LOL this dude was so ****ing amped to own the dang libtards he accidentally admitted my actual ****ing point, that they really don't give a **** about free speech.

Like #2, you aren't aware of the Gawker or Mother Jones lawsuits? Those were HUGE stories. Some alt-right dip**** sued Fusion TODAY for "defamation". If you guys were just principled defenders of Free Speech you'd think that **** would be what you'd be posting about, instead of what I'm telling you about.

Thanks, buddy. I can always trust your lack of formal education and sheltered upbringing to help me close the deal.

No its the opposite. I always thought fly was over the top and making way too big of a deal about the extent of racism and discrimination and how influential it was.

Then trump, the qlt right and ppl like you made their presence known. Boy was i lol wrong.

Thing is, fly is still proly wrong. Its actually wat worse than he asserts.

Ppl like me huh?

Gee this gets boring, but I assume you are going to provide evidence of my racism.

Citation requested.

In #2, both of those were private defamation lawsuits. Free speech protects free "political" speech. You can't slander or libel someone, free speech or no. Mother Jones won, Gawker lost. Not to mention how much freer our speech is than anywhere in the world. Have you seen Canada or the UK lately? Tell me how much you regressives tolerate political incorrectness?

Don't take my word for it - here's a Classical Liberal who was left by the Left over their lack of free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_KUf_giuZo

Perhaps you should get yourself one of those 'formal educations' you seem to prize - not that you know anything about me.

I've deleted some and not going back further. Don't keep making an issue out of the posters please.

Broadwaysushy - 1 day timeout from all content threads
5ive - 1 day timeout from all content threads
Fly - 2 day timeout from all content threads

"Classical liberal" is what libertarians call themselves when they want to pretend to be actual liberals. Those people weren't "left" to begin with.

In the days of the classical liberal, when John Stuart Mill was writing about free speech, no one imagined that it meant that people who disagreed were obligated to sit quietly and listen or that universities were obligated to allow anyone to book reservations in their auditoriums. It meant the state would not prosecute you for the content of your speech.

Are you sure?

Right, and nobody needs to sit quietly, but they should not attack and shut down rallies of people whom you've been lead to believe are fascists. Those are fascist tactics themselves.

A state school is considered an extension of the state by law, and they are held to the same legal standards as the state. If student groups, following the same rules as every other student group, want to invite a horrible person to speak, they have every right to hear that person.

You need to flip this around and ask yourself if you would support a right wing school administration allowing a left wing group's speaker to be shut down by a mob of religious zealots. This is what used to happen to gay and feminist speakers, etc., but they were protected by this country's commitment to freedom of speech. Now that you disagree with the speaker, and find those views horrible, you are acting like those same right wing zealots of the past. You are making the exact same types of moral arguments as they did.

To top it off, you're advocating for restrictions on free speech when there is a freaking man-child authoritarian tyrant in office who those laws were designed to protect us against. Just give him the tools he needs to shut you up, great plan.

This is both the irony and the tragedy. The fascists are campus are about to give rise to the jack boot thugs they claim to be against - the Government will have no choice. The citizenry will not tolerate lawlessness, political violence, and the destruction of property. Protest all they want - but to silence your opposition is to invite silence upon yourself.

The best disinfectant is sunlight, aka more speech, not less. We survived Obama, you will survive Trump.

As in, in the abstract that it's speech then yes. As in the people who are putting it on are taking a principled stance for all free speech? No. Kind of like how proponents of segregation hid their aims under the neutral sounding ideas of freedom of association and freedom of contract.

Ok, well sure, there are far right wingers who are hypocrites who would gladly shut down a left wing rally, and maybe some of them attend these rallies as you say. But many are not far right wing and are there for just the reason stated, to defend free speech. And there are plenty of people in between, liberals and conservatives there to hear the speakers and see what they have to say.

So, it sounds like you're painting them all with a broad brush, and it's a bit telling that the violence keeps on breaking out at these conservative speeches and free speech rallies when masked men show up, but not at the Women's Marches or various Black Lives Matter rallies. Where are the masked men then?

