I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Its all laid out in the constitution. What is considered "speech". Harmful expressions and communications are not constitutional speech. And if you consider something that hurts your feelings "harmful" sorry that's not gonna get suppressed. You just need to get hurt feelings.
freemindfade
JoinedPosts by freemindfade
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
When the government tries to regulate or punish any kind of communication, a number of questions must be answered to determine if the controls will survive a constitutional challenge. The most basic is whether the conduct to be controlled qualifies as “speech.”
This is where you are trying to twist this in a strawman way that any communication constitutes "speech". I personally don't feel trying to ban everything is the way to go, but the government doesn't see it that way, they have controls, but the above line is what you should familiarize yourself with
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
A theater is a private sector, free speech does not apply there. Private entities and private spaces, however, are largely not required to protect your speech, and the first amendment does not protect what you say—only your right to speak. And the first amendment already has limits in this country:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
- To make or distribute obscene materials.
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
- To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
- Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
- Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
- Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
- Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Publishing a bomb making guide, or yelling in a theatre have nothing to do with what the first amendment is about.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
the bacon and eggs/Cathy cartoon
that's not a cartoon, that's a REAL picture of a REAL video. It's a visual aid to help understand how illogical you are arguing. Perhaps you should watch the video to see what NOT to do, instead of calling it a cartoon.
should it be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater
please enlighten me, how would a ban on speech stop anyone from doing that? It wouldn't magically make the words disappear. Every time stupid people act out, you can't just make another ban. Your ban ends up limiting the rights of law-abiding people simply so you have a tool to punish people that are idiots.
Attempting to ban bomb-making information is like trying to catch sand through a sieve. The Internet has opened the floodgates of knowledge no one can close. Even if attempted self-censorship by Internet search engines and social media websites successfully kept the flood of information at bay, other websites would continue to publish and there would always be the print versions of these instructions.
You see how that works? Turns out terrorists are smarter than you, and won't adhere to your bans, criminals always find a workaround, so it makes no sense to push the rights of civil people into dystopia for the bad apples.
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
It is interesting for someone who is pro free speech my speech made you so upset you have to post cartoons as an outlet
I have posted NO cartoons, especially about anything you have said. Once again, you are pulling stuff out of your rear end. I have said nothing to limit your speech, just criticized your inability to coherently discuss or debate. Also, anyone who did post a cartoon was not doing anything to infringe on your free speech.
Banning speech is never right, bad ideas are sterilized in the light of day, not the dark, period.
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
You bring up the need to curtail their free speech/free movement/civil rights in different ways;
Cathy (jacobi) I am not saying that AT ALL, and I would never say curtail anyone's free speech ever. If you pay attention I am extremely pro-free speech even if its offensive. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of wacky religion, I am not for making stupid political moves based on emotive leftists posturing. When and where did I ever say we should limit someones freedom of speech????? I have no clue where in the world you pulled that from but I did not and would not suggest that at all.
Anytime free speech is attacked whether the source is left wing or right, it leads inevitably to the slaughter of people and disaster. I would never condone that. And the fact you pulled that out of the air shows how you have zero grasps on this entire conversation, just trying to reinforce some idea of your own, that no one was talking about in the first place!
You are still avoiding what everyone is talking about, ISIS fighters returning to Canada with open arms, fortunately, there are no radical "right wing" countries others you are trying to equate have shipped off to, to fight start a caliphate and wage war on western values, sorry Jacobi, you are misdirecting over and over.
It's not a terrorism scorecard, it's about bad policy
You are coocoo my friend
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
Whenever I see someone do that, I think: Now there is someone who don't have a good argument.
Jacobi you are currently arguing on a sub -"Cathy Newman" level, I wouldn't snark so quickly
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
my question was about attituded towards terroism in Canada. Nobody is preventing you from talking about something else if you wish!
I would assume the attitude towards any kind of terrorism would be "its bad".
No, Muslims are not the only ones capable of committing terrorism, but as I said, the kind of hate that pushes a Muslim to commit violence, or a fundie Christian are all essentially radical right wing, so its all right-wing terrorism, the point... AGAIN... why would you invite people back to your country, who flew overseas to get a PhD in being a piece of shit radical? that has nothing to do with rightwing, left wing, blah blah blah. that's what everyone but you is talking about as you throw out a bingo card of logical fallacies.
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
The gist of what I am getting is the reason we should focus more on Islamic terrorism in Canada...
and I keep telling you over and over it's not just Terrorism, and you keep saying like that is what I am talking about, stop with the red herring thing saying this is about just terrorism! It's about Canada's leadership inviting home criminals and jihadists because they feel they will magically rehabilitate through osmosis. Not terrorist act for the 100th time!
-
151
Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
by freemindfade incurious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
-
-
freemindfade
If so don't you think Canadians are wise to be concerned that their leaders are determined not to repeat the mistakes of other countries?
This is the simple issue jacobi is trying to skirt around not addressing
