Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speech that incites violence against others is not allowed because it causes harm, just like shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre causes harm.
Well, yes. You cannot incite people to beat or lynch others. That is a reasonable restriction on free speech.
But, general "hate speech", which might make you angry enough to want to hit someone, does not entitle you to actually hit someone. Its your responsibility to control your emotions and rebut speech with speech.
Many Librul Progs in America, like many of the social democrats of Europe and Canada, do not seem to understand this simple idea.
Many Librul Progs in America, for instance, allege that words they disagree with are so hurtful that they must resort to physical violence in response.
Violence in response to mere words is indicative of a lack of intelligence and a low EQ.
Last edited by Salmonburgher; 08-07-2017 at 06:43 AM..
Citizens of Western Europe, the UK, and Canada all have less freedom, compared to US citizens, to express political and religious ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
This is the kind of stuff that causes citizens from those other countries mentioned to simply wonder sometimes.
Not our fault that they do not want to be free to express political and religious ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
U.S. scores 89 with those others you mention being in the mid to high 90's
Just because your internal propaganda says it (and often) does not necessarily make it so.
PLEASE READ!
I have no idea what you're talking about. I remarked above only that citizens of Western Europe, the UK, and Canada all have less freedom, compared to US citizens, to express political and religious ideas.
But, some kiddie pretending a stick is a gun is not expressing political and religious ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Movie censorship in the U.S. might preclude some forms of nudity or sexual activity being shown on screen whereas in the Netherlands you can view the goods, before purchasing same, in a storefront window.
Yes. But showing nudity is not expressing political and religious ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
War on drugs? Going to jail for years for possession of whatever amount of pot?
I agree that the War on Drugs is stupid. But nobody goes to jail for expressing political ideas about the War on Drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of the free world and you're presuming to lecture others about what should be deemed "appropriate" in their rule of law?
I make no such presumption. Rather, you are seeing words that I never posted and arguing against a strawman.
Why not try to read carefully before responding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
What is deemed "inappropriate" by some is not necessarily concern causing for others. Surely you can understand that without comparing it to a country's "perceived" superior freedoms in a negative context? er,........ can't you?
Surely you can read more carefully? er, .... can't you?
Originally Posted by Pilot1:
Small point, and maybe this is just syntax, but our Constitution does not "convey rights". Our rights come to us naturally as human beings. The Constitution only guarantees that government can not take them away. Government grants us nothing. We the people allow government to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwood66
While I agree with you, it was a conscious decision by our founding fathers to enumerate them. And what a wondrous decision it was. My use of the word convey is in the legal sense.
Pilot1 is correct.
Our rights were listed, but, the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights.
The powers of the federal government were enumerated specifically for the purpose of limiting them.
Our rights, according to our founding fathers, are unalienable/inalienable. They are not and cannot be conveyed.
In a western country, it is highly abnormal to outlaw a symbol or the use of any symbol in casual situations. So it deserves discussion.
It's a western country STILL trying to deal with its own history of atrocities.
There are very specific laws dealing with the Nazis there.
So it's not just some random western country. It's one struggling with its past and trying hard to build a different face.
It's their laws. I think it's a bit extreme, but they know their own culture better than I do. As one German friend of mine said (when I spent a summer there), "My people are too easily led." Maybe this is the precaution they know they need.
It's a western country STILL trying to deal with its own history of atrocities.
There are very specific laws dealing with the Nazis there.
So it's not just some random western country. It's one struggling with its past and trying hard to build a different face.
It's their laws. I think it's a bit extreme, but they know their own culture better than I do. As one German friend of mine said (when I spent a summer there), "My people are too easily led." Maybe this is the precaution they know they need.
Germany is a western country in the sense that it happens to be located in the western hemisphere.
It's their laws. I think it's a bit extreme, but they know their own culture better than I do. As one German friend of mine said (when I spent a summer there), "My people are too easily led." Maybe this is the precaution they know they need.
I'm guessing the irony of conceding to the state what ideas and expressions are acceptable because the people are "too easily led" was entirely lost on him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.