Figster Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Andy1 said: I don’t agree with Kirk but I do agree with Scott here. There should be freedom of speech but also accountability for those words if your employer feels it reflects poorly on their business. Some idiots have said stupid horrible things. Hate speech is legally protected, but it doesn’t mean you get to keep your job. There needs to be more accountability for hate speech and actions by people on both sides of politics. There was lots of joking from the right about the attack on Paul Polosi when that horrible attempted murder happened and the right seemed fine with that. I don’t see any Dem politicians or other party leaders celebrating this murder. Idiots will be idiots. The Constitution allows for anyone to say anything, unless the words have the potential to incite violence or if the speech includes threatening language. In your opinion is it possible that some hate speeches may have the potential to incite violence? Edited September 17 by Figster
boyst Posted September 17 Posted September 17 8 hours ago, Delete_Delete_Delete said: Yeah, you got it, totally highschool. In fact, I’ll bring your response in to English class tomorrow so we can dissect exactly what went wrong with your response, and see if we can’t find a coherent sentence, or any legitimate talking points nestled somewhere in there. I’ll try and work with what I got here. I’m assuming you meant take OUT certain US cities, and you see, problem is that’s not how it works. Those cities are in fact PART of the United States, you can’t just pick the parts out you don’t like and say “well that doesn’t count”, that’s moving the goal posts, friend. You try and distract with semantics - Murder, homicide, violence, gun violence; how about “D. all of the above”, is that better? The United States is an extremely violent country with an excess number of all violent crimes, including, but not limited to homicide and murder, AND the rates of these crimes are far higher than their Canadian and European counterparts. Take out certain demographics? Take out how? Like how we “took out” the 95% of the indigenous populations with our westward expansion, and along with way almost wiped the American Buffalo off the face of the earth? Or do you mean not include certain demographics who were still subject to segregation in the lifetime of some board members here? Certain demographics who in certain areas of the country were not allowed to read or write for centuries, and then were given “freedom” to own nothing, to work nowhere, and live in abject poverty? Maybe tomorrow in school they’ll teach us about “nurture vs nature”, and then I can give you the cliff notes. Holy ***** lunatic rant I think your panties are on too tight.
Andy1 Posted September 17 Posted September 17 5 hours ago, Figster said: The Constitution allows for anyone to say anything, unless the words have the potential to incite violence or if the speech includes threatening language. In your opinion is it possible that some hate speeches may have the potential to incite violence? It’s my understanding that the illegal hate speech must be intended to incite imminent violence. I don’t know of any cases where the courts have ruled that the speech exceeded this threshold. It’s certainly not students protesting on campus, or people marching in the streets. Apparently, it’s not even Trump inciting an angry mob to go to the Capital. The right to allow others to say speech that we despise is the most American right there is.
nedboy7 Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free." Edited September 17 by nedboy7
Figster Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) 9 hours ago, Andy1 said: It’s my understanding that the illegal hate speech must be intended to incite imminent violence. I don’t know of any cases where the courts have ruled that the speech exceeded this threshold. It’s certainly not students protesting on campus, or people marching in the streets. Apparently, it’s not even Trump inciting an angry mob to go to the Capital. The right to allow others to say speech that we despise is the most American right there is. Under the circumstances and based on what we know so far. Do you think it's possible that the Charlie Kirk assassination is an indication some of his speeches may have exceeded this threshold? Violence did occur and it was the perceived spreading of hate that apparently motivated the suspect in custody. Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. Cambridge Dictionary defines hate speech as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" Edited September 17 by Figster
nedboy7 Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) “On the night Charlie was shot, a 4.1 earthquake struck Utah. In scripture, 40 represents trials; 41 signifies a shift. It hit at 5:57 local time, 7:57 Eastern,” the post read. “Acts 7:57 describes Stephen, the first martyr, stoned as the crowd silenced his truth. The Bible says the earth trembles when God is angry. That night, as a voice was silenced, the ground groaned.” this is our USAG. My bad. Karoline Leavitt. She’s insane. Edited September 17 by nedboy7 1
JDHillFan Posted September 17 Posted September 17 1 minute ago, nedboy7 said: “On the night Charlie was shot, a 4.1 earthquake struck Utah. In scripture, 40 represents trials; 41 signifies a shift. It hit at 5:57 local time, 7:57 Eastern,” the post read. “Acts 7:57 describes Stephen, the first martyr, stoned as the crowd silenced his truth. The Bible says the earth trembles when God is angry. That night, as a voice was silenced, the ground groaned.” this is our USAG. She’s insane. Pretty weird stuff for sure. This is not our USAG. You’re dim.
nedboy7 Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) 35 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Pretty weird stuff for sure. This is not our USAG. You’re dim. Whoops. It is the White House Press Secretary. I believe she might be dim. Hard to keep track of the insanity in this administration. Bondi is after people with hate in their hearts. Edited September 17 by nedboy7
Doc Brown Posted September 17 Posted September 17 14 hours ago, Andy1 said: I don’t agree with Kirk but I do agree with Scott here. There should be freedom of speech but also accountability for those words if your employer feels it reflects poorly on their business. I never cared much for Charlie Kirk to be honest. By the way, my real name is Patrick Mahomes. 1
JDHillFan Posted September 18 Posted September 18 2 minutes ago, SCBills said: It’s easy enough to understand why people would be interested in what Olbermann has to say for trainwreck type reasons. Can you imagine the kind of person that actually likes the guy? 1
Westside Posted September 18 Posted September 18 On 9/17/2025 at 12:00 AM, Andy1 said: I don’t agree with Kirk but I do agree with Scott here. There should be freedom of speech but also accountability for those words if your employer feels it reflects poorly on their business. Some idiots have said stupid horrible things. Hate speech is legally protected, but it doesn’t mean you get to keep your job. There needs to be more accountability for hate speech and actions by people on both sides of politics. There was lots of joking from the right about the attack on Paul Polosi when that horrible attempted murder happened and the right seemed fine with that. I don’t see any Dem politicians or other party leaders celebrating this murder. Idiots will be idiots. Whataboutism. You were doing so well too!!! I specifically do not remember anyone on the right wishing for pelosi’s death. But as we all know, leftists are not above lying or violence. So I take these “killing is wrong, BUT” posts as just another way the leftists support violence as a means to the end. Don’t fall for these so called peaceful responses. They always let you know how they really feel. Like this post above for example.
Andy1 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 7 hours ago, Westside said: Whataboutism. You were doing so well too!!! I specifically do not remember anyone on the right wishing for pelosi’s death. But as we all know, leftists are not above lying or violence. So I take these “killing is wrong, BUT” posts as just another way the leftists support violence as a means to the end. Don’t fall for these so called peaceful responses. They always let you know how they really feel. Like this post above for example. Ok, I got it. So the correct answer is everyone on the right only wishes good health and long lives to those on the left. They never say do or anything remotely considered violent. They are focused, working on their credentials for sainthood.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 18 Posted September 18 1 minute ago, Andy1 said: Ok, I got it. So the correct answer is everyone on the right only wishes good health and long lives to those on the left. They never say do or anything remotely considered violent. They are focused, working on their credentials for sainthood. If that's what you took from this, time to go get your head checked.
gobills404 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 On 9/16/2025 at 5:22 PM, JDHillFan said: PSA for delete Dr mantis toboggan delete - this guy is a real person and a liberal. multiple people tried to kill Joe Biden! They must have been AI generated. There was an elderly man who posted on Facebook saying Joe Biden should be assassinated so the feds showed up and killed him in his home. That’s the only one I remember.
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 On 9/17/2025 at 12:51 PM, nedboy7 said: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free." Cool. Go to the airport and say bomb and tell the Feds you are protected by Free Speech.
Recommended Posts