Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   I may not agree with what you say, but in California, I'll defend to the death my right to restrict it   ( sfgate.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, San Francisco, SFGate Customer support, SFGate Staff, Contact SFGate, Bay Area, SFGate newsletters, SF Chronicle Membership, Chronicle Wine Competition  
•       •       •

2274 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2017 at 12:47 PM (31 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-14 11:46:03 AM  
It's about time people started questioning the liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
 
2017-09-14 11:52:51 AM  
It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.
 
2017-09-14 11:57:42 AM  
It's an interesting conundrum and something best left for the courts to decide, I think.  On one hand, speech that incites violence or threatens others is already restricted (and illegal).  But on the other hand, hate groups will often claim they're not doing either.  And I wonder if those claims are being properly challenged in court.

If a group claims they're going to shoot feds who come on their land, is that protected speech?  If someone tweets that gays should be shot on sight, is that protected speech?  Those are examples of speech that wouldn't be protected and aren't currently protected so no additional laws are required.

However, a group of people saying that all foreigners should kicked out or that slavery should be legal, that's the expression of an opinion that, while INCREDIBLY unpopular and intentionally offensive, isn't actually harmful or dangerous.  Any attempts to restrict that kind of speech could have unintended consequences.  What if someone wants to make a claim that all republicans are racist or mouth breathing morons or that they should all be sent to Florida to argue with the rising sea that climate change is a hoax. (all of which I've personally seen on Fark, btw) That could be targeted for these kinds of restrictions.

When it comes to restrictions of free speech, whatever restrictions we do have should require a compelling need to protect the public, and most hate speech just doesn't meet those criteria.  However, plenty of hate speech does and is never challenged in court or acted upon.
 
2017-09-14 12:01:59 PM  
Subby DOES realize that threatening speech is not protected speech, right?  And, wanting one or more groups of people to cease existing or to advocate evicting them from this country is basically a threat, right?
 
2017-09-14 12:05:13 PM  

bigfatbuddhist: Subby DOES realize that threatening speech is not protected speech, right?


No, subby probably doesn't.  That's a level of nuance that the right doesn't want to include in their thinking so they don't.  And those Nazis and KKK are on their side, and their side being protected at all cost matters more than the well-being of the nation or any of its citizens.
 
2017-09-14 12:07:47 PM  

bigfatbuddhist: Subby DOES realize that threatening speech is not protected speech, right?  And, wanting one or more groups of people to cease existing or to advocate evicting them from this country is basically a threat, right?


No, saying they should be killed or suggesting that others should kill them (or other violence) is threatening.

But free speech goes both ways.  If someone chinless jackhole wants to yell out that he thinks slavery should be legal, you just yell back "okay, how much for your daughter?".
 
2017-09-14 12:18:17 PM  
It amazes me that the "Clear and Present Danger" SCOTUS decision was all about a man who was imprisoned for opposing a bullshiat World War, but it's OK to parade white supremacist hate through the streets in front of everybody.

it's a contradiction.
 
2017-09-14 12:24:28 PM  

FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.


And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.
 
2017-09-14 12:28:01 PM  

dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.


You think those are okay? What a terrible person.
 
2017-09-14 12:32:05 PM  

FortyHams: dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.

You think those are okay? What a terrible person.


He's not terrible.  Just doesn't have much of a head for debating stuff...
 
2017-09-14 12:33:30 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: No, subby probably doesn't.


I think Subby should be banned.  And since this isn't a government site, it's not restricting free speech.
 
2017-09-14 12:35:46 PM  

dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.


Good thing that there were a couple of black cops there to save them, even though the lesbian one was destroying all of their traditional marriages at the same time.
 
2017-09-14 12:40:41 PM  

bigfatbuddhist: FortyHams: dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.

You think those are okay? What a terrible person.

He's not terrible.  Just doesn't have much of a head for debating stuff...


That's what guns are for.

Oh fark. I just shot my mouth off.
 
2017-09-14 12:44:36 PM  

FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.


Well see it depends on who's doing the shooting, assaulting, and driving. For some people that is protected speech. For "other people" it's dangerout and criminal, and they probably should just be shot for it.
 
2017-09-14 12:50:03 PM  

PreMortem: It's about time people started questioning the liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment.


That is not allowed
 
2017-09-14 12:50:20 PM  

PreMortem: It's about time people started questioning the liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment.


Well, considering that the conservative interpretation is "Let Nazis march through Jewish neighborhoods," question away.
 
2017-09-14 12:51:13 PM  
If the speech promotes hate and violence towards another group, it should be banned.

We aren't talking about two opposing viewpoints rationally discussing their differences, we're talking about a group of people that preach violence and sedition.

Voltaire was wrong.
 
2017-09-14 12:51:36 PM  

thorpe: Well see it depends on who's doing the shooting, assaulting, and driving. For some people that is protected speech. For "other people" it's dangerout and criminal, and they probably should just be shot for it.


I see that your expertise in histrionics far exceeds even your remarkable lack of common sense.
 
2017-09-14 12:55:08 PM  

dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.


Has anyone claimed First Amendment protections for those acts?
 
