Censorship or open dialogue? What say you?

[AshG]

Say what?

I've found that the people who don't really understand the nuances of the first amendment generally complain the loudest about their rights being violated. And they don't usually want to hear how it really works.

The OP's post could be taken to mean that using the Ignore function here stifles free speech because people who have been ignored cannot be heard/read by some people they are trying to talk to. I'm not saying that was the OP's intent at all, but it follows the same path.

 

[allvol123]

Really?

Indeed. Use a homosexual or racial slur and see how that goes.

 

[85SugarVol]

Indeed. Use a homosexual or racial slur and see how that goes.

Ah, yes. Dumb laws those are.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You have exactly Zero interest in dialog or truth. All you want is chaos, destruction, lies, and disinformation:

1/2 half of you are using free speech as a weapon to advance your domestic terrorism agendas. The other half just do what you are told.

It is against the law to yell fire in a crowd. For good reason. If you yell fire in a crowd and cause a panic that results in injury, you can be charged.

Many, many, many of you were never taught "just because you can doesn't make it right" and it shows.

So explain how that burning of all those buildings in the summer of love and spraying graffiti, and threatening supreme court justices thing works again. I am a little fuzzy on all that.

 

[DonjoVol]

You have exactly Zero interest in dialog or truth. All you want is chaos, destruction, lies, and disinformation:

1/2 half of you are using free speech as a weapon to advance your domestic terrorism agendas. The other half just do what you are told.

It is against the law to yell fire in a crowd. For good reason. If you yell fire in a crowd and cause a panic that results in injury, you can be charged.

Many, many, many of you were never taught "just because you can doesn't make it right" and it shows.

You sound like you're a follower of the Palmer Report