re: As of today, you're a Nazi sympathizer if you believe in free speech

quote:

---

hahaha. yeah ok you do that. ask him to smite me while youre at it. in fact every christian here can do the same. we'll all witness the power of prayer together.

---

I like you, bro. You seem to be a hard core Leftist. If my prediction for the end of the USA in 100 years is to come true, you'll need to have some kids, raise them to think like you and make sure that they are running the USA one day in the future.

quote:

---

These people?

---

hahaha. god damn, what a perfect illustration of either your ignorance or your outright dishonesty.

you respond to a post about Unite the Right with a link about the Free Speech Movement, who clearly state that they have nothing to do with Unite the Right.

nonetheless, you're just gonna pretend that they do anyway, because its all you have.

what do you think it says about your opinions when theyre completely built on lying?

I'd rather live under the sword of Islam than totalitarian progressive socialism. Government has killed far more people than Islam

quote:

---

OK. I haven't read the thread so maybe I missed something but what the frick is "carrying torture"?

---

autocorrect....for the loss ;-)

quote:

---

under the 1stA, they have right to free speech

---

this COULD apply... not saying that it does, i'm saying it could...

Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568

Chaplinsky still remains viable for the principle that ''the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called 'fighting words,' those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.'

-In Beauharnais v. Illinois, 104 relying on dicta in past cases, 105 the Court upheld a state group libel law which made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people.

in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 109 In R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, explained and qualified the categorical exclusions for defamation, obscenity, and fighting words. These categories of speech are not ''entirely invisible to the Constitution,'' but instead ''can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content.'' 110 Content discrimination unrelated to that ''distinctively proscribable content'' runs afoul of the First Amendment. Therefore, the city's bias-motivated crime ordinance, interpreted as banning the use of fighting words known to offend on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender, but not on such other possible bases as political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality, was invalidated for its content discrimination. ''The First Amendment does not permit [the city] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.'' 111

quote:

---

I'd rather live under the sword of Islam than totalitarian progressive socialism.

---

If you convert and are a man, it would be better.

How many wives would you get?

quote:

---

How many wives would you get?

---

Many

quote:

---

Was free speech involved when they postured with weapons across the street from charlottesville synagogue?

---

Well, the British were certainly not pleased with colonial governors denouncing the king and declaring war on england, but one man's treason is another man's revolution.

Free speech isn't free of it has conditions, dick face

sweet

and just think how much better the roads will be without all of those women drivers

we could also get away with taking them out of the voting booth

and those ANITFA infidels, we'd get them cleaned up with the quickness