Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
This is clearly an incitement to violence. Genocidal too.
Incitement is very very difficult to prove.
As we’ve seen previously with Trump’s January 6th. One planted the lie, two fed the lie, three provided the buses & time schedule & place to be to “Be There Be Wild”.
IF these individuals posted a hateful message enacting people to commit violence then hypothetically someone responded to that call and did exactly what was said then it would definitely be incitement. Holding flags up doesn’t do anything….
Just very difficult to prove.
Correct! Based on the pic its just disgusting hateful speech.
No there are time, place and manner restrictions on public protest and incitement requires proxomity or collusion to commit the act.
Its speech. Alex jones has it, so do they! Gay frogs excepted...😂😂😂
@DrPepper12
I mean as I said it is hard to prove incitement also incitement (so I thought) involves violence as a direct response to what the ‘preacher’ is pushing onto the lower masses.
Trump's been given FAR TOO MUCH leeway as a former-hopefully NOT future -U. S. President. He certainly did abet an insurrection.
If they were white Americans waving confederate & Nazi flags the lefties would it outraged (as they rightfully should). They are Arabs waving ISIS flags and touting Nazi propaganda….
Silence.
Opinion
22Opinion
Because SJWs thinks genocide of jews is acceptable. They defended a woman saying its acceptable to say "depending on context"
If that sign replaced Allah with Jehova, zionists with troons and the flag with the tranny flag the protesters would probably been in trouble all ready.
SJWs are massive hypocrites and troons are their sacred cow, unless said troon is Right leaning. Then its verboten to talk about him in SJW circles because they can’t attack him and they can’t agree with him either.
I'm all for it, surprisingly. You can't legislate what's on someone's mind and I'd rather they feel comfortable coming out and showing their true colors. The guy across the street may be a pro Nazi. If he can fly his flag I at least know where he stands.
If you want to see incitement to violence, you can look at the babies and children dying in Palestine, you say it is hypocrisy. Why is the whole world silent about the children dying in Palestine? Let me tell you, because the whole world has become a slave to Zionism.
Look up what happened on October 7th.
And Israel is setting records with how few fatalities are occurring amongst the civilians. They are not intentionally targeting children or babies, it is a very dense and small environment where terrorists are actively using civilians as human shields. The sooner Hamas is exterminated the sooner this can end.
Unless you want the Jewish people to just lie down and die.
So the UN, Red Crescent, Medecine sans Frontiers and world media are all lying? LMFAO
It's all "free speech" until there's gunshots and suicide bombs in your hometown. Not surprised to see DrPepper12 going mad at people who oppose, guy supports literally any leftist shit.
They should be. If I saw such a sign, I'd immediately call the cops.
MOST people get it;just the ignoramuses, as usual, speak the loudest
And say WHAT? Theyre holding a sign with abhorent ideas? Lmk how that goes for you...
@handsomelad70
I see mere speech here, not harming anyone, and certainly not against any legitimate federal nor most state laws.
If they are doing it with or on someone's property where it is not permitted you have a case. But theses words don't harm anyone.
@monorprise They're advocating the extermination of a group they abhor, which is hate speech.
No. Hate speech requires an immediate and eminent threat. Thays not happening here!
@DrPepper12 So in your personal opinion Alyssa Mercante reciving that "hope you kill yourself" message is not hate speech, and you disagree with her and the SJWs who said it is as a simple homoe is not a immediate and eminent threat.
@handsomelad70 I agree I hate the speech they are making, and would rather not read it, but that changes nothing.
Because they are chickenshit. They are afraid to get bombed. They have an ally in town as well.
You can PROVE those specific PEOPLE are terrorists? Wow!! Impressive.
Ummmm... Muslims WILL (or already do depending on your methodology) out number "Christians" of which one half to 2/3s are non practicing but born into it.
As of 2015, Christians made up about 31% of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people), while Muslims comprised about 24% (approximately 1.8 billion people).
However, due to higher fertility rates and younger populations, the Muslim population is growing more rapidly. By 2065 Muslims will out number Christians.
u In my country they would already have been arrested. Accompanied by the howling of people like you, how we limit their freedom of speech, of course. 🙄🙄🙄
I grew up with a lot of Jewish kids. Some of these were really hard core Jews that would never put up with this crap. I wonder where these guys are today? Thats the real question.
