Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences

There have been a few questions/takes about this "freedom" issue. Of course, at GaG and throughout most of American society, it pretty much just means the "freedom" to use racial slurs, hurl insults, and engage in all manner of speech that is less than civil. But traditionally, it meant the "freedom" from having your government dictate the forms of permissible speech within our society. A "free" press could criticize the government. Freedom of speech allowed groups to peacefully protest and voice grievances. Because before that, under English rule, dissension was not allowed. People who protested or express disagreement could be jailed or killed. Any press that was not beneficial to the monarchy was prohibited. I really encourage everyone, "Blacks", "Whites", American Indians, Asians, etc. in America to read about the Founding Fathers. Each major figure actually "figures" prominently in the institutions we have today. James Madison and his views on the Freedom of Speech and the Press. George Washington basically created the office of the President. John Adams, fiercely anti-slavery and a staunch defender of the basic right to legal counsel. Alexander Hamilton, the creator of the economic system.

But I digress. I wanted to talk about the Freedom of Speech, a concept that has be co-opted by the Anti-PC movement.

1. The Freedom of Speech is not without limits. You can't really be serious about the concept if you think it is. You can't threaten to kill others or threaten bodily harm to public officials. Just ask Kathy Griffin. I know she claims it was only a mask. But it was interpreted as a threat that she wanted to behead the President. Threats against public officials veiled or otherwise are against the law. She deserved to be fired from CNN and deserved to lose her livelihood for a time. I think she even deserved to be investigated by the Secret Service so they could ensure no real threat existed. All of that stuff that came afterwards, being on Interpol's no fly list, etc. as just silliness designed to punish her. I disagree with that stuff.

You can't claim your freedom of speech was violated if you did something this stupid.
You can't claim your freedom of speech was violated if you did something this stupid.

2. You can't make up lies about people and not expect to be sued. Alex Jones lied about the Sandy Hook tragedy. He claimed it was just a government hoax and the kids did not die. He claimed the parents were just paid actors. Well, he is in court now fighting for his livelihood because the parents from the Sandy Hook massacre are suing him. It is against the law to slander and commit libel. Your Freedom of Speech does not cover lies. If you look at past "takes" on the Freedom of Speech many contain blatant lies about positions or statements from certain individuals quoted to give more weight to the poster's arguments.

Just a lying fat turd.
Just a lying fat turd.

3. You are not free from consequences just because you have the freedom to say or do something stupid. You can be fired from your job. People can exercise their Freedom of Speech and say something insulting or negative towards you. People may not patronize your restaurant, see the incident at the Red Hen where the owners refused to serve Sarah Sanders and her family. Now people are protesting the restaurant and refusing to dine there. Your Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being called a racist, a sexist, an idiot, or a turd. People exercising their Freedom of Speech does not violate your own.

These are the consequences of kicking a public official out of your restaurant.
These are the consequences of kicking a public official out of your restaurant.

4. In America, there is no law prohibiting hate speech. Hate speech is protected under the Constitution as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Anti-PC crowd would have you believe the exact opposite because some person loses their job over saying a racial slur. You have the right to Freedom of Expression. You don't have the right to be employed by your employer. And if that employer believes your publicly stated views reflect poorly on their organization they the right to terminate you based on that assessment alone. Get over it!!!!

Free speech is one of this nation's founding principles, but you have to be unbalanced to think it is without limit.
Free speech is one of this nation's founding principles, but you have to be unbalanced to think it is without limit.

It is so "convenient" how the Anti-PC folks frame this debate. Their chief concern is not that the government would actually limit freedom of speech. Especially now, since the turd in office is so thin-skinned, he can't take a joke or much criticism. Their only concern is that they want to be able to hurl racial insults and engage in uncivil discussion without any repercussions. So in reality, they have never cared about Freedom of Speech. They will discard the concept as soon as it proves to be unhelpful in achieving their goals. Everything has consequences. Become an adult and find a way to deal with that. In other words, put on your big boy pants and stop being a snowflake.

Blue Anons you are guys are allowed on this one. Oh Praise Be!!!!!


8|12
1241
RolandCuthbert is a GirlsAskGuys Editor
Who are Editors?

