Comment on fuck this asshole

• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  If it has a limit, it’s not free

  “Free bread sticks”

  “I’ll take 100”

  “Um… No. You can’t have that many.”

  “iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”

    If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court

    source

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it

      When did the American Constitution promise “Unlimited Speech”?

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        It doesn’t. It says free, meaning unencumbered. The breadstick analogy was for unlimited not free so it was disingenuous and I was countering it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If it has a limit, it’s not free

      Don’t be pedantic

      Bruh…

      source
• ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.

    That’s not freedom.

    source
• ReasonableHat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath

    By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.

    You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.

    source

    • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.

      source
• SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Scream “Fire” at a theater. Obviously you cannot.

  source

  • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.

    source

    • IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.

      So you are saying there is a limitation

      So there no free speech afterall 🤔

      source

      • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them

        The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal.

        source
• 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. (Karl Popper)

  source
• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Nah.

  source