@Juxtapose So far. So good.
@exitseven Probably have better thing to do than read someone's crap
Still in the IDF. My neighbor's were IDF and she can fuck you up something fierce!!
@DrPepper12 I knew a guy who was in the Israeli army. He was not an imposing looking man but if you talked to him you walked away with the impression that he could kill you with his bare hands.,
Don't fuck with the IDF. Just the same, a good portion of them are war criminals and genocidal terrorists.
@DrPepper12 nobodys perfect.
You gotta remember, the democrat leftists only punish republicans. They do not punish their own.
Because they represent the electoral future of the Communist/Socialist/Globalist cattle ranch that the Dims have become -- just as it is in Europe.
Ooookkkkaaaayyyy
@DrPepper12 I know you don't like it, but at least I'm not fixated on the election to the extent that you are. That's why I don't follow you anymore -- you're apparently obsessed with it, posting your missives all day long. I didn't go, 'wijrim
'white woman' and block usually, however, because I like you I'm married a hard core library, because I don't subscribe to the belief that a person's political stance defines them as good or evil l although the banana republic statist tactics implemented by the Dims could probably qualify as evil.
You're so sure that you're right, yet they're so anxious to put into place has failed and ultimately collapsed every other time it's been used. No offense, sir, but I have to ask you l are more concerned with avoiding the fate of living In a Communist country for a few more years, or popularity?
This is where we discussed custom policing versus “one size fits all”.
he's a goon and anti semite. But he’s not calling for violence. Just the right wingers hold up signs like “Blacks will soon be rotting”.
Does it matter if he's arrested or not, he's paying out the ass for his speech so that makes my point perfectly. The rest is utterly irrelevant.
The guy should be prosecuted without the citizenry needing to do anything. It should be just as blatant and clear-cut as walking around naked. If you walk around naked, you don't need people to snitch on you. The cops will take you in on their own if they see you.
Free speech for all!! No exceptions!!! 👊🏻💯
Are they in a position to accomplish the act they are supporting? No, they are not. As such, per SCOTUS, its not incitement. Nice try!
Protected free speech, I guess. But if they get violent, arrested. And intimidation is simple assault.
No man that's not at all correct.
"Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U. S. __ (2007)."
www.uscourts.gov/.../what-does
@Juxtapose The 1st amendment doesn't contain any written exceptions for the subject of the speech. Politicians both on the bench and elected have a responsibility for respecting the fact that the Federal goverment simply has no legitimate power on the subject.
Leave it to the states if the state has been granted such power as to prohibit mere words they don't like under the debasing of the concept of law presumption it would render someone else unable to take responsibility for their own actions.
As @Juxtapose has been told @Dargil
Only the first 2 of those cases actually refer to speech rather than a property crime.
Of those 2 only Roth v. United States really is relevant to the 1st amendment as the other is congress violating the 10th amendment in telling Ohio what laws they can make.
The Ohio constitution is a little more flexible on what laws the Government can make on speech:
www.sos.state.oh.us/.../constitution.pdf
Regardless both edicts of the progressive FDR Packed court happened to be decided by some of he worse and most lawless generation of politicians in black robes in our history.
Declaring not only the unwritten concept of arbitrary incorporation overthrowing State Constitutions and ignoring the explicit text, but providing unwritten exceptions to the blanket ban of the 1st Amendment on ALL such laws being made By Congress.
Thus in both cases they were actually lawless federal power grabs.
Because 40% of zionists are of the 0.01% wealthiest peoples on The Earth
It has traditionally been illegal, even for the king, to loan money out with interest. It is this practice that has gotten all of them expelled 109 times in 2500 years
I say pop them one by one. We need a militia to form to take these bastards out.
No it's not. They are using free speech & want Palestine free as do I so stop demonizing them please..
How are they inciting violence? Enlighten me I'll gladly listen to you 💙🖤
I think both sides need to work out their shit. Get rid of the problems which is Hamas and Bibi as well anyway thank you for enlightening me
Agreed 💯
No matter how many times you say it its NOT incitement
@DrPepper12 it straight up is lol. Are you insane?
