OtherGround Forums Do Not Use These Free Speech Arguments

24 days ago
12/26/05
Posts: 42903
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

Your side of the fence isnt interested in the first amendment anymore Jimmy. 

Also given the population demographic shifts, your side becomes less and less interested in protecting the first amendment every year.

 

I pretty much agree with the article... the tone is cringe, but other than sounding like a woke-scold mother who's late for her spin class, I agree with most everything.

 

...and thats the problem.  Most people who will agree to the points in that article, you arent with...you're against.

Really ? What "side" is it that you think I'm on?

Do tell the image you have projected upon me

You're on the left wing jimmy.

 

You have been.  You arent a new forum member.  You arent a libertarian.  You arent a conservative.  You arent on the fence.  You're on the left.

While you probably need to believe that to maintain a binary world view, it is incorrect

No it's not.  You're on the left. 

 

I'm more libertarian than anything else, but am definitely on the right as well given my view on humanity in general.

 

 

  

24 days ago
1/2/15
Posts: 8224
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

Your side of the fence isnt interested in the first amendment anymore Jimmy. 

Also given the population demographic shifts, your side becomes less and less interested in protecting the first amendment every year.

 

I pretty much agree with the article... the tone is cringe, but other than sounding like a woke-scold mother who's late for her spin class, I agree with most everything.

 

...and thats the problem.  Most people who will agree to the points in that article, you arent with...you're against.

Really ? What "side" is it that you think I'm on?

Do tell the image you have projected upon me

You're on the left wing jimmy.

 

You have been.  You arent a new forum member.  You arent a libertarian.  You arent a conservative.  You arent on the fence.  You're on the left.

While you probably need to believe that to maintain a binary world view, it is incorrect

Aren't you the guy that jumps on any anti trump conspiracy even when there are 0 facts supporting it?

 

We still remember the high school student thread backfire of yours that you doubled down and said you were just trolling

 

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 93454
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

Your side of the fence isnt interested in the first amendment anymore Jimmy. 

Also given the population demographic shifts, your side becomes less and less interested in protecting the first amendment every year.

 

I pretty much agree with the article... the tone is cringe, but other than sounding like a woke-scold mother who's late for her spin class, I agree with most everything.

 

...and thats the problem.  Most people who will agree to the points in that article, you arent with...you're against.

Really ? What "side" is it that you think I'm on?

Do tell the image you have projected upon me

You're on the left wing jimmy.

 

You have been.  You arent a new forum member.  You arent a libertarian.  You arent a conservative.  You arent on the fence.  You're on the left.

While you probably need to believe that to maintain a binary world view, it is incorrect

No it's not.  You're on the left. 

 

I'm more libertarian than anything else, but am definitely on the right as well given my view on humanity in general.

 

 

  

Mmm hmm

 

Sicha fantasist

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 93456
Junnk -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

Your side of the fence isnt interested in the first amendment anymore Jimmy. 

Also given the population demographic shifts, your side becomes less and less interested in protecting the first amendment every year.

 

I pretty much agree with the article... the tone is cringe, but other than sounding like a woke-scold mother who's late for her spin class, I agree with most everything.

 

...and thats the problem.  Most people who will agree to the points in that article, you arent with...you're against.

Really ? What "side" is it that you think I'm on?

Do tell the image you have projected upon me

You're on the left wing jimmy.

 

You have been.  You arent a new forum member.  You arent a libertarian.  You arent a conservative.  You arent on the fence.  You're on the left.

While you probably need to believe that to maintain a binary world view, it is incorrect

Aren't you the guy that jumps on any anti trump conspiracy even when there are 0 facts supporting it?

 

We still remember the high school student thread backfire of yours that you doubled down and said you were just trolling

 

What Trump conspiracies have I shown belief in ? 

 

I look forward to your answer...

24 days ago
11/25/10
Posts: 2345

"Many other countries allow substantially broader limits on free speech.That’s relevant to what the law in America should be, but it has nothing to do with what the law is."

 

Poor liberals, wishing they could have more limits on 1A.

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 21371
jimmy23 - 
takedownandsub -

Huge lol at the self owning snowflakes that assumed by one sentence that they know what the article is about 

Mission accomplished 


You both know good & well that if a heavily trafficked, heavily right leaning publication / media outlet posted a huge article like this about what the first amendment is vs what it "should be", the left would be losing their goddamned minds and everyone involved would be publicly labeled a nazi, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, etc everywhere possible.
24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 93457
Wiggy -
jimmy23 - 
takedownandsub -

Huge lol at the self owning snowflakes that assumed by one sentence that they know what the article is about 

Mission accomplished 


You both know good & well that if a heavily trafficked, heavily right leaning publication / media outlet posted a huge article like this about what the first amendment is vs what it "should be", the left would be losing their goddamned minds and everyone involved would be publicly labeled a nazi, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, etc everywhere possible.