Where are all the right wing fascists trying to physically shut down left wing speeches today? It appears right now one side is acting much more like brown shirts than the other, wouldn't you say?

Lol, they're in the government. Arizona shut down classes across the board because of their ethnic tilt, Palestinian groups are routinely shut down and pro Palestinian groups are shut down. North Dakota enacted a whole host of legislation, had multiple government groups use paramilitary and surveillance techniques on protesters, states across the board have passed legislation to make it tougher to protest. Not to mention the normal every day Gamergate harassment

https://thetab.com/us/princeton/2017...h-threats-5073

So painting with a broad brush seems like the least of my worries. I mean how many times to white nationalists have to show up to "free speech" rallies for someone to think "humm these free speech rallies seems to be attracting a lot of racists, I wonder why that is?" It doesn't take a genius or to hear it from a white nationalist terrorist who killed two people to think that "free speech" is meaning something else to these people who keep showing up.

Painting with a broad brush is the least of your worries? The solution is to show up and toss bricks at them? Is that not what you are supposed to be arguing against??

Put your logic in the other side's heads. "How many times do these Antifa commies have to show up and hit us with bricks and sticks before we fight back, so painting with a broa..". That **** just spirals out of control man. It's happening now.

Both sides have bad actors who send death threats and advocate violence, and both sides should be condemning that with words, not weapons. If you are advocating for that sort of behavior, then you are supporting the fascism you claim to be against.

I don't support people throwing bricks at these idiots. That doesn't mean that the idiots care about freedom and nonviolence.

Kyle Chapman (AKA Based Stickman) had this to say:

He is prominently mentioned by the group organizers:

This isn't hard to figure out.

That was a quick reversal. From "Where are all the right wingers" to "both sides do it" in one post. But of course anyone who truly wanted to promote free speech would have known that from the outset, but somehow you didn't, but notice how quickly all the state promoted circumcisions disappeared, not even bothering to rouse even a bit of anger, even though state sponsored censorship is supposedly the worst of all. Nope, we're right back to the antifascists again. It's a stacked deck.

It's easy to see how they would cheer on a guy who defends them from violent protesters by hitting them back. Self defense and all. This is becoming Hatfield McCoy stuff by now, and if it keeps up, I fear you will start to see the far right bringing it to the left. Street wars and more blood.

I never claimed the right don't have bad actors, far from it. But I don't see right wing groups visiting rallies and physically intimidating their political rivals and often shutting them down. That **** is brownshirt activity that cannot be defended with the ironic claim that they're trying to stop...fascism.

Regarding state-sponsored censorship, I argue against that all day. Republicans are terrible, Trump is terrible, you don't fight for free speech by advocating shutting down free speech.

You somehow missed the Montana bodyslam incident?

No that's totally fine. Politicians should always be physically assaulting the press. I believe that because the press is immoral, and say things I don't like. All of them, hypocrites they are. They shouldn't have the right to speak because I disagree with them and their words are violent, hate speech. I wish they'd pass some laws preventing hate speech I don't like so the police would take care of this crap for us, instead of good people I agree with getting their hands dirty. Now where's my mask?

Yes, agreed.

Really? Did they support these feminist and gay speakers speaking at schools on free speech grounds, or because they thought that their message was right? There is nothing inconsistent in arguing that leftwing speakers should be allowed to speak at a university and rightwing speakers should not if you don't think free speech should apply to speakers at a university.

Are you frustrated because your political opponents are asking you to answer for every instance of the worst behavior of their opponents? And then ignoring your earlier condemnations of that kind of behavior?

lol, the most simple of questions just breaks him.

But free speech should apply to speakers at a university... and our country has been moved forward in the right direction where that has occurred.

Huh? Both your posts are incoherent. Reread, breath, and get back to me.

You all seem to be missing the reason why these rallies are called "free speech rallies" in the first place. They began as mostly conservatives trying to speak at universities where they have every right to speak, and were being shut down by organized masked men. Now they have been given the moral high ground, and they're right to take it.

You claimed microbet was being inconsistent. I pointed out that he wasn't - he doesn't agree with your view of free speech. Reiterating your view of free speech doesn't show that he is being inconsistent.

No they are not.