Comment on fuck this asshole
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days agoIf it has a limit, it’s not free
If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”
ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 5 days ago
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days 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.
ReasonableHat@lemmy.world 5 days ago
So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days 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.
ReasonableHat@lemmy.world 5 days 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.
SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Scream “Fire” at a theater. Obviously you cannot.
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days 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The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions.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.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days 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 🤔
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days 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.
100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 5 days 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)
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Nah.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
“Free bread sticks”
“I’ll take 100”
“Um… No. You can’t have that many.”
“iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days 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
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
When did the American Constitution promise “Unlimited Speech”?
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days 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.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Bruh…