World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[puke_face]

I am embarrassed that Trump is even a candidate, more so that there are people who will support him.

I can't even take a debate about his qualification seriously.

I feel the same way aboot Hilary Clinton.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I am embarrassed that Trump is even a candidate, more so that there are people who will support him.

I can't even take a debate about his qualification seriously.

I feel the same way aboot Hilary Clinton.

I know...a two term senator and former Secretary of State running for president?! Preposterous! (You can dislike her for a lot of very valid reasons, but I think anyone will have a hard time arguing she is unqualified for the office.)

[BoneSnapDeez]

aboot

As a Canadian you shouldn't worry too much about all this anyway.

[Erik_Twice]

delete this

[Sarge]

Hillary has certainly served in illustrious positions. But her tenure there has been rather lackluster (and in the case of the classified emails and servers, either intentionally malicious or incredibly inept).

Nonetheless, I don't take quite as stringent a view of who is "qualified" as some. The Constitution only requires a natural-born citizen of 35 years of age or older, and 14 years of residency. If someone can make the case to the voters that they are qualified for the job, then more power to 'em.

My go-to example is... Pres. Obama. Despite his light resume before winning the Presidency, he has been fantastically successful in implementing major portions of his ideology.

[Blu]

Freedom of speech guarantees you can speak your own ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation or censorship by the government. So no, you didn't have free speech in the USSR by your definition and example, because the government is reprising you for your speech.

Freedom of speech both as a right and as a concept is not limited to the goverment.

If you are under the threat of serious harm for what you say, like it's the case here you do not have freedom of speech in any meaningful sense. It doesn't matter if it's "The goverment", Falange, the Catholic Church, Gamergate or a group of gun-throtting NRA members.

Of course, people (and by people I mean "People on this site") have argued in my face, repeatedly that when ETA was blowing up people's houses and kidnapping journalists, nobody's freedom of press was being curtailed, so it's pointless to argue.

I don't know what Constitution you're reading, but I'm using the US Constitution's 1st Amendment rights. Spain may have different interpretations, but I'm using a US centric perspective.

"The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government." - http://constitutioncenter.org/interacti ... /interp/33

I don't know if your point is coming off as clear as you'd like but this right for expression is just that. It's on the whole point of self-governance. You can say what you want, and be protected from retaliation from the federal government. It's not quite as expanded as you are making it out to be.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence.

You can insult Boring all you want, but he's right when he calls this line of thinking fascist. You cannot support "consequences" for free speech and then call yourself a supporter of it.

It's not fascist. And that's not what I mean when I say "Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence." If I say something at work, and say my employer is a private entity, the First Amendment offers me no protection from being fired on account of what I say. It's different for public employees, on the basis of compelling public interest. This is why the Marine Corps released Joseph Pryor. It's why Matthew Heimbach was fired from the Indiana Department of Child Services. You can be a racist, you can't be a racist and assault people. Same goes for family members. If I'm a closet racist, and it doesn't align with my family and friends values and beliefs, there's going to be consequences there. No other way to put it.

That's the extent of my freedom from consequences. No bodily or physical harm should come your way because of your freedom of speech. To assume I meant anything beyond that is incorrect, which is why I'm clarifying.

Here's the limitation that I'm curious about, are Trump's words, "Fighting Words"?

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

[prfsnl_gmr]

Here's the limitation that I'm curious about, are Trump's words, "Fighting Words"?

No. For his words to be punishable "fighting words," he would have to be commanding people to "Riot!" or "Kill the protestors!" or "Burn down the building!"

[Blu]

Here's the limitation that I'm curious about, are Trump's words, "Fighting Words"?

No. For his words to be punishable "fighting words," he would have to be commanding people to "Riot!" or "Kill the protestors!" or "Burn down the building!"

There's no subjectivity to that though? Is telling someone to punch someone in the face close enough? He's must be a legal genius to dance around that.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Here's the limitation that I'm curious about, are Trump's words, "Fighting Words"?

No. For his words to be punishable "fighting words," he would have to be commanding people to "Riot!" or "Kill the protestors!" or "Burn down the building!"

There's no subjectivity to that though? Is telling someone to punch someone in the face close enough? He's must be a legal genius to dance around that.

My apologies. I confused "fighting words with "incitement." (I think...) The "fighting words" doctrine has been narrowed now to the point where it is almost nonexistent. Accordingly, I don't think it would be hard for him to get around it.

[puke_face]

I am embarrassed that Trump is even a candidate, more so that there are people who will support him.

I can't even take a debate about his qualification seriously.

I feel the same way aboot Hilary Clinton.

I know...a two term senator and former Secretary of State running for president?! Preposterous! (You can dislike her for a lot of very valid reasons, but I think anyone will have a hard time arguing she is unqualified for the office.)