So... They would be acting as irrationally and emotionally as the right wingers here ?

 

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 21372
jimmy23 - 
Wiggy -
jimmy23 - 
takedownandsub -

Huge lol at the self owning snowflakes that assumed by one sentence that they know what the article is about 

Mission accomplished 


You both know good & well that if a heavily trafficked, heavily right leaning publication / media outlet posted a huge article like this about what the first amendment is vs what it "should be", the left would be losing their goddamned minds and everyone involved would be publicly labeled a nazi, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, etc everywhere possible.

So... They would be acting as irrationally and emotionally as the right wingers here ?

 


You're being either deliberately obtuse or trolling. Either way, you're being disingenuous.

(Both of) your implications are that people here are irrationally offended, and you're just wrong.

The author of the article had an agenda, and set the tone for said agenda with the very first sentence(s) of the article. If he meant to be truly objective, he could (should have) left that shit out. But he didn't.

As a result, it taints the point of view of the entire rest of the piece, and to act as of people don't see that is kinda silly.

I mean picture the exact same article, virtually word-for-word, only the first paragraph stated something about how antifa groups and democratic socialists were continually meeting in larger numbers all throughout the country, threatening violence, and stifling what you could (should) and couldn't (shouldn't) say under the guise of "offending" people. That stifling what should be free speech is just a thinly veiled attempt at stifling thought. But just what "is" free speech vs what it "should be"?

The entire article would then have a different tone and it would have a completely different reaction to it.

And like I said - you know it.

So also like I said - your incredulous response is at best disingenuous.

And you know that, too.
24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 93458
Wiggy -
jimmy23 - 
Wiggy -
jimmy23 - 
takedownandsub -

Huge lol at the self owning snowflakes that assumed by one sentence that they know what the article is about 

Mission accomplished 


You both know good & well that if a heavily trafficked, heavily right leaning publication / media outlet posted a huge article like this about what the first amendment is vs what it "should be", the left would be losing their goddamned minds and everyone involved would be publicly labeled a nazi, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, etc everywhere possible.

So... They would be acting as irrationally and emotionally as the right wingers here ?

 


You're being either deliberately obtuse or trolling. Either way, you're being disingenuous.

(Both of) your implications are that people here are irrationally offended, and you're just wrong.

The author of the article had an agenda, and set the tone for said agenda with the very first sentence(s) of the article. If he meant to be truly objective, he could (should have) left that shit out. But he didn't.

As a result, it taints the point of view of the entire rest of the piece, and to act as of people don't see that is kinda silly.

I mean picture the exact same article, virtually word-for-word, only the first paragraph stated something about how antifa groups and democratic socialists were continually meeting in larger numbers all throughout the country, threatening violence, and stifling what you could (should) and couldn't (shouldn't) say under the guise of "offending" people. That stifling what should be free speech is just a thinly veiled attempt at stifling thought. But just what "is" free speech vs what it "should be"?

The entire article would then have a different tone and it would have a completely different reaction to it.

And like I said - you know it.

So also like I said - your incredulous response is at best disingenuous.

And you know that, too.

Nothing in his legal arguments was about "tone".

Oh my goodness,his tone was bad so none of the logic he used matters.

 

That is the though pattern of someone who is guided by emotion more than intellect.

 

And you know that

 

 

24 days ago
3/25/19
Posts: 3897
Mountain Medic -
jimmy23 -
Mountain Medic -

First sentence - "America is awash in ugly, hateful speech. White nationalists march defiantly, and their slogans are echoed in murderous rampages."

 

...And I'm out

Amd yet you miss what is essentially an legal argument against limitations on free speech

 

 

I thought you were a bit more thick skinned. Instead you got triggered and moved on

 

Sad

Lol, I'm not going to waste time reading an article that starts out with complete bullshit.

Read thw fucking article you fucking troglodyte. And don't be giving me no sass about it either!

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 93459

The funniest part of this thread is whining from right wingers who most likely would agree with 100% of the actual legal points the author makes

24 days ago
2/15/13
Posts: 7619
takedownandsub -

Huge lol at the self owning snowflakes that assumed by one sentence that they know what the article is about 

Why do we need some bleeding heart to explain the the first amendment to us? We can all read what the first amendment says. Anyone with half a brain is aware that hate speech is protected speech 

24 days ago
5/16/19
Posts: 2083
Slydawg - 
Viper has the Lead -
Mountain Medic - 

First sentence - "America is awash in ugly, hateful speech. White nationalists march defiantly, and their slogans are echoed in murderous rampages."

 

...And I'm out


...and you're...mad dumb, not only because the sentence that upset is you full of facts but...


the article is fully on board with your feelings about free speech, and the legality of "hate" speech.


there's nothing else in there to trigger you, don't worry.

