"First Amendment for Me and Not for Thee"
-
I'm not going to rehash the pending SCOTUS case regarding the Biden administration pressuring tech companies to censor "disinformation" and "hate speech." It was cheered on by a bunch of idiots in the media and government who genuinely think "hate speech is not free speech" trumps the Constitution. The tech companies' decisions to go along with the Biden administration was rightfully derided by "conservatives."
Now, these same "conservatives" are chipping away at the first amendment in the wake of the crisis in Israel.
Exhibit A: If your college has anti-Zionist protestors, then your federal funding will get pulled. Thank god this retard has no chance at the presidency.
Exhibit B: Desantis bans pro-Palestine groups from Florida state universities campuses citing terroristic threats. Below is the chancellor's letter.
Didn't we already go through this shit in 2001 with the Patriot Act? Erosion of the Bill of Rights is bad and should be opposed in all forms because, as the last 8 years have demonstrated, it can be applied to anyone the current government doesn't like. Someone needs to tell these GOP idiots that they're running for president of the US, not president of Israel.
Big difference between supporting terrorists and hiding behind the new made up ideologies of hate speech in which that term is specifically introduced to control speech or opposition such is being used by the left to suppress maga voters.
Speech should not incite violence, and there are times when there is actually a valid concern but because the lefties blurred that line to abuse it's meaning it's difficult to agree when such times actually exist.
Having laws against supporting terrorists seems pretty clear cut, where is the problem exactly with this law in specific?
Big difference between supporting terrorists and hiding behind the new made up ideologies of hate speech in which that term is specifically introduced to control speech or opposition such is being used by the left to suppress maga voters.
Speech should not incite violence, and there are times when there is actually a valid concern but because the lefties blurred that line to abuse it's meaning it's difficult to agree when such times actually exist.
Having laws against supporting terrorists seems pretty clear cut, where is the problem exactly with this law in specific?
To the left conservative speech IS violence. The left reacts with physical violence feeling justified and entitled to do so.
So the blame is on conservatism. Suppressing all conservative speech is the solution.
-
Case in point. Stop trying to ban speech you don't like.
I agree, free speech is free speech regardless of whether you like it or not.
What are your thoughts on the WH and DNC censoring conservative tweets on Twitter?
I agree, free speech is free speech regardless of whether you like it or not.
What are your thoughts on the WH and DNC censoring conservative tweets on Twitter?
Personally, I think it was a blatantly illegal abuse of power. I'm looking forward to Missouri vs Biden getting elevated to the Supreme Court. I'm also looking forward to these Silicon Valley twats being charged with perjury for lying about it to Congress.
-
No, it hasn't. We are NOT Europe (at least not yet). Here's a picture of an English soccer fan getting arrested this year for wearing a jersey making light of the 97 Liverpool fans who died in the Hillsborough crush incident. These tea sipping assholes just can't handle the banter. We can still wear shirts to Browns games with all sorts of imaginative depictions of killing A*t, and no one would bat an eye. I'm going to continue to advocate for the Bill of Rights no matter how scared people get of the bogeyman of the month.
Keywords being not yet. Europe is worse, no doubt, but history did not begin 25 years ago. Go back a few decades and ask people what they would think of getting fired for using the incorrect pronoun.
WSS
Keywords being not yet. Europe is worse, no doubt, but history did not begin 25 years ago. Go back a few decades and ask people what they would think of getting fired for using the incorrect pronoun.
WSS
It's all cyclical. The last time inflation was this high and tranny shit being pushed on the public was Weimar Germany in 1932...
-
Keywords being not yet. Europe is worse, no doubt, but history did not begin 25 years ago. Go back a few decades and ask people what they would think of getting fired for using the incorrect pronoun.
WSS
It's all cyclical. The last time inflation was this high and tranny shit being pushed on the public was Weimar Germany in 1932...
It's all cyclical. The last time inflation was this high and tranny shit being pushed on the public was Weimar Germany in 1932...
So why am I thinking about Joel gray and Liza Minnelli?
WSS
-
Good news. The Florida universities are refusing to enforce Gov Desantis' mandate because they're concerned about being personally liable for damages (i.e. - their lawyers know damn well it's a blatant 1A violation).
-
Good news. The Florida universities are refusing to enforce Gov Desantis' mandate because they're concerned about being personally liable for damages (i.e. - their lawyers know damn well it's a blatant 1A violation).
Good news. The Florida universities are refusing to enforce Gov Desantis' mandate because they're concerned about being personally liable for damages (i.e. - their lawyers know damn well it's a blatant 1A violation).
Refresh my memory; what was the mandate again?
WSS
-
Good news. The Florida universities are refusing to enforce Gov Desantis' mandate because they're concerned about being personally liable for damages (i.e. - their lawyers know damn well it's a blatant 1A violation).
Refresh my memory; what was the mandate again?
WSS
Refresh my memory; what was the mandate again?
WSS
He ordered that the Florida universities deactivate the pro-Palestinian groups on campus because they're "associated with terrorism." The actual document from the school is in the first post in this thread.
-
This idiot cannot help herself. Here's the shot.
https://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1724524144954380794
And after a few days of everyone roasting her... Here's the chaser
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1724828429923811794
It's no wonder that the legacy media chose her as their darling candidate
-
see Vapor change subject. Avoids, again, criticizing hamas' horrific war crimes.
including using hospitals and civilians as a defense while they shoot thousands of rockets
at Israeli civilian targets....
-
Refresh my memory; what was the mandate again?
