Except it really isn't this simple. Freedom of speech is freedom from government sanction. It is not, for instance, a right to a platform to speech. That's why if I turn up at a university and expect a lecture hall to be reserved for me I go home disappointed.

Now, you're right that there are ways I can interfere with someone's speech and that be illegal, but you're wrong from a point of law if you think that includes protesting near an event in a way that might cause any delay or difficulty. Marches with a corresponding counter-protest are an extremely common thing.

I think this is pretty wrong. They have to be breaking some kind of law to be subject to arrest. "interfering with free speech rights" isn't a crime.

If someone shows up in a public place and starts speaking, there is no law against using your own speech to interfere with that person's speech. (For one, how would one determine whose speech was interfering with whose?"

Likewise, if you show up at a venue and boo someone--that itself is not a crime, although you could be asked to leave. Some states have laws against disrupting assemblies, but the bar for interference is pretty high.


Well, you have to define what you mean by "interfere." Interfering isn't merely inconveniencing someone.

For all the talk about liberals attacking free speech, the only dissenter to that decision was Alito--and Roberts has since said that he would have joined Alito's dissent.

Xpost from Politics:

This is a great example of what I was talking about. Nothing she did was interfering with the hearing--in fact people laughed at another part of the hearing and it went on as normal.

We will apparently see what a judge has to say about it.

It's a pretty terrible example. There are no 1st amendment rights inside the capital building as far as I'm aware.

Also, Fairooz probably used up all of whatever goodwill you might get from Capital police with her​ stunt assaulting Rice in 2007.

Calling a single laugh during a hearing disorderly and disruptive conduct is absurd on its face, but if that's the bar people are setting for "interfering" with a meeting or speech then it's surely a troubling sign for free speech.

I have to be honest, the predictable nonsense of idealogues is just totally uninteresting and it just gets to the point of eye rolling

what? 13ball hasn't owned anyone in this forum ever. to make such a statement is just comical

my response of "millions of data points was in response to victor. i mean you have to realize, nothing will actually change with ideologues. when their arguement is based on you providing evidence then all evidence does is make them change the subject. its not like victor is going to say, oh wow thats interesting i didn't know they were conducting research on this but obviously they are. i mean who would have thought they would be collecting this data and then reaching conclusions. i mean the fact they are conducting the research should tell you something. the fact they are reaching conclusions should be obvious. the fact you don't like the conclusions and will refute them is obvious. the fact that there is all sorts of emotion and rejection to the research that shows far left males are beta is also no surprise

here is what i responded to
lol i missed the change of tune when i provide a link to the studies doing exactly what i said they were doing. thats just one method. its the #1 google result for big 5 personality test

yawn, i haven't read your particular study but of course they are. its built in to their position on guns. if you go and watch any right wing programming the advertisements will be guns and apocalypse kits with dried food and all that stuff. you are correct, obviously. no **** sherlock

oh my goodness. you are so unbiased and objective. high five. i wish i could be more like you. i mean, as you point out im so dishonest and biased

oh and here is what you snipped out of my post, while quoted the post, an patting yourself on the back



lol you seem very sensitive and resentful about the issue. i hope this isnt a trigger for you. a beta male is basically a male low on the dominance hierarchy. in the animal kingdom that has a lot more to do with physical dominance than with people, especially in 2017. to understand what is low social status today for men you just need to look at what women are actually attracted to, and what they aren't. an overly simplistic description would a combination of status, looks, and personality/confidence.
im not sure if you have been taking a nap through the previous pages of this thread but my criticism of communism was met with a bunch of defensive responses. that is an absolute disgrace to liberalism. maybe you forgot what liberalism is. even bill maher is dumping all over liberals for not being liberal

since the fare left love identity politics so much, heres a gay married liberals pov. some youtubezzzzzz!



finally to your point about me having no evidence to back up my claims. i have already posted my source. youtubezzzz! i already shared an hour long conversation between two active university professors discussing the SJW's, the research, and methodologies, in the politics section. one is an evolutionary psychology specialist and the other is a personality psychologist. i can do it again if you want.

Hey, Juan, you forgot to give me a cite on bears having empathy. Or even to correct your horrible example of what empathy is.

when einbert made a post favorable to antifa i gave him the benefit of the doubt and told him to get out of the far left media bubble and told him he didnt want to blindly siding with such a disgusting basket of deplorables. i informed him that this was a group full of actual communists. of course the far left on this forum didnt thank me, but instead got extremely defensive of communism. this of course is dangerous ignorance

i already posted the video showing a guy who pretended to be antifa describing how the male antifa were beta and also describing them as an angry violent mob. here is another window in to the world of antifa



mostly redundant

looool

that is just too stupid for me to even entertain. i would cite actual psychology professors but that wouldnt help you and be a waste of both of our time. lol cite bears have empathy. youre the gift that keeps on giving. i honestly thought once you got your emotions in check you would hope that comment magically dissapeared

It wouldn't be a waste of time. It would be you doing some research and hopefully figuring out why claiming animals have empathy is really controversial.

The problem is that empathy is the ability to recognise and interpret the emotions and feelings of others. Since we can't talk to bears, the only way of figuring out if they can do that is to look at their behaviour. Except, and this is a fundamental issue in all animal behaviourism, we can never know if we're merely ascribing human feelings to analogous behaviour.

We can never know if the bear feeds its young because it understand hunger and recognises it in the cub or if it's just instinctive behaviour.

lol

keep posting, i cant take you seriously but its definitely entertaining

also everyone who agrees with bladesman please out yourself and +1 his post

Your citations in this thread so far are an online personality test and a youtube video.

If you don't understand how defensive behaviour can be innate instinct and not a sign of higher reasoning, you don't understand animal behaviour.

I'll give you a counter example: if you kick a beehive then the bees will swarm you. Does this show that bees have a capacity for empathy to their queen, or are the bees just following an innate behaviour programming?

lol more examples please

also some youtubez of someone kicking a bee hive

thanks

He should of gone with chimps.

I can find examples of bees defending their hive if you genuinely want a citation.

It's clear that you haven't thought any of this through.

Actually, same problem. The evidence of empathy in animals is often compelling but it's not just a case of more research, it's what I said before. You can find animal behaviour analogous to that of humans but you can't bridge the gap between the external world and their mind. You can't know that what they're doing isn't just very complex instinctive behaviour that looks like the action of an empathetic being because you can never experience what goes on inside another mind.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014...r-heard-before

Here's another example, not to get off too much on a tangent. Reasonably complex music can now be composed by computers. Is this evidence that computers in fact are inspired, insightful, introspective, or is it evidence that extremely complex human behaviours can be done almost indistinguishably with none of the conscious thought processes?

This is the problem we face with animals and why it's always going to be flawed to observe them doing something like humans and assuming the same thing must be going on inside.

I mean I agree. But if I had to guess, I'd say they have it.

I think some animals probably have some degree of it.

But Juan here doesn't even understand why it's a controversial claim or why a bear defending its cub is a really ****ty example. That tells us all he has no understanding of the subject.

Yeah. The site proving bear empathy should be fun.

No free speech inside the Capitol

We seem to have departed far from the topic but it's actually true of all other humans as well. Or if not, it's a very complex philosophical argument that probably involves zombies.

If you cited evidence people might not think that you are just making things up.

Thanks for repeating this even though it's irrelevant to what I said.