Most Helpful Girls

  • The concept of free speech has been hijacked by Right-Wingers in recent years and has been completely bastardized for their deceitful cause. They ignore the parts about it that don't suit them, make up shit about it that does suit them, and voilá - they got themselves a very neat Right-Wing propaganda version of what was once known as free speech. And the cherry on top of all that is that they - they racists, sexists, homophobes, and general bigots - can now (100% falsely) paint themselves as the new defenders of "free speech". And people are actually buying it.

    What a farce.

    0|2
    1|1
    • What a complete farce to paint people who are right of the aisle all as racists, bigots and homophobes. You seriously don't think that shows a negative light on you? You are not being objective, you are just hating.

    • Show All
    • It doesn't matter. I gave her several chances to stop being dishonest and she chose to stick to it and even continue.

    • Well, I am going to create another "Take" on your point about fact vs pseudo-science. I had not thought of things that way before.

  • I'm glad you outlined an example about Trump. Too many people cannot look at facts objectively today, but it seems like you actually did that, so I'm proud of you. What I also agree with is that you cannot make up lies about other people i. e. character defamation and not expect to have consequences. Ditto with inciting someone to violence or murder. That would go under hate speech, I believe. I do think however that many times nowadays people actually feel the right to cross someone or hurt someone if they made them look poor, didn't feed their egos or otherwise disagreed with them. Even name calling should not be punished, if you ask me. A slur is just a slur. It is not the end of the world unless someone puts you in a position where you lose power, livelihood or credibility. And lol at Praise be. I take it you are familiar with the Handmaid's Tale...

    0|2
    0|0
    • Oh, I love the handmaid's tale. The first episode I watched literally had me shaking. But I want to make one comment. Hate speech is permitted under our Constitution. That means you can talk about hatred of one group or another. The issue is, you cannot incite people towards violence. That is against the law.

      So yes, name calling is permitted. But Kathy Griffin posting with a mask of Trump, needed to be investigated. Because she knew what she doing. It looked like a threat against Trump's life.

      I dislike Trump too. But anyone and I mean anyone threatening his life has to be investigated. And thrown in jail if need be.

    • Show All
    • Lmao... that's quite funny actually.

    • Capitalism at work.

      :D

Most Helpful Guys

  • Great MyTake! I think what a lot of anti-PC advocates on the political right don't understand is that the freedom of speech is intended precisely for the kind of speech you DON'T agree with. I see this lack of insight a lot with idiots like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos. In their immaturity, they think they're taking some kind of brave, heroic stance whenever they defend disgusting neonazis with odious views. However, especially in the case of Milo, who agrees with many of these people, that's not something special. It's not hard to support people you already agree with.
    The freedom of speech - in a broader, societal sense - exists to protect the kind of speech we disagree with. For example if a progressive like myself calls for Ben Shapiro's right to speak publicly, I'm defending his freedom speech. By doing that, I'm basically saying "I think he's an idiot and he's wrong BUT I believe he should be allowed to say what he wants to say."
    Yet, most of these right-wing commentators who call themselves the gods of anti-pc and the royal defenders of the freedom of speech commit exactly this hypocrisy. They love crying about their buddies who get deplatformed at colleges, yet I have never heard them say a single word against the deplatforming of pro-palestinian advocates or atheist speakers.

    The anti-pc crowd thinks they're being some kind of heroes but they're also just abusing the freedom of speech for their own convenience. In that sense, they are no different from the extreme people on the authoritarian left that they pretend to criticize.

    Freedom of speech - as a societal principle - only works if we grant it to everyone, regardless of how much we sympathize with their views.

    0|1
    1|1
    • Thank you for your post. But it appears that the issue that has folks mad is plain ole' capitalism. Most businesses in the U. S. make a living off of providing good and services. And the more people who buy their goods and services, the more money these businesses make. Well, it is bad business to promote discrimination or bigotry. So most business try to be as inclusive as possible in their messaging. Of course, this will draw the ire of certain people who dislike that message and they may take to certain platforms to complain.

      The point is that when they do, they are risking their livelihoods. But that does not stop them from voicing their opinion.

  • I agree with most all of it. I would just point out one potential error and one area I wish you had covered more.

