print paper and both have TV
 
Master PO said:
you are living in another world

media is bias in both directions, the right does have more radio, the left more print paper and both have TV
Click to expand...

I agree on TV. Pretty much every scripted TV show has a liberal bias. Print? Maybe back in the day. But, these days Rupert Murdoch owns a lot of print. I'd say that one is about even.
 
calamity said:
I agree on TV. Pretty much every scripted TV show has a liberal bias. Print? Maybe back in the day. But, these days Rupert Murdoch owns a lot of print. I'd say that one is about even.
Click to expand...
think big.. NY times, LA times, not many people reading the Sioux City Journal
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And Snopes thoroughly debunked that video.

Of course, since Snopes is a fact-checking site, they're automatically a left-wing shill, for we all know that reality has a liberal bias and that facts can only be considered factual if they support the conservative fantasy world.
Click to expand...

coldjoint said:
It is the other way around. You think an tolerant culture can exist with an intolerant culture. That disqualifies your observation.
Click to expand...



His observation was that Snopes proved the "death to cops" claim was untrue. Your post is gibberish.
 
Mr Person said:
His observation was that Snopes proved the "death to cops" claim was untrue. Your post is gibberish.
Click to expand...

Maybe to you it is. That would make it your problem.
 
calamity said:
BLM shouts "Death to Cops!" Shortly afterwards, cops get assassinated.

Right Wing Radio and TV blasts 24 hour propaganda pushing one party, the GOP, while vilifying the other.

Trump wants to redo libel laws, perhaps because he is sick of being compared to an orangutan.

You know the drill. Everyone has a bitch about something someone said. But, is there a limit to what people say? Is there a such thing as hate speech, especially the kind that needs to be curbed like they do in places like Germany?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

None of the First Amendment freedoms are absolute. It's why we have courts and lawyers.
 
TheGoverness said:
Nah. Freedom of Speech doesn't need rethinking.
Click to expand...

You need to study a little Constitutional law before you make such a silly statement. Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions - just like most of the other freedoms. What is 'reasonable' has been determined by the Courts for our entire existence as a nation.
 
Wiggen said:
None of the First Amendment freedoms are absolute. It's why we have courts and lawyers.
Click to expand...

Yep. I see here that free speech does not apply when you pull a stunt like this.

Man’s pregnant wife attacked after ex-girlfriend allegedly impersonates her with 'rape fantasy' ad - LA Times

The former girlfriend of a U.S. marshal pretended to be his pregnant wife and placed “rape fantasy” ads on Craigslist, causing the wife to be attacked, prosecutors said Monday.

Michelle Suzanne Hadley, 29, of Ontario has been charged with 10 felonies....

“Hadley is accused of telling the responders that the victim wanted the responders to have forcible sexual intercourse with her, even if she screamed or resisted,” the district attorney’s office said.
Click to expand...
 
Geoist said:
There are already laws against libel, slander, and direct threats. What exactly needs to be changed?
Click to expand...

We just need a better avenue to enforce existing laws. Say for example (using you since I am replying to you) I were to say, or post claiming that you were a thief, liar, or whatever without proof it would be rather difficult for you to sue me or stop me from saying whatever I wanted by legal means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom