which part of lol obviously yes is dodging the question?

Answering 'lol obviously yes' to a yes or no question, seems like the very definition of not dodging the question.

Why do you think this question is important? What point are you trying to make with your question?

What a troll. The ANTIFA guy in the video below has more honor than you. At least he will stand up for what he believes in while you dodge (with 'imminent lawless action') an obvious question about speech you deem as 'hate' speech.

You need to communicate better. Your question was answered as you asked it to be, with a yes or no. If you'd wanted something more specific you should say what you mean.

ROFL

Exactly. Try asking the question you want answered rather than whatever weaselly garbage "point" you are blindly flailing at. I'll give you some examples to help you out.

Q : Do you think it should be illegal to give the nazi salute?
A : No.

Q : Do you think it should be illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater?
A : Yeah probably.

Q : Should it be illegal to call someone a stupid nazi ****wit
A : Nope!

Your response indicates you knew what i was asking. Shocking. Props for actually answering the question.

I still don't know wtf you were asking about.

Me either honestly. Glad I could be of assistance though.

Believe it or not I think he's asking if we believe the type of free speech that's not already illegal should be illegal. Or something like that.

So over a page in to this, has the op come up with a coherent thesis yet?

Like I already said, lots of speech is already illegal. I agree with ~all of those restrictions. That's why I asked you to elaborate, but you're too much of an incoherent coward to do so.

LOL you are dishonest and, what's worse, you're bad at it. This is why our rally outnumbered yours 20k to 50.

An ongoing and ever-lasting thing is that the modern movement right is so far up its own ass on strawman I think faxanadu here really does think he's going to get us to admit we want Hate Speech Laws, even though essentially nobody has advocated that anywhere on the left in response to Charlottesville. Even the somewhat mainstream criticism of the ACLU were going after the armed rally aspect, not the speech itself.

So after hyping each other up in whatever godforsaken chan or subreddit spawned this guy, he comes here all ready to Spring His Trap. But whoops, they don't understand the left at all.

Not idea but sure some speech should be illegal. It is in much of the West - maybe even a bit in the USA

There is no 'trap'. And you've proven my point. Thank You.

What point did I prove?

faxanadu should probably read this wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighti...#United_States

which is part of this larger page on all the various types of speech which are not protected by 1A - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

Among other things I learned that GWB appointee Samuel Alito argued that the Westboro Baptist Church picketing funerals was actually not protected by 1A, which I found pretty surprising (he was the only dissenter in a 8-1 decision).

You might remember that this year a teenage girl was sentenced to manslaughter for encouraging a boy to commit suicide - the court found that this type of speech was not protected. You can also be prosecuted for inciting violence, or other 'imminent lawless action' - that's not covered by 1A. There are many other exceptions.

This is why your question - IS ALL SPEECH OKAY YES OR NO - is pointless, and not some zomg mastermind liberal brainmelter.

None of that has anything to do with my point. My point was proven by FlyWf. Thank You.

give us an example of a sentence which you think should be legal, that you think people here think should not be. put it in quotes so we are all on the same page.

Dude, whatever point he never bothered to state has been proven, didn't you see? You have been chessmated.

If you think whatever point you're trying to make was proved by that post, you'd have to be...hang on a minute.

Oh yeah, I remember now.

Well I wouldn't say chessmated, but ya ... chessmated.

go on... put a sentence in quotes. an example of speech you think should be legal, that you think we think should be illegal. i double dog dare you.

In all seriousness though, you appear to be arguing in bad faith. Spell out your point, or you will be banned and this thread locked.

lol this guy was calling other people "cowards" in this thread