    I think in part you were conflating freedom of assembly and free speech at the beginning. Not a big deal both pretty much go hand-in-hand, but I think that as freedom of assembly is such a novel and important phenomena it's good to recognize it as well.

    On to the more important part. I would've liked to hear how far you think libel and slander should go. For example a fellow I know of stated something like, "Listen And Believe is stupid! I'm a skeptic and I think a person should only be incriminated when there's sufficient evidence to do so, because news flash women can be awful people too. Because they're people." In response he was doxed and his employer was called by multiple persons and informed that he was in fact a rape apologist and perhaps a rapist himself. He was called into his boss' office and fired. When informed of why he responded that he hadn't raped anyone, in fact he's only slept with two women and both of them instigated it. The employer didn't seem to care and fired him anyway.
    -That is at least his rendition of the events- What do you think should happen here if he properly described what happened? Was this sufficient grounds to be called slander? What could he do, they're anonymous? Should the employer be sued for wrongful termination of employment? If so is that not against their right to hire and fire as they choose? Etc, I think that in today's society this is very difficult to parse out and would have enjoyed more discussion on these difficulties.

    Anyways, thanks for the read!

    0|1
    0|1
    • I guess I don't understand. If he thinks he was slandered, why doesn't he bring a lawsuit? I really don't have much of an opinion on what he should do. Sufficed to say, if he thinks he was wronged he should do something about it.

      This might be his moment. Perhaps there are many others who can identify with his situation and he can give voice to a new "social" movement.

    • Show All
    • You are about as big an expert on libel and slander as I am. I already said that libel and slander are not free speech. I don't know what else do you want. You keep telling me about how do I draw the line.

      It is such a weird question. Because it isn't asking for anyting specific. I don't know what to say about people who lie to get others in trouble. I know a COO's assistant that I deal with on one account and she has complained about every single person who has dealt with her. Including me. She has always been out to get people in trouble.

      Did you know that life is not always fair? Sometimes bad people in the workplace get away with doing bad things.

      What do you want me to tell you?

    • Cool. Have a good day bud.

Recommended myTakes

Join the discussion

What Girls Said 10

  • Many people mistakenly think the First Amendment means no one can sanction your speech.

    1|3
    0|3
    • Oh yes. They want freedom from being confronted over stupidity. I remember when Bill Maher was going to get strung up for saying terrorists were the "brave ones". To his credit he apologize and took what was coming. He didn't blame Dinesh D'Souza who basically said the same thing. He didn't try to deflect to other media personalities that said something similar.

      He took his punishment and did not complain.

      But we have to listen to folks whine because they want to say some sexist or racist garbage.

      Did you hear that Facebook was going to let holocaust deniers have the freedom to spout on their platform?

    • Show All
    • @jacquesvol http://lisahaven. news/2017/03/its-happening-thousands-of-fema-camps-activated-slave-labor-initiated-and-lobbyists-back-it/

    • @Trolldad What does that have to do with Zuckerberg giving license to holocaust deniers?

  • Exactly! I would also add that it does not mean the right to a platform. I can start a cult claiming the sky is green and that we believe it is blue is a government conspiracy but my local University does not have to allow me to speak on their premises.

    1|2
    1|2
    • Thanks for that illustration.

    • Show All
    • @Pamina I can only try this one more time, because I have to go to work now. Your concern was that allowing advocates of discredited theories to speak alongside legitimate scientists would create an underlying implication of equal standing between the two? Y/N?

    • @lucidmemoirs Close. We can leave it at that for now.

  • Like I've said before... it seems like these days "free speech" seems to be a term that douchebags hide behind in order to not have to face the fact that they are being douchebags.

    2|4
    1|3
  • That was so freaking stupid of cathy, when you're hardly relevant in industry or media you can't just pull some shit like that.

    0|2
    0|0
    • I don't think it had much to do with her standing. That was basically a death threat. And she knew it.

  • Let's separate free speech from genuine hate speech. Many people seem to be confused about the difference, or ignorant to it.

    Exercising free speech shouldn't mean fearing for your life, in my opinion.
    Exercising hate speech - yes, at that point you should be prepared of the level of backlash you might get, not to mention that in some countries it's illegal.

