Would be interesting to find out. I think asking them good questions like that would be more effective than battering them over the head with a bike lock.

The free speech side seemed open to dialogue whilst antifa did not though.

It was sloppy wording on my part and yeah I conflated two things. I think she was joking but even assuming that she wasn't, saying something as dumb as that doesn't strip her of her 1st amendment rights. That's all I was saying.

I also don't know what it means to say there should be no restrictions on free speech. For example, crimes committed using words isn't a form of protected speech obviously.

im not a lawyer and these arent perfect comparisons but you cant walk in to a bank with your face covered for a valid reason. being charged with attempted robbery isnt a given but being removed and/or searched seems perfectly reasonable. driving within the speed limit and your lane is perfectly legal but im pretty sure you get pulled over at 3 am under suspicion for swerving within your lane. that doesn't mean you get charged with a DUI

the police aren't doing anything. making excuses for them to let this stuff happen or for the threat of violent protest to take priority over free speech is a big mistake

A business can basically do whatever they want with regards to restricting certain items of clothing or enforcing a dress code. Most banks have signs saying you can't cover your fave and so when you do they can ask you to leave and if you don't they can get the cops involved.

(As an aside, does anyone know if there been any issues regarding women going into banks with full Islamic face veils? It just dawned on me that this could be challenged as a religious freedom thing. It seems to me to be an interesting case)

Anyway, this is a harder case in a public setting but as far as I understand the government can temporarily amend the rules using the "least restrictive means" in order to keep people safe. But I'm not a lawyer either. I could be missing a piece somewhere.

I don't know any of that consdring my president. I've got a president who wants to loosen libel laws to stifle the press and who advocates for removing the citisonship of poeople who burn the flag. It's important to counter those views which are often supported by Ann and the right. I'd say it's more important then ever.


Plus this has been a liberal bashing issue of late (see thread) and it's also important to point out free speech is not just attacked by the left. The are mostly new comers to this game.

We don't see the "free speech" side the same.

I support peoples right to. You don't?

Im basing my opinion of footage from journalists covering the event and trying to interview people. In the footage I saw those there for the free speech event were open to talking , those from antifa weren't.

I support people's right to burn the flag as form of speech.

If/when Trump does something egregious like that it will be challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court. There needs to be some faith in the system. It's pretty good.

His and the rights attacks on free speech should be countered before he/does something.


As far as faith in the system. I've got a little but Its not like artist have not been charged with crimes in the recent past. Sorry but my faith in the system is not as high.

given your posting habits in 7.0 its seems you vastly over estimate the importance or validity of your posts. the comments i have seen seem like petty snipes that lack substance. i guess that makes sense if you're under the impression people should care what you think or that your empty snipes carry any more weight than others. maybe its also a symptom of being in a group think bubble

i was highlighting the last part of your post to make a point. the very first sentence of my posts says "this highlights the issue". my point is that using labels like white christian supremacy to justify shutting her speech down instead of debating specific points is a real problem. these labels carry weight and people use them as justifications for violence. that maybe your take on coulter but that doesn't make it true or valid. people can listen to her and decide for themselves. it wasn't a giant argument against your post, as the first sentence indicates. i dont care if you read any of my posts or respond to them. i haven't seen you articulate an interesting argument or point and you're quite open about the fact that you don't even read the posts you are responding to

Batair, you can't charge someone for a crime they haven't committed. The only free speech violations so far have come from the rioters at Berkeley.

What Trump has said about the media is irresponsible, disturbing and, like everything else he says, poorly considered gibberish. But he hasn't passed any laws yet and just look at what has happened the times he tried doing anything. He fails. My faith in the system reached a low point after the election but since then it's gone back up a lot.

(I will admit I tend to be overly optimistic about everything though)

There have been plenty of artists charged in my lifetime for exercising their free speech rights.


Still think his and others on the right should be countered. You don't think it should be in this thread. Fine I disagree.

I just don't think the right response to this free speech violation should be to say that Ann Coulter/Trump have made comments that could lead to other free speech violations. Or to say that the right have been ok with free speech violations in the past when it was convenient for them.

It was not a counter to her being stoped from speaking. Again.

How is burning a flag a form of free speech? This is stupid. These people need to be charged with treason....simple.

Who Came up with the idea you can burn the American flag?

These sumbags better not do it in front of me.

You enjoy watching people burn the flag?

This is getting downright schizophrenic at this point.

It's a statement - basically of hatred for America, or is it super nuanced ("I just don't like how much you love America, I want to make it better by burning it in effigy" - whatever). I disagree with the sentiment, but I believe in their right to "say" it.

It's not treason because it doesn't actually harm America. Does it increase our enemies' military power, give them a national secret?

I think there comes a time when rights need to be taken away. If you can't behave like a polished human then you lose your rights.

We need to shut these protests down before they get started. Agitators need to be dealt with harshly.

Do want to put people in jail for it?

You were pointing out the hypocrisy of the right, correct? Why else would you specifically look for Ann Coulter saying things that go against the principles of the first amendment?

Fair enough. Republicans are hypocrites. But if your concern is actually free speech, what is happening at Berkeley just is the bigger deal right now. I don't like what Trump or Coulter said but they are just words at this point.

Political dissent is the most important speech to protect for reasons I'd image are self evident. It is our one real protection from having the government use the powers we give them back against us. (A few thousand people with AR15s won't cut it)

Flag burning is just a crude/uninspired form of that.

I'm not sure I'll ever get over how, in this postMAGA universe, the actual Nazis are never the Nazis in the Nazi analogies.