What doesn't it guarantee exactly?

Dawkins didn't sign up to a university code of conduct when he was deplatformed. Nor was he ever shouting **** you at anyone.That is an awful equivalency argument.

It guarantees that the government won't punish you for what you say. You do not have a constitutional right to an appearance on a radio show.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your free speech. if people want to protest you out of town, or if a private entity doesn't want to give you a platform. tough luck, bro.

it gets more dicey with public universities, but they still dont have to give you a platform.

It's always the same with these gentle fellows. They start off spouting forth about the great principle of free speech which is being undermined by the left but when you finally get down to it it's really all about the terror posed by Islam.

Its the same concern trolling bull**** we get every time.

"Im concerned that you yelling at a racist is making the racists more likely to go out and vote and make things more racist."

No you arent. Youre concerned because youre a racist who doesnt like being called on it and want to continue to be a racist while everyone else shuts up, and seeing people getting called out for being racists ****s makes you sad because you know youre next in line.

Im just seeing where your extremists free speech bar lies. Its always confusing with people like yourself. So no free speech for Mcdonalds workers and no issue with my constitutional rights being supersede there. If im working as a plumber at college and the college republicans invite David Duke is it ok for me to call them and him Nazis without repercussion?

Or a better example. Say the College republicans set up a table in the tabling area to express their wanting of a wall built. Can i as a worker tell them i think they are bigots?

I am perfectly aware that there are millions of nominal muslims who don't take their faith seriously or act on religious passages the same way there are millions of christians and jews who don't either, an it's also tragic that many of these nominal muslims are the victims of religious violence.




And as I've said multiple times ITT already I view it as a political problem, I don't expect anyone to show up and arrest dawkins for what he says but the deplatforming of him comes exclusively from the left and it's a terrible sign when someone like Dawkins can get railroaded this way.

As I posted earlier It moved in that direction when I cited Dawkins and his very valid criticisms. Which then descended into people ITT actively claiming that dawkins is an actual racist. Then Wookie brought up terror stats and Microbet claimed Judiasm was the most violent religious group. I'm responding to all of that.

Misrepresenting my views is a juvenile tactic.

Check out the guy judging that he knows Islam better than its practitioners.

The great irony here being that my main concern is how disconnected portions of the left seems to be with this issue and it get's weaponized by Trump or worse, someone far smarter than Trump who recognises what he tapped into and we continue to see real racists and bigots gain traction.

Citing terror stats or dawkins isn't racist. Neither is having valid concerns about religious fundamentalists.



McDonalds firing an employee for telling someone to **** off is entirely different than Dawkins giving an anti religion pro science talk.

If Dawkins were teaching his evolutionary biology class at oxford and decided to start insulting a muslim student in the class then he'd be rightly fired.

Wait until you find out the right is trying to deplatform Ilhan Omar by calling for her removal from congress for the things she says. You are going to be pissed.

Ilhan Omar has the right to say whatever she wants and there's plenty of valid criticisms of Israel (which she undermines by failing to make in a sensible way) but it also has a political consequence for the dems which is why Pelosi made her apologise and Schumer went to give that speech at AIPAC.

LOL, too bad she’s not a comedian so you’d stand up for her...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL wait, you support making other people apologize now?

I did stand up for her by saying she has the right to say whatever she wants.

No I don't. I was pointing out that the political problems it was causing made senior dems do it.

And then you made the same argument the liberals did, you know, the argument you are bitching about.

What part of that post is the same as the liberals?

I know you're only one person generating a lot of responses and that these sorts of interactions will be difficult. That said it is hardly juvenile to point out the silliness and transparency of your motivations. Perhaps they're unwitting - in which case this might even be instructive to you.

First you harp on about the free speech of individuals being undermined by students, boycotters and community radio. You claim this drives people into the arms of right wing groups. When asked if you truly believe these right wing groups to be bastions of expressive liberty you fail to respond. Instead you bring up a gentleman dear to your heart - Richard Dawkins.

You are then invited (rudely) to consider the fact that these right wing nationalist movements you mention seem to suppress individual and press freedoms at an institutional level once they accede to power. On this topic you remain silent - most odd for a person so fervent in his demand for freedom of expression.

Instead you would rather pursue a path you yourself instigated by exploring people's answer to your question "Is Richard Dawkins an Islamophobe?" All of this is of your own volition - and here we are.

From this series of interactions it's most clear that 'the left is undermining freedom of speech' is simply code for 'I want less opposition to my opinions of Islam'. That's the crux of it.

If that wasn't it you'd be more concerned about Sinclair's domination of local television and the right's domination of the local airwaves. You'd be more concerned with presidents calling the free press the enemy of the people. Alas on all these things you are silent. Instead you'd like to point your ire at an ailing community radio station reneging on a book talk. Why is that do you think?

It’s essentially the same thing that happened LCK.

this is just painful

Since you have my motivations completely backwards and continue to misrepresent my views at almost every turn maybe this will be instructive for you.

I didn't "fail to respond". I'm simply not going to engage with obvious trolls or questions that are such nonsense they deserve no response. If someone has read my posts and taken away that I hold that view then there's really nothing I can do for them, they're too far gone. I've also said my concern is with the rise of these groups, it's much worse in europe than in USA.

I didn't remain silent on the topic of the right wing movements suppress free speech, infact I directly spoke about it when I said "imagine what someone like trump could do if he was able to police speech" and that "someone like trump is exactly why the left needs to stand behind free speech at all costs." Have you even bothered to read most of my posts?

Dawkins is a prime example of intolerance/double standards of the left. The fact that so many ITT have actually agreed with his comments as being islamophobic is shocking and sad. When one of the greatest ever scientists and secular thinkers whose spent way more of his life criticising christianity than Islam get's treated thay way it's a big problem.

Alas I have been silent on none of the things you claim. Try reading first before posting such nonsense.

Wait, is Richard Dawkins not allowed in public or allowed to post online to get his views out to people?

Greatest ever scientists? Gtfo with that bull****. Also, James Watson is a huge racist. Being a Nobel Prize winner doesn't preclude being a bigot.

Why is it you never actually debate the substance of my posts? Instead go off on some obscure interpretation of it.

Very little of your posts are in good faith or deal with the points I'm clearly trying to make.

You're seriously comparing LCK apologising over committing sexual assault acts with Pelosi/Schumer getting Omar to apologise because they realised the political problems she was causing?

Debating you in good faith does not mean that I have to accept your premise that Dawkins' criticisms of Islam are all science-based. They transparently are not, and his authority as a scientist is irrelevant to many of his claims.