    But again, people tend to mix up these different types of speech.

    Free speech that isn't actively trying to harm people or incite violence towards them, should NOT lead to physical violence and complete silencing from opposing voices. That's just barbaric, and so counter-productive. It increases the divide, instead of decreasing it.

    0|1
    0|0
    • But we all have different opinions on what is hate speech. That's why in America there isn't any legislation. It is left up to individual organizations, companies, people etc. to decide that for themselves. And we do not even have to go that far. If you work for a firm in America that firm can set guidelines for appropriate conduct for their employees.

    • Yeah, I didn't really put America into the equation - I wasn't aware they don't have any legislation on speech at all.

      That said, I don't think expressing an opinion that doesn't incite harm towards other makes it okay to threaten, physically assault, or take away someone's job. Of course it can happen, but I don't think it should be seen as an acceptable consequence.

      I believe in the notion that disproving someone should be done logically, not with violence or other harm towards a person.

    • Oh, we have legislation. We simply do not legislate hate speech.

      As for expressing an opinion, again, in America it is against the law to threaten or physically assault someone. So logically, that is not an acceptable consequence.

      As for a person being reprimanded or losing their job, we are a capitalistic society. That is why those decisions are left up to the organization. If I work for a firm and I express views that my company deems harmful to their image, I can lose my job. If I conduct myself outside of work in a way that draws unwanted negative attention, I could be fired. The government cannot protect a person from poor decision making.

  • g00d take

    0|1
    0|2
  • They've definitely gone potty mouthed

    0|0
    0|0
  • When there is consequences, there is no freedom.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Anyone putting Trump down, especially that witch with the holding of the head above, I'd like to kick her ass from here to the white house. And theirs too. A-holes all of them.

    0|1
    1|0
  • I agree with free speech. Outlawing hate speech is tricky in my opinion because of who may decide what hate speech is.

    1|2
    0|0

What Guys Said 39

  • you'd hope this type of clear and easy to understand explanation would end the rants and raves about freedom of speech... but sadly those who should read it probably won't

    0|2
    0|1
    • Because it is used a political baseball bat. If you can scare the minions into thinking their right to criticize people "trumps" the right of people to criticize them back, you have won.

      You have imposed restricting freedom of expression by claiming you are saving it.

      Mad, analyze this "so-called conservative" movement. Lies are the truth. Democracy is authoritarianism. Justice for all means some people are above the law. And restricting freedom of expression is actually saving freedom of speech.

      It is how they are being herded. And they are just cows following the butt in front of them, unable to think about where they are actually headed.

    • Show All
    • any time alex jones is the source of someone's info the credibility is DOA.

      haha he called you a GMO slave.

    • Yet Mad. . . over 12 million people believe him.

      Because their political beliefs align.

  • Freedom of speech should just stop at threats and defemation. Everything else should fly.

    1|2
    0|0
  • I wrote a take with this exact same title
    Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences ↗
    I want to say two years ago, it was my first one featured

    0|4
    0|1
    • Very good take Waffles. I am sorry I didn't see it. But I just thought with the plethora of threads talking about freedom of speech from a decidedly Anti-PC bent, I wanted to correct the record.

      Thanks man!

  • As I've become increasingly more involved in this topic of debate, it has become increasingly more apparent that both sides are doing absolutely nothing but straw man-ing each other.

    Most liberals do not want to actually prosecute and imprison people for using offensive language--only things like libel, slander, and false reports of threat (which are already illegal with what seems to be bipartisan approval).

    Most conservatives do not expect zero social repercussions for using offensive language, they just want to be able to do so without *legal* repercussions if they so chose to (and most wouldn't anyway, of their own accord)--under the false impression that legal repercussions are actually being threatened in the first place.

    Free speech, as long as it doesn't directly incite violence, is and has always been a bipartisan issue (at least in the U. S.), and most likely always will be. In fact, I have my suspicions that these nonexistent arguments were tactically conceived by the two parties that hold a monopoly on our political landscape, in order to distract the populace.

    0|0
    0|1
    • Well, why don't you address the part of my argument that you claim to be non-existent. I am right here.

      And the funny thing is, "so-called conservatives" have already gotten pissy in my thread claiming their rights are being infringed upon.

    • Show All
    • "Just because you have freedom of speech, does not give you freedom from consequence."
      I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, as long as by "consequence" you mean "social consequence" (such as criticism and firing), not "legal consequence" (such as fines and imprisonment). I know what your opinion on free speech is as it pertains to social consequences--that was the subject of this take, which I read in full. I, however, haven't the foggiest what your opinion is on free speech as it pertains to legal consequences.

      I am well aware of what the current legal restrictions on free speech are: libel, slander, and incitement. I only wanted to know whether you are content with these restrictions or seek to expand them to include other things.

      I said *my opinion* hinges on whether or not Alex Jones specifically listed names. I never claimed that the basis for the lawsuit hinged on the listing of names (although I believe it should).


    • That is intellectual dishonesty. I defined freedom of speech in my take and several times throughout these threads. The funny thing is you just posted my definition, yet you still want me to define it again.

      the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

      I am glad we agree that the Alex Jones lawsuit does not hinge on your interpretation of the law.

  • Anti-PC and proponents of free speech would agree with you mostly. I see no contradiction.

    Lets start with hate speech. There is NO such thing as hate speech, each individual is free to express their opinion even if offensive. Are they free from repercussions that may arise maybe not. Example being James Gunn fired for obscene pedophlic jokes.

    But criticizing religions for example is NOT hate speech. SJWs seem keen on calling everything hate speech hence why emphasize on that exists. Government should in NO way interfere in right to opinion even if offensive.

    Expressing harm to someone calling for rape for example, murder, bodily harm is punishable by law, because you are threatening someone. That's why countries have laws setting limits where harassment begins and freedom of speech ends.

    You can't make up lies you are right hence why again law protects us. Specific laws designed to protect us from exactly this. Again no correlation with anti-PC vast majority agree with this.

    Again freedom of assembly is still protected you can freely protest, something majority agree with. As long as it is peaceful and does not violate someone else's liberty or property. There was case of starbucks where black guys had police called on them. There were protests and people were appalled.

    Again something I've defended. If you make racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist comments I would fire in a heart beat.

    You seem to have misunderstood anti-PC sentiment which is majority now sick and tired of thought police. It has nothing to do with above, for example you can't yell bomb on airplane.

    Take is great I agree I however don't see the relevance to anti-PC as they can distinguish points you described above.

    0|1
    0|0
  • You are right about most of it.. What the right including my self stand against is criminalizing offensive speech.. Never mind the loss of jobs part thats at the discretion of the companies that choose to fire. No what i am talking about is What Canada is doing.. The use of incorrect pronouns is now a criminal offense. Or what the UK is doing, cat calling or wolf whisteling is now considered a hate crime. Or take what the UK courts did to Count Dankula for teaching his dog a funny trick.. People seem to believe that being being offensive should be a criminal offense, as if feelings matter... they dont.. Remember offense cannot be given only taken.. People that get so offended so easily are at fault for being offended, because they chose to take offense.

    “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” - Cathy Newman

    “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.” - Jordan Peterson

    Jordan is right.

    0|0
    0|1
    • Sorry man. I can't do anything about the UK or Canada or any of those other nations. I just know such legislation is impossible here. "Freedom of speech" lives in our bones.

  • This is all true but I do find one thing odd. (I should also state I believe any business should be able to fire you for any reason.) I find it odd how some people are ok with firing people based on their beliefs but not ok with firing people based on other things that are out of their control.

    0|1
    0|1
    • But it is not about your beliefs. No one knows what you believe until you tell them. If you are a holocaust denier. If you believe in racial supremacy. If you believe homosexuals are brain-damaged, no one knows that, until you voice that opinion. And these are all choices. You are choosing to believe in something then you are choosing to voice that belief.

      So since these are within your control, why would a company keep you in employment if they felt you were damaging their brand?

      As for things out of your control, well, I think that is just basic common sense. They are not making a choice to represent something you do not want associated with your company.

    • Show All
    • Oh, my bad.

      Okay good deal.

  • Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction.

    When the consequences is retaliation or sanction, then it's freedom of speech.