2017-09-14 12:55:47 PM  

whidbey: It amazes me that the "Clear and Present Danger" SCOTUS decision was all about a man who was imprisoned for opposing a bullshiat World War, but it's OK to parade white supremacist hate through the streets in front of everybody.

it's a contradiction.


No, it isn't. It's simply the evolution of the understanding of our rights. Over the years lawsuits have defined what is and isn't protected, mostly siding with the right to express yourself.
 
2017-09-14 12:55:47 PM  

rummonkey: If the speech promotes hate and violence towards another group, it should be banned.

We aren't talking about two opposing viewpoints rationally discussing their differences, we're talking about a group of people that preach violence and sedition.

Voltaire was wrong.


From the absolute safety of the parlor where he made the statement.
 
2017-09-14 12:57:08 PM  

FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.


It says it's about denying them the right to demonstrate. Not all demonstrations involve the things you cite.
 
2017-09-14 12:58:22 PM  

Ed Grubermann: whidbey: It amazes me that the "Clear and Present Danger" SCOTUS decision was all about a man who was imprisoned for opposing a bullshiat World War, but it's OK to parade white supremacist hate through the streets in front of everybody.

it's a contradiction.

No, it isn't. It's simply the evolution of the understanding of our rights. Over the years lawsuits have defined what is and isn't protected, mostly siding with the right to express yourself.


I don't see how someone like Schenk expressing his opinion that we shouldn't be fighting in WWI equates to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

That was a travesty of justice.

Just as protecting Nazi hate is turning out to be.
 
2017-09-14 12:59:14 PM  

Cletus C.: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

It says it's about denying them the right to demonstrate. Not all demonstrations involve the things you cite.


"We might not drive a car into the crowd this time. We cool?"
 
2017-09-14 01:02:49 PM  
Are we conflating free speech with terroristic threats and assaults again?  My my how quickly Thursday shift sneaks up on us.
 
2017-09-14 01:03:42 PM  
A lot of what the cult right have to say isn't protected anyhow.
 
2017-09-14 01:05:04 PM  

Archidude: dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.

Has anyone claimed First Amendment protections for those acts?


Hell, has anyone on Fark ever defended those acts?
 
2017-09-14 01:06:32 PM  

phaseolus: Archidude: dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.

Has anyone claimed First Amendment protections for those acts?

Hell, has anyone on Fark ever defended those acts?


Why, liberals, obviously.

*ahem*
 
2017-09-14 01:07:01 PM  

phaseolus: Archidude: dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.

Has anyone claimed First Amendment protections for those acts?

Hell, has anyone on Fark ever defended those acts?


Well, a certain Farker has supported "voting from the rooftops".
 
2017-09-14 01:07:47 PM  
ITT: people claiming advocacy of freedom demanding government control of speech. Still oblivious to being toadies to authority.
Or not.
 
2017-09-14 01:09:17 PM  
I wonder what examples of restrictions on free speech were included in the survey question.  That there are restrictions on freedom of expression isn't exactly news.  Where they content neutral time, manner, and place restrictions or were they content based restrictions?  Were any content based restrictions related to established limits on speech like Chaplinsky's fighting words doctrine, or Brandeburg's test of an intent to incite lawless acts, that the incitement is likely to be effective and that the threat of lawless action be imminent.

Because if those things are included in the survey, the majority of California Democrats that the survey said "wanted to restrict the right of white nationalists to demonstrate" it is quite possible that they are simply supporting the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence.

If the question was couched in terms of a demonstration rather than speech in general such as publishing white nationalist literature, or an individual expressing white nationalist opinions, the survey is not valid as a measure of the respondents views on freedom of expression as a whole.
 
2017-09-14 01:09:40 PM  
Another poll with misleading questions intended to produce misleading results.

/yawn
 
2017-09-14 01:09:47 PM  

neenerist: ITT: people claiming advocacy of freedom demanding government control of speech. Still oblivious to being toadies to authority.
Or not.


Man if you want to go be racist on a street corner with your buddies knock yourself out. If you want the city to block off streets and provide police protection so you can roam around with the other Proud Boys and assault random strangers you should be out of luck.
 
2017-09-14 01:11:16 PM  

phaseolus: Archidude: dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.

Has anyone claimed First Amendment protections for those acts?

Hell, has anyone on Fark ever defended those acts?


The worst I've seen is people acknowledging people shouldn't shoot political leaders but not really caring beyond that. I didn't see anybody celebrating or saying it was a first amendment issue. As for "burning the limousines of immigrants", gotta admit I have no idea what The Dittz is on about.
 
2017-09-14 01:13:36 PM  
I see the whatabout brigade is out in force.
 
2017-09-14 01:18:21 PM  
The Founders never envisioned phrases like "White Power", "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" when they wrote the First Amendment.
 
2017-09-14 01:19:12 PM  

Dimensio: The Founders never envisioned phrases like "White Power", "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" when they wrote the First Amendment.


Let's be honest, they probably never envisioned those statements being controversial.
 
