“Free Speech” protest attacked, canceled in Frisco

Post Reply New Topic

Its a matter of opinion. The reason "Hate Speech" laws are a bad idea is because eventually people will come to view everything they disagree with, no matter how absurd, as "Hate Speech".

I never want people with viewpoints that oppose my own to be silenced. If you have so little faith in your own viewpoint that it must go unchallenged than you really need to reexamine your worldview.

I don't get what you said. Sorry. It does not make sense yet.

Free Speech = the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

There are exceptions, for example, is a person is a member of a group that is classified as a terrorist group.
In the UK, the racist organisation National Action is now regarded as a terrorist organisation due to some of their members involvement in the organised murder of a member of parliament.

A number of people since have been put in prison for their involvement in the organisation including at least one member of the British Police Force and at least one member of the British Army.

The reason why racists gravitate towards conservative / republican party is due to the political values that these parties promote. Such people also often reject the political values of the leftist parties, although interestingly enough, during the rise of the original nazi's pre-second world war, Hitler and his buddies were on both sides of the fence of politics, until the night of the long knives which the more right wing members of the nazi party did away with all the people who were more liberal.

Apparently, according to speculation, Hitler ordered this execution of his buddies who helped the Nazi party rise to power, as Hitler started to fear the power of those who were strong in the brown shirts, but also, to unify the political aims of the nazi party. If there was no diversity within his own party, then it would be much more robust as a party.

Apparently some of the people who were murdered during this night, were good friends of Hitler.
I guess Hitler and his far right buddies just used the brown shirts to help him rise against the opposition, and once they had achieved their goals, they did away with those who helped them gain power.

So yes, being a conservative or republican does not automatically make a person racist or a nazi.
I believe there are loads of people who belong to these parties as well as loads of people who support / vote for these parties who are not racist and who do not hold nazi like values.

There are some, however who do. After all, Nazism is a form of fascism, and fascism is a form of totalitarian government. Conservative and Republican's are political parties and not a type of government.

How the government is organised determines as to whether the government is more democratic or more totalitarian.

Interestingly enough, many of the communist governments in our history have been more totalitarian than democratic forms of governments.

I found such an observations ironic, as in some cases, both the fascists and the communists want to run the population by placing a dictator or party of dictators to enforce a totalitarian control over the masses, with out the masses having any freedom or say in the choices made for them which affect all the governed populations lives.

In totalitarian governments, which includes nazi fascist governments and most realised communist governments, freedom of speech is not a right, and in many cases, if one speaks out against the manner in which the totalitarian government does business, the consequences can be fatal.

This is in interesting observation, as those alt-right who use the freedom of speech as a defence to air their opinion on their racist and prejudiced values, if their vision was realised, they would likely find they lose their freedom of speech, due to the totalitarian nature of the government that they wished for.

It would certainly be ironic if such a scenario were to be realised and the people who fought for such a government were the among the people who lost their right, because they were not among the elite ruling class / master race.

Yes, how ironic. I see the funny side in such a realisation.

btw, did anyone read the article about the Fred Perry brand taking off the market their black and yellow t-shirts due to being adopted by the Proud Boys.

What i also found ironic, is that Fred Perry was the son of a UK socialist MP, who was a tennis champ, who started his clothing business by going into a partnership with a Jewish businessman who was friend of his.

How ironic, all these racist neo's turning out to be wearing clothing made by a Jewish man. lol.

Ironically, the original trend for wearing Fred Perry's came from the Moonstomp skin head movement during the 60s.
Moonstomp skin heads were not racist but a movement of Jamaican reggae and ska lovers and party goers.

This UK movement started their own fashion trend which copied the Jamaican fashions of the time.
The UK neo's / alt right of their time, hijacked the fashion (as they do with other popular trends)
and used it to infiltrate the movement and do their best to convert those within the movement that they saw as fit for purpose.

I see it as this:

Twitter, youtube, facebook, etc. are all private platforms. People who own them get to decide what they want on there. If you want to be on there, you have to comply to their terms. I see this as no different than any place not allowing racism, hate speech, harassment, etc. It has always been this way but it was on message boards and on internet forums. I have been online since I was 11 and been visiting message boards since I was 15 and been posting online since I was 17. A lot has changed since then because we didn't have places like youtube and Twitter and Wordpress and stuff. All we had then were personal websites hosted by angelfire or yahoo and we had message boards and then forums that look like this got common around 2003 slowly replacing google and msn and yahoo groups. I was in MSN and yahoo groups and I visited a Network54 forum as well and I also visited a Proboards forum and a Bravenet forum. But for god's sakes, there have always been rules.

Then in 2007 I was shocked to hear how free speech also meant being rude and nasty to people and being bigoted and racist, etc. I always thought free speech meant to protest. This was how I was raised anyway. But apparently this is how the right wing feel about free speech while the left feel differently about free speech and what it means. To us it does not mean harassment and spreading hate and lies and slander and burning crosses in peoples lawns and vandalizing property. But to some people this all means free speech.


All this "censorship" is not new. And there are platforms where you can be hateful all you want like 4chan sites and there are places like saidit. It is another version of Reddit. Yes, the right wings also have their own echo chambers as well.

The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate. However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others.

Black, who set fire to a cross on a private farm in Carroll County, had permission from the owner of the farm to use the area for a KKK rally and to ignite a cross as part of the ceremony. The ACLU of Virginia has provided legal representation to Black since the incident in 1999.

Four of the five Justices in the majority held that the presumption of intimidation in the Virginia law is unconstitutional on its face. Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Rehnquist and Breyer wrote that the burning of a cross, if used as a "statement of ideology" or a "symbol of group solidarity," is protected by the First Amendment. Justice Scalia, the fifth member of the majority, agreed that it was wrong to convict Black but not that the law's presumption of intimidation is unconstitutional
on it face.

In upholding the part of the law that prohibits cross-burning with the intent to intimidate, the Court's majority held that the Virginia law is not inconsistent with R.AV v. St. Paul, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an ordinance prohibiting cross-burning and other kinds of threatening conduct, but only when it is motivated by racial, religious or gender bias. Unlike the ordinance in R.A.V., Virginia's statute bans all cross-burning with the intent to intimidate and therefore does not discriminate against particular viewpoints.

The Court also held that the state could single out cross-burning because it is an especially "virulent form of intimidation" with a "long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."

I do not know much about USA politics except your presidents name who is Donald Trump. I do not know which party he is in.

From what you are getting at is the Republicans are for democracy and whatever the main opposition party is, they prefer a form of communism? Or have I got the wrong take on what you are saying? Which party is the main opposition?

What about the French teacher who had his head cut off for joking about Islam?

Another case where free speech is not 100 percent allowed is libel statutes.

Someone sued Tucker Carlson for slander and lost because he is not a real news anchor and he is just a talk show person. The judge said because he is not a real news anchor guy, people wouldn't believe what he says and I thought "Oh yes they will because so many people watch Fox News and believe it and they think he is a real news anchor."

Sorry for the confusion. After reading my comment again I realized it was a bit imprecise. I'm not referencing it to you but to people in general. I agree with what you're saying about the communist philosophy creeping into our culture. What I find disturbing is when people want to shut down debate and/or silence others who have opposing viewpoints. We used to see it a lot on college campus's but now it seems to be everywhere, especially online. For instance just this week YouTube deleted 4 different channels that I follow.