    0|2
    0|0
    • I think you are conflating sanction or retaliation with consequence. Read the statements from the founding fathers. You cannot censor criticism of your statements. That in itself is restricting freedom of speech. The issue the founding fathers were addressing had to do with the government. The government can't restrict freedom of speech by trying to silence the citizens right to voice displeasure at a policy or law. That is a "sanction". Because a citizen cannot do anything against the awesome power of the federal government.

      That is our constitutional right. And it is our constitutional right to criticize each other. Or to not patronize each other's businesses or to fire people we think reflect poorly on our companies.

    • Show All
    • So I guess I misunderstood, you were simply posting agreement with my "take"?

    • wow my English is so bad, I am impressed you can read it.

      So many errors, I am happy I was not graded :D

  • Alex Jones did not lie about Sandy Hook. Your info is misplaced.

    You might wanna focus about what the big picture he's talking about, such as the New World Order and taking over of society, instead of spamming about Sandy Hook all day.

    Even Facebook CEO says we should not censor alternative media. And you bet your ass they're trying to take Alex off the air because he's a pain in the globalists' side.

    0|1
    0|2
  • The problem that I have with the whole concept of "hate speech" is that it's all up to interpretation, to the point where even pointing out facts and data (*caugh*google*caugh*) might get you fired because the company is afraid of being called sexist by a minority of loud and sensitive snowflakes with huge influence.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Well, you can try to figure out how to stop companies from having the right to hire/fire. You won't succeed. That right is upheld by the Supreme Court. And you can get fired for much, much less. For instance, if you the company is engaged in trying to win business from a firm headed up by a Jewish man, and you are a person who expresses doubt that the holocaust took place, that company can fire you without hesitation. Because they can simply state that your views are in the way of their capitalistic right to make a profit.

      Or if a firm is headed up by a woman, a Latino, it does not matter. Because companies reserve the right to do whatever they deem necessary, under the law, to turn a profit. And if you can't figure out how to represent your company in the best possible light, you do not deserve a job. Your freedom of speech is undisturbed because you can say whatever you wish. But your freedom of speech does not "trump" the firm's freedom to decide to fire you.

  • Good example: the homosexuals. The minute you say something they don't agree with, you're a homophobe (this would make me a proud one!). Yet WNBA player Candace Wiggins famously accused
    fellow WNBA players of being 98% lesbian and of bullying her for being heterosexual before she retired from basketball.

    Real freedom involves, not taking hypocritical positions, not trying to justify or excuse wrongdoing, but showing respect for the rights of others.

    0|0
    0|1
    • Dude, it just sounds like a personal problem to me. Grow some thicker skin. Lift some weights. Gain some toughness so you can deal with all the "consequences" of criticizing homosexuals.

      Maybe you can lead a new movement. MLK lead a movement for advocating for basic dignity, the right to vote and freedom to use public resources that your tax dollars pay for.

      Perhaps you can do this new thing where you advocate for the right criticize groups and the "freedom" from having them criticize you back.

    • @RolandCuthbert you are mistaken. Homos do not intimidate me. I speak my truth despite them. They are simply a good example of hypocrites who would muzzle free speech given half the chance.

    • Of course they intimidate you. Here you are complaining about how you treated by "homos". Do you think most waste two seconds thinking about you being a homophobe?

      Haha!

      And you are not muzzled. You are a coward.

  • I never found anything offensive about Kathy Griffin beheading Trump because nobody would have had a problem before he became president. There's plenty of videos of people mutilating celebrities effigies and nobody talks about it. Trump is a reality show celebrity and not really a politician.

    0|0
    1|1
    • Well, you might not have had an issue and if you are consistent that's good. I think that is what I am getting at, "consistency". We do not have laws against hate speech. But that does not mean there are not consequences.

      Kathy dealt with her consequences eventually in a constructive way. Initially, I disagreed with her reaction. She pretended like it was too much.

    • Show All
    • Basically you're admitting to tyranny from the president. People can threaten regular celebrities, but not the president? The president is just another citizen and the whole point of this country was to never treat somebody special.

    • No people cannot threaten regular celebrities. And we consider threats to the president extraordinary. We lost a president in the 1960s. And I am absolutely certain the secret service is determined to not let that happen again.