It was just a simple question no need for hatefulness. I respect everyone's opinions and yours. Tbf I'm not even Muslim myself I'm still figuring out what I am lol do I want to be Shia? Maybe.. would I try Catholicism? Yes etc I'm open to more religions or none tbh
@DrPepper12 I get it Mr or Miss Dr. Pepper ❤️ by the way top tier drink anyway gracias. No need for that
Incitement requires intent, proxomity and ability to carry out the threatened act. Moreover, time, place and manner further reduce the legal definition of incitement
@DrPepper12 let's see how those standards are applied if you threaten the president vs a average Joe.
Dont play dumb. You know petfectly well that POTUS can't be threatened with out due process
@DrPepper12 come on don't play dumb with me yourself. People in power abide by a different set of rules and you should know this by now.
@Juxtapose He might just be that dumb and not playing, DrPepper changes arguments after he has made them
Do you think Harris will be the first DEI president? ↗
His answer to that question is "DEI = the latest minority slur with plausable deniability. Why don't you just say n****r, or s**c or d**head? You know you want to! Scream it! Own it! Just be honest." When I try to make him own that by his logic BlackRock is racist, his tune turns to its a codeword when MAGA use it. No word of that possibility in his original answer.
Lmao okay this is done now. Gracias for the opinions
What did you say about Alex Jones? For the record, he targeted individuals with his lies and slander, not a country, government, or idea.
People have a right to say what they wish no matter how idiotic it was.
@juxtapose There are no exception to the 1st amendment, only in State law do you have libel cases even then what happened to Alex Jones is an absurd travesty.
A case that really demonstrates a highly corrupt court both in Connecticut in which Alex Jones was never present and most distributional in Austin Texas. A case that had several degrees of highly abstract separation from Alex's remarks in Texas to what a few people in Connecticut said that isn't even related.
The dirty leftist court really jumps off the deep end with the ludicrous damages assessment basically many times what Alex Jones the greedy bastards were trying to get him pay more than GDP of all of Africa.
The case really speaks very poorly of the Sandy Hook team making the ubsrudly greedy charges exploiting a tragedy to make an outrageous amounts of money at the expense of everyone's basic right to free speech on the basis of an extremely flimzy connection that could be made against almost anyone.
Alex was not subject to Connecticut's libel abusive laws, nor is he responsible for what other people in Connecticut supposedly said separately. Nor is any speech worth $1 billion. In all those areas the case was an stunning example of lawfair judicial abuse.
The same Connecticut Court's also took $73 million from Remington, on behalf of the same Sandy Hook lawfair team. Which makes you wonder who according to the state of Connecticut isn't liable?
www.cnn.com/.../index.html
To be fair in that case your dealing with a somewhat dishonest insurance company holding Remington who had no need to settle for such an absurd claim.
Regardless the real problem for Texas is their willingness to go along with the abuse in letting Connecticut extend its corrupt laws into the state. This puts every industry and individual in Texas at risk.
Instead the State court should make the Sandy Hook families pay back every penny they stole from Alex Jones, as well as damages.
You are completely wrong.
"Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U. S. __ (2007)."
www.uscourts.gov/.../what-does
@juxtapose The fact that the Federal politicians in black robes have chosen to make unwritten exception to the 1st amendment, does not mean that we ever agreed to the federal Government possessing such power.
Most state Government have a similar prohibition and they do have some exceptions but not nearly soo many as unaccountable federal politicians have introduced.
As for record your really only talking about the first 2 case. The last 3 examples have nothing to do with the 1st amendment as it is in regard to state crimes in relation to the use of state property. Such speech was otherwise perfectly legal using any other property anywhere else.
The 4th being willful destruction of a Government document is also not speech, but neither is there a provision in the federal constitution allowing congress to issue such draft documents and prevent their destruction.
'The most offensive speech is most in need of protection"
Karma has just entered the chat...
Alex Jones got everything he deserved and then some! I guess he can't sell his boner pills and tactical taint underwear anymore!!! 😂
@DrPepper12 This is true, Rather than obsessing on how discussing these people are, we might note that their message is also strategically a valid observation of the vulnerability of putting soo much of the world's Jewish population in one place.
So the speech is valuable even if it it expresses their horrible desires.
They are not the type of people that they want to arrest. People are sitting in prison for walking through the capital, on J6.
The violent left rears its ugly head again.
Have you noticed these fucktards have their main beef with Israel but no Israeli flags are being burned?
Because they’re Democrats.
Arrested for what? Abhorent speech?
I agree with you.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions