I'd say that's not the American way. Free speech up to a point is not really free speech. Speech that is not objectionable doesn't really need constitutional protection. Its the offensive speech that needs protection. If liberals aren't going to understand that any better than conservatives do, then we are indeed in big trouble.

So I think you have to allow rallies like this to go on. I don't think any of us are obligated to put ourselves in danger trying to stop them. There are non-confrontation ways which are much safer and more effective responses to these very offensive rallies.

If I was writing a modern version of the West Wing using the members of the forum I'd probably have to make Dvaut potus, but Fly would 100% have Toby Zeigler's job.

I think when liberals think about "free speech" they think about what they want protected for themselves: the ability to stage non-violent protests. That is emphatically not what we are talking about here: we are dealing with absolute lunatics who spew hate speech and have a demonstrated propensity for violence.

NSFW language from the thick of it (uk precursor to veep)

When the opponents main weapon is pretending social and political norms don't exist and don't matter it is even more important for the side in the right to emphasize that they do.

It's so easy to fall into the "bar brawl" "**** them" "fight fire with fire" mentality.

This is EXACTLY what they want us to do.

We are right and they are wrong. Period. We don't win in the long game by adopting their wrongness no matter how good it would feel in the short term.

Ps for the love of god let's not cede the moronic assumption that anyone making an argument for something that is just is "virtue signaling". Are we going to cede everything we stand for to the alt-right? If we do everything they do how are we different?

We only protect the former by allowing the latter.

Not if you ask them, though. They seem pretty consistent on whining about getting punched, whining about getting deplatformed, whining about getting disagreed with on the internet.

You seem to be advocating some 12th dimension judo flip here where we just do exactly what they say they want because you've divined that what they say they want is bad for them in the long run. And, most troublingly from my standpoint, you've inexplicably granted them their single most treasured moral equivalency, that the "evil" and "fascism" of calling Bret Stephens a **** on Twitter or not letting Sebastian Gorka give a commencement address is the same "evil" and "fascism" of shooting up a bar in Kansas because you saw some Indian guys.

You may want to check those history textbooks again to see how often fascism has been defeated by civil debate.

They ****ing put three of ours in the morgue, man, there need to be consequences for that. "Just let them rally in respectful silence" doesn't really signal the appropriate level of disapproval imo.

As a European I lack the political tradition of the almost absolute primacy of free speech, but is it really the case that in the US people sometimes (maybe even often) think that intentionally provoking violence (up to murder) with speech acts is just "free speech, nothing to see here"?

I think it's pretty widely known here that directly inciting violence is very much against the law.

At least there was a certain amount of accountability before Trump. Now there is virtually zero. I've said this before and will say it again...people grossly underestimated the example POTUS sets for everyone else.

So when those on the right ask how we can blame Trump when a GOP candidate body slams a journalist, THAT'S how.

What the **** is this? First off, again, Portland isn't trying to use legal force shut down these *******s. The mayor asked them to not be dicks right after the murder. Secondly, these cowards don't want a brawl. The vast majority of them are basement racists who came out of there hole thanks to Trump, they will promptly crawl back in their hole when faced with real opposition.

We must let them organize, we must let them speak, we must give them a platform. **** that, we must shove them back into the dark corners of our society. These evil ****s don't deserve our respect, pity, or even basic human decency. They need their asses kicked over and over and over again until they yield for another generation or so.

No, but the standard of inciting imminent harm allows for a lot of garbage.

well there is nothing you can really do about these ppl except for letting them feel shameful or like outsiders because of their extreme views.

i dont think suppression is a good idea because they just become like steaming teapots that are ready to explode. just monitor them very well and make sure to pick them up whenever they use any anti democratic means.

even conservatives are half way muted on some of their issues because e.g being against immigration is often taken to be racism or hateful. and if you suddenly get these labels thrown after you then you just cant talk freely anymore. thats why many of them are so angry because they feel that their views have become illegal to express. there are even liberal college professors that are afraid to even mention certain topics on campus because many students go overboard with the view that everything is offensive. there are examples of liberal professors that have been forced to apologice for things where they genuinely cant understand whats offensive.

I've always wondered where this goes. For example, if someone's mother passed away and some jerkoff got in their space and heckled them with, "Ha ha! Your slut of a mother just died what I hope was a horrible death!" an hour later, you really can't blame that person for knocking the **** out of the other guy.

i think there is such a thing as being under an affective state. so if you are highly unstable for some natural reason you might not be punished or punished less harsh.

How is that working out at the moment would you say?

Not true. They can talk freely but not free from criticsm or consequence.

The policies of private educational institutions has nothing to do with free speech.

You're still guilty, but the sentencing is much less if sufficiently provoked. Sometimes the police say "meh", example- when Aldrin punched that moon denial weirdo.

Pretty well? Like this country is ****ed up in a lot of ways, but we our protections on free speech are solid.

I mean in terms of people with extreme views feeling shamed or like outsiders? One of them is the president for example.

I think in general shaming people with abhorrent views and booting them from poker forums has gone a long way toward liberalizing the country. A lot of people are going to either change thier minds or stfu when there's a social cost that goes along with being a bigot.

Germany and the U.S. have come full circle in only 80 years.

nothing is perfect tomdemaine. what you dont want to do is to suppress people. not sure why that is hard to understand. have a look at the middle east and you see what happens with groups that are being suppressed, they explode and become militant. that doesnt mean you tolerate violence or direct threats which of course is illegal. in a democracy you need to let people express themselves even if we dont like what they have to say.

"Not true. They can talk freely but not free from criticsm or consequence."

Talking freely is not about what is physically possible, anyone can open their mouth and yell out some words. Its a question of whether people feel like they are able to express their views in the public sphere without being shut down and labeled. Being label hateful or as a racist the second you want to talk about immigration creates an environment where you just cant participate. To be honest you sound like a pretty shallow guy from your very bastant one-line answers so i actually expect these things to be too abstract for your to understand.

"The policies of private educational institutions has nothing to do with free speech."

Im talking about what is happening in practice. The debate needs to be inclusive instead of labeling and shutting down people. In a democracy ppl need to be able to express their views even if some ppl find it offensive. Campuses are sometimes called the illiberal left because everything is too offensive to talk about, so its in _practice_ shutting down free speech. Its alarming that liberal college professors are afraid and hiding in their offices because of the students are cracking down on anyone saying the wrong words.

According to Fox, these things "come and go", and it's no big deal that Trump is pissing off all of the US allies. It's also no big deal to the nation's top generals that secret backchannels are being set up with our biggest enemy to circumvent US intelligence.

Not sure WTF to do, but it needs to be done way before 2018 or 2020. We're quickly running out of time before the Trump goal of 100% government loyalists is realized. And that's only a small goal for him.

Yea, that's not at all what protection of speech is. It's literally being able to say what you want without persecution from government. It doesn't protect your "right" to say racist bull**** without being fired from your job or any other such nonsense.

This is not protected speech. I'd say it falls under the "fighting words" interpretation. The random spewing of obscenities directed at an individual is very different from what could be considered political speech, even if those politics revolve around hateful philosophies.

I mean, if anything, American society has been coddling the feelings of these idiots for far too long. How often do we hear about how rural areas are the Real America? How quick was the media to jump onto the Hillbilly Elegy? We've been romanticising backwoods dip****s for far too long.