MM is a very good person. Very fair and objective IMO. The fact that he reacted that way should tell you something. 

I’m a brown person. I love the USA. It’s not a bad place. Too many underachievers that want to blame their problems on something. To be fair there are race issues here but they exist everywhere. It’s not as bad as the press portrays. 


it did.

it tells me hes largely lead by his emotions

the rest of your post is total non-sequiturs
Edited: 24 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 6343

His very first point on the 1A is about the crowded theatre argument being a truism that relied on half truths and mischaracterization.

Uh... kinda like your opening paragraph? 

Yes, white nationalists marched in the street. Like 50 of them. Almost 3 years ago. What reason is there to say that other to mischaracrerize the actual state of politics as being somehow on the brink of fascism because orange man bad. 

But, it is just an editorial piece, so go hard, I guess. Just a bit hypocritical given the next paragraph. 

24 days ago
7/12/13
Posts: 9110
NiteProwleR -

You can't side strong half assed.

YOU LEAVE MY SISTER OUT OF THIS

24 days ago
4/27/18
Posts: 1443
Viper has the Lead -
Mountain Medic - 

First sentence - "America is awash in ugly, hateful speech. White nationalists march defiantly, and their slogans are echoed in murderous rampages."

 

...And I'm out


...and you're...mad dumb, not only because the sentence that upset is you full of facts but...


the article is fully on board with your feelings about free speech, and the legality of "hate" speech.


there's nothing else in there to trigger you, don't worry.

No he's not. Like many of us, we tire of the false notion that white america is the devil and causes all the evil of the world.

Only if whitey would go away then POC would prosper and everyone gets a free unicorn (that whitey pays for btw)

Bub, the worse kinda dumb is when you think you know it all, and thats you.

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 11022
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

Your side of the fence isnt interested in the first amendment anymore Jimmy. 

Also given the population demographic shifts, your side becomes less and less interested in protecting the first amendment every year.

 

I pretty much agree with the article... the tone is cringe, but other than sounding like a woke-scold mother who's late for her spin class, I agree with most everything.

 

...and thats the problem.  Most people who will agree to the points in that article, you arent with...you're against.

Really ? What "side" is it that you think I'm on?

Do tell the image you have projected upon me

everyone knows what side you're on, the worthless commie bitch side, the side that detests free speech, personal accountability and any kind of personal freedom or independent thought

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 25362
ttt
24 days ago
6/13/03
Posts: 23800
jimmy23 -

The funniest part of this thread is whining from right wingers who most likely would agree with 100% of the actual legal points the author makes

Sure for people who want to read constitutional law detailed with leftist propaganda. 

 

24 days ago
4/1/11
Posts: 7197

Excellent article

24 days ago
1/6/10
Posts: 9974


24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 49425

Subbed for later 

24 days ago
5/23/07
Posts: 17281
jimmy23 - 

The funniest part of this thread is whining from right wingers who most likely would agree with 100% of the actual legal points the author makes


nah....the funniest part of the thread is you not being on the left.
24 days ago
4/24/07
Posts: 39550
jimmy23 - 
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -
CavemanDave -
jimmy23 -

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/

Your side of the fence isnt interested in the first amendment anymore Jimmy. 

Also given the population demographic shifts, your side becomes less and less interested in protecting the first amendment every year.

 

I pretty much agree with the article... the tone is cringe, but other than sounding like a woke-scold mother who's late for her spin class, I agree with most everything.

 

...and thats the problem.  Most people who will agree to the points in that article, you arent with...you're against.

Really ? What "side" is it that you think I'm on?

Do tell the image you have projected upon me

You're on the left wing jimmy.

 

You have been.  You arent a new forum member.  You arent a libertarian.  You arent a conservative.  You arent on the fence.  You're on the left.

While you probably need to believe that to maintain a binary world view, it is incorrect


LMFAO @ this bullshit. You are as far left as any of the self admitted lefties here. You honestly think this ploy where you constantly spew leftist idology and then claim your not a leftist will fool anyone? Its scary how delusional some people are in terms of where they think they fall on the political spectrum. Jimmy you are nowhere near the center. Tim Pool is center. Not a fan of Trump and honestly points out problems in both camps. I have never once seen you defend any policy right of center or admonish any policy left of center.

24 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10577

At first I was ready to point out the flaws with the article because the click-bait introduction implied it was going to be one of those "Free speech should protect speech I like and not speech I don't like".

But upon actually reading the article it was VERY clearly in support of the unambiguous free speech policies of the ACLU. That is - hate speech, speech you don't like, and almost all other forms of speech (except for things like libel and unambiguous calls to violence) are completely protected.

I'm wondering why they did that though?

The article is very much in line with the constitution, and the sentiment would be supported by most Republicans I know, but it seems to be worded initially as a "keep your mean words away from me" piece.