      So criticize President Trump as much as you want. But do not threaten his life.

  • I agree! Very well-said. Many confuse freedom of speech with the consequence thereof.

    I'm going to use this as an example:
    Let's say, you have the right to lick every doorknob or door handle you come across (at least as long as you disinfect it afterwards). You are free to do so. You're not free of the consequences of doing so. You will get sick, and if your immune system is shot, then you may likely die.

    0|1
    0|1
  • The only consequence I'd accept againt freedom of speech is people thinking you're a moron.
    The rest is too much. Words don't kill, and if you consider being offensive as a crime, we're going to have to put a lot of people in prison. Including those who are offending people by saying that they're offended.
    It will be a "being offended" context, where the biggest crybaby will win.

    0|1
    0|0
    • you're french right? i dare you to walk up to a morrocan immigrant at the corner of the street and tell him "go back from where you came from you ugly f*Ck" i guarantee you that within a couple mins he and his friends will gang up on you and cause you some serious harm.

      its easy being tough when there is no one to actually make you pay for what you say but when you're facing someone nuts you better watch your word.

    • Show All
    • If that is all you are saying, then you are not saying anything. But to claim there should be no limitation on freedom of speech is not being sane. America's free speech laws are much stronger than those in France, I would imagine. You can literally say anything here. But you can't slander someone. You cannot threaten someone. We have all of this set down in the constitution.

      I think you posted me accidentally. Because I have no idea of what I said in mytake that you disagree with at this point.

    • You truly believe no one can threaten you cause of "laws" ? Lol. Be real my friend people are being threatened daily and the police does nothing about it... iam not disagreeing with you iam telling the french guy that he is wrong.

  • 1|1
    0|1
  • As my Uncle would always say America is the only mental asylum with out a fence around it, that picture of the severed head, it's very disgusting.

    0|2
    0|1
    • Yep and with the exception of all that bs of being on no-fly lists, she deserved what she got. To her credit, she took back her apology and is fighting back But her initial reaction was pitiful. I simply could not feel sorry for her.

  • You sound like a lib-tard. LOL
    Progressivism is a mental illness.

    0|1
    1|1
    • You sound like you put some glue in a joint, sprinkled cocaine on top, dipped it in liquid tide and smoked it.

    • Show All
    • Unfortunately, you've failed. You have zero class. Oh well.

    • A 61 year old man calling someone else a "libtard" with "mental illness" for expressing their opinion, and you think *he* has zero class? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you old man? Grow the fuck up you pseudo-conservative Dave Rubin Koch-sucker.

  • As far as liberals are concerned, I'm a raging, howling, ultra-ultra-ultra-mega-extreme right-winger.

    Everything you wrote is 100% correct.

    0|1
    0|1
    • Liberals hate anyone who disagrees about them on anything. That is why Trump will win in 2020.

    • I don't get it. You can have compromise and understanding.

      But that requires you to mimic my actions when I take a step to you. You have to take a step to me.

      And I am tired of this. I am tired of you being able to be hurt and being able to stomp off and go in your own direction to live in your echo chamber. But you think that is fine.

      And somehow when I do it, I am wrong.

      I am here and willing to talk to anyone with different views and try to work out an understanding. But if anyone is going to hurl insults at me, they had better able to handle what they dish out.

      I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about that. These conversations are difficult. And they should be!

      We have to accept that challenge and get it done!

  • It's sad that many have forgotten why the first Bill of rights mattered so much in the early years of America. Free Speech allowed citizens to speak freely of their minds while the British law did not allow that. While we may have the freedom of speech, it does not mean that there will be no consequences.

    0|0
    0|0
  • This is all part of NWO agenda to divide us and get us fighting with each other. Look up David Icke and Alex Jones on YouTube.

    Infowars. com

    0|1
    0|1
    • Yeah, because they don't want to divide us. They just want to convince us of the invasion by the lizard aliens from Planet Mongo!

      3.bp.blogspot.com/.../reptile-baby.jpg

    • Show All
    • Mmm no, I already said, AJ doesn't believe in them. Stop putting words in my mouth.

  • More from Guys
    19

Recommended Questions

Loading...