2017-09-14 01:19:57 PM  
Hey all you assholes defending Nazis:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-14 01:23:20 PM  
I think you guys are all missing the point. Independents are more likely to protect free speech (for white nationalists) than Republicans or Democrats.
 
2017-09-14 01:24:14 PM  

fernt: Can we pass some sort of law to shut Hillary up?


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-14 01:24:24 PM  
This is unAmerican plain and simple. Sure Nazis who threaten or commit violence should be held to account, but there are already clear laws on this.

Even considering limitations on otherwise lawful speech - especially directed at a particular unpopular group - would be catesrophic to the foundation of everything this country is supposed to represent.
 
2017-09-14 01:29:18 PM  
Rminder: beating counter protesters with metal clubs and firing pistols into crowds is not free speech. Also, simply because you can't be criminally prosecuted for voicing an opinion doesn't mean a community has to automatically give you an microphone to do so.
 
2017-09-14 01:29:23 PM  

rummonkey: If the speech promotes hate and violence towards another group, it should be banned.

We aren't talking about two opposing viewpoints rationally discussing their differences, we're talking about a group of people that preach violence and sedition.

Voltaire was wrong.


So if "animal rights" activists threaten people for wearing leather, fur and feathers, they should be abolished?

or "environmentalists" burn down housing developments, they should be abolished correct?

how bout crazy "gun nuts" who want to shoot liberals?

I know I know, how bout half the "farkers" who's response to something they don't like is "someone should die for this"?  should we ban fark for this becuase of their threatening tone?

oh oh oh oh, how about crazy "jihadists" who preach death to america, lets ban muslims because of that shall we.  or while we are at it, how about we ban all religions who have happened to say, death to anyone.  God knows that the "farkers" wouldn't mind that because what is religion besides philosophy with a deity am i right?

where does the slippery slope start and stop.

and and and

who gets to decide what is hate speech? you?
 
2017-09-14 01:29:26 PM  

bigfatbuddhist: Subby DOES realize that threatening speech is not protected speech, right?  And, wanting one or more groups of people to cease existing or to advocate evicting them from this country is basically a threat, right?


That sort of speech isn't  an imminent threat, however.

"All Mexicans should be deported!"

vs.

"I'm going to beat up any Mexican I see until they all leave!"
 
2017-09-14 01:30:59 PM  

dittybopper: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

And attempting to assassinate Republican congressmen, and burning the limousines of immigrants?  Oh, wait, those are OK.


All already illegal, but what about you?
 
2017-09-14 01:31:07 PM  

red5ish: fernt: Can we pass some sort of law to shut Hillary up?

[img.fark.net image 518x571]


That always reminds me of this:
img.fark.netView Full Size

Oh, the 80s!
 
2017-09-14 01:33:09 PM  

Cletus C.: FortyHams: It's not the speech as much as the firing guns into crowds, random assaults and driving your car into counter protesters.

It says it's about denying them the right to demonstrate. Not all demonstrations involve the things you cite.


What could possibly make anyone think for even a second that white supremacists might turn to violence, I wonder?
 
2017-09-14 01:36:37 PM  

Ambivalence: It's an interesting conundrum and something best left for the courts to decide, I think.  On one hand, speech that incites violence or threatens others is already restricted (and illegal).  But on the other hand, hate groups will often claim they're not doing either.  And I wonder if those claims are being properly challenged in court.

If a group claims they're going to shoot feds who come on their land, is that protected speech?  If someone tweets that gays should be shot on sight, is that protected speech?  Those are examples of speech that wouldn't be protected and aren't currently protected so no additional laws are required.

However, a group of people saying that all foreigners should kicked out or that slavery should be legal, that's the expression of an opinion that, while INCREDIBLY unpopular and intentionally offensive, isn't actually harmful or dangerous.  Any attempts to restrict that kind of speech could have unintended consequences.  What if someone wants to make a claim that all republicans are racist or mouth breathing morons or that they should all be sent to Florida to argue with the rising sea that climate change is a hoax. (all of which I've personally seen on Fark, btw) That could be targeted for these kinds of restrictions.

When it comes to restrictions of free speech, whatever restrictions we do have should require a compelling need to protect the public, and most hate speech just doesn't meet those criteria.  However, plenty of hate speech does and is never challenged in court or acted upon.


Here's the thing though. These groups are specifically headed to primarily liberal areas with the specific intent to cause problems.  They know that the message that they are preaching will cause the people to react in a way that will cause them to be, shall we say, opposed in a fervent manner. They also intentionally provoke people that counter protest.  so in a way they are trying to provoke a riot, which, in and of itself, is against the law.  Please note how many of them carried shields and weapons.

As to the republicans being thought of as morons thing, I see this as a case of associating themselves with the problem children.  I'm sure you're a nice guy,  but those KKK friends, robber barons, and luddites you associate with, and don't disagree with or condemn, and even actively recruit....
 
2017-09-14 01:38:22 PM  
I never thought I'd see the day where farkers would be openly advocating to stifle ugly speech.

Is watching some moron seig heil really so scary that you are willing to sacrifice a constitutional right to prevent?
 
2017-09-14 01:39:35 PM  
You have to let the idiots speak so that you can identify them as idiots.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report