WSS
He ordered that the Florida universities deactivate the pro-Palestinian groups on campus because they're "associated with terrorism." The actual document from the school is in the first post in this thread.
He ordered that the Florida universities deactivate the pro-Palestinian groups on campus because they're "associated with terrorism." The actual document from the school is in the first post in this thread.
Oh, okay. Well I can certainly grasp the concept of a hands-off approach to free speech but I can't imagine the courts being as lenient if somebody wanted to start a pro American Nazi party or Ku Klux Klan group on campus. I'm struggling to find the silver lining in Hamas or hezbollah.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
PS I do think her, and everybody's, anti-tik tok Hysteria is nonsense.
WSS
-
He ordered that the Florida universities deactivate the pro-Palestinian groups on campus because they're "associated with terrorism." The actual document from the school is in the first post in this thread.
Oh, okay. Well I can certainly grasp the concept of a hands-off approach to free speech but I can't imagine the courts being as lenient if somebody wanted to start a pro American Nazi party or Ku Klux Klan group on campus. I'm struggling to find the silver lining in Hamas or hezbollah.
WSS
Oh, okay. Well I can certainly grasp the concept of a hands-off approach to free speech but I can't imagine the courts being as lenient if somebody wanted to start a pro American Nazi party or Ku Klux Klan group on campus. I'm struggling to find the silver lining in Hamas or hezbollah.
WSS
Brandenburg vs Ohio is the precedent for that. I'd be shocked if an example of your case today would even make it to the Supreme Court. The lower courts would uphold that decision, IMO.
-
Oh, okay. Well I can certainly grasp the concept of a hands-off approach to free speech but I can't imagine the courts being as lenient if somebody wanted to start a pro American Nazi party or Ku Klux Klan group on campus. I'm struggling to find the silver lining in Hamas or hezbollah.
WSS
Brandenburg vs Ohio is the precedent for that. I'd be shocked if an example of your case today would even make it to the Supreme Court. The lower courts would uphold that decision, IMO.
Brandenburg vs Ohio is the precedent for that. I'd be shocked if an example of your case today would even make it to the Supreme Court. The lower courts would uphold that decision, IMO.
a bit of baloney ..... you have to differentiate between "inflammatory speech", which makes some folks mad, and speech that incites an illegal action.
intentionally inciting to riot, illegal. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, illegal. Saying or directly inferring to rape, murder and torture Jews or anyone else - illegal.
So, no, it is no precedent for the latter.
When you blur the lines between legal and illegal, you know you're a left-wing liberal knee-jerking sombeitch.
(see? that was mildly inflammatory, but does NOT espouse any committing of any illegal action.
Therefore, the "pro-hamas" , Pro-"palestinian chants are the latter, which is illegal.
Without responsibilities, there is no freedoms. Anyone would be free to usurp all your freedoms.
You're welcome.
-
Everyone needs to oppose this. It doesn't matter what your views are. If you support it going against a group you don't like, eventually the censorship police will come for you.
-
Everyone needs to oppose this. It doesn't matter what your views are. If you support it going against a group you don't like, eventually the censorship police will come for you.
Everyone needs to oppose this. It doesn't matter what your views are. If you support it going against a group you don't like, eventually the censorship police will come for you.
TRUE, except for praising hamas' sickening vile violence against those 1400 Jews on the 7th. Advocating/supporting war crimes isn't a matter of free speech - it's a matter of violating laws that protect people.
-
lets see - you criticize your gov's immigration open door policy, and you get investigated for hate speech???????
We do not want another 4 years of this corrupt gov. Vote Real Americans in before it's too late.
-
South Dakota signed into law a bill to combat antisemitism.
Quoted from the bill itself, it defines antisemitism as...
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "antisemitism" has the same meaning as the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016, including the contemporary examples of antisemitism identified therein.
And going to this alliance's website, they list the following acts as antisemitic
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.According to this logic, if I question the loyalty of a sitting US congressman who shows up to congress in an IDF uniform, then that is worthy of jailtime in South Dakota. These people are the fucking thought police. It's a batshit crazy law, and I can't wait for it to get struck down by SCOTUS on first amendment grounds.
-
South Dakota signed into law a bill to combat antisemitism.
Quoted from the bill itself, it defines antisemitism as...
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "antisemitism" has the same meaning as the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016, including the contemporary examples of antisemitism identified therein.
And going to this alliance's website, they list the following acts as antisemitic
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.According to this logic, if I question the loyalty of a sitting US congressman who shows up to congress in an IDF uniform, then that is worthy of jailtime in South Dakota. These people are the fucking thought police. It's a batshit crazy law, and I can't wait for it to get struck down by SCOTUS on first amendment grounds.
South Dakota signed into law a bill to combat antisemitism.
Quoted from the bill itself, it defines antisemitism as...
And going to this alliance's website, they list the following acts as antisemitic
According to this logic, if I question the loyalty of a sitting US congressman who shows up to congress in an IDF uniform, then that is worthy of jailtime in South Dakota. These people are the fucking thought police.
Well, why would you question him wearing an IDF uniform if he is an American citizen and an Israeli citizen?
Which, would never happen, I think, but if it did, why question his loyalty to America because he is also loyal to Israel? He could be retired from the Israel military and became an American.
If an elephant had giant wings it could fly?
-
He voted for funding a foreign war that clearly helps Israel, his other country of citizenship. As an American, this war has in the short-term, worsened inflation due to the Houthis closing the Red Sea, and in the long-term has guaranteed that we will end up accepting a bunch of Gazan refugees who will hate us for funding said war. Yeah, why would I question his loyalty to the USA? Must be antisemitism.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login