What’s an illegal protest? I thought first amendment speech covered that
Also, how can he expel a student from a school he doesn’t control? or does he mean expel students from the country?
Ah yes, that free speech that Musk is always taking about.
Mask up. Leave your phones at home. Break shit.
Leave your ID at home too… Just saying.
They won’t. They couldn’t even get upset over kids being massacred every week in their schools. They are a broken people. Have been for decades. Their military.and economy didn’t fail. Their moral fiber did. They substituted thoughts and prayers and other virtue signalling for community organisation and direct action.
If you think I am wrong then don’t reply. Go outside and prove it. Nobody gives a shit what people write in social media. It means nothing.
Well there you go kids, he just explicitly named exactly all the things you should be doing.
That hurts to see because it’s so true.
Will they deport Lady Liberty? 😂
No. In this image she’s making an approved gesture.
From a boat back to France.
I remember when the Democrats brought down the hammer hard on anti-genocide protestors in universities. Trump is doing the same, but expanding it to all protests.
May 10, 2024 Map: Where university protesters have been arrested across the United States
What does he think “illegal” means? Is he getting rid of the first amendment?
That word doesn’t mean anything to him, except as a tool to prosecute people he doesn’t like. Obviously laws and illegality don’t mean shit when it’s him breaking the law.
Pretty sure there is enough evidence for treason at this point, but Congress won’t act on it.
prosecute
*persecute
That word doesn’t mean anything to him
“Illegal” as in “illegal immigrants”. It’s a connotation word, it doesn’t mean anything on its own obviously.
He also thinks he can order a private school to expell students… he’s just not smart.
Well he also did an executive order, that only he is allowed to interpret the law, so… Whatever he feels like is illegal is illegal.
That’s the weasel word that lets the right know exactly what he means but still able to pretend like it isn’t what he means.
Is this really a science meme?
Ill do whatever the fuck I want bitch, shut the fuck up and go suck Elons dick.
go suck Elons dick.
that would be the fifth time today, give them a break
True Terrorism
Freedom is going away and people voted for this scumbag…
“…illegal protest…”?
Oh right, the US Constitution doesn’t exist any more.
Correct
Next time an american speaks about “muh first amendment”, “USA only free speech country in the world” bullshit, show them this
The problem is it cuts both ways. The Democrats saying they want hate speech to not be protected and Nazi propaganda to be censored is just the flipside of the same coin.
Either you have free speech or you don’t
oh look, a literal “free speech absolutist.”
Wrong platform
I’m banned from that platform because they do not believe in free speech absolutism, especially when you start in on churches and cops
Ohh, sweet summer child.
Is it so hard to believe you think Free speech should be absolute weapon should be unrestricted, abortion should be unrestricted, people should be able to harness electricity from solar and harness rainwater from the sky?
Because these are all things that are restricted here except for speech, so I am sure as fuck not going to budge on it
Either you have free speech or you don’t
Lots of countries have free speech with limits on it. It’s not uncommon and doesn’t mean Citizens don’t have freedom of speech.
For example:
If it has a limit, it’s not free
If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”
If it has a limit, it’s not free
“Free bread sticks”
“I’ll take 100”
“Um… No. You can’t have that many.”
“iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”
Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”
If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court
If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it
When did the American Constitution promise “Unlimited Speech”?
Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.
That’s not freedom.
So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?
No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath
By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.
You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.
Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.
Scream “Fire” at a theater. Obviously you cannot.
The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
So you are saying there is a limitation
So there no free speech afterall 🤔
Hate speech is not free speech, boo.
Yes, it is.
That’s why all the Westborough Baptist people can stand around with God hates fags signs and nothing happens to them
The court only ruled on offensive or outrageous speech…
When? Brandenburg V Ohio long predates them
Snyder v. Phelps 2011
Yeah, and an allied soldier in WW2 was just the flipside of a Wehrmacht soldier, so both were the same, right?
Chinese and Japanese soldiers during that time period would be a much more accurate comparison, and the answer is yes
There is a massive difference between allowed to say my government is doing something wrong, and being allowed to say “gas all the kikes”. One is criticism of authority, which is good. The other is hate speech, which is bad. You can absolutely have one without the other.
There is no difference between those two phrases if you actually have free speech
And in fact, saying “I voted for Donald Trump”, is way more offensive to me than saying “kill everyone in Gaza”
Free speech isn’t intended to supercede criminal law. Advocating for hurting people is a crime. If they want to do it and have it be covered as “free speech”, they need to start by changing the law.
Advocating for hurting people is a crime.
It’s really not, though. Making a specific, credible threat against someone can be, but speaking in general terms that someone ought to be hurt without specifying how, when, or by who is not.
I’m sure you’ll become correct momentarily, though, once Trump declares that calling for his removal (or hell, any criticism of the regime because why not?) would “hurt” him politically and is therefore a felony. That is what you had in mind, right?
Advocating for hurting people is not a crime. Even an inactionable threat is not a crime. Look up precedent for arrests of inciting a riot and see how many of those charges actually stuck or help up on appeal.
The fact that people are saying yore okay to punch Nazis in the face would be a violation of what you are advocating for but you have no problem with that because you don’t like Nazis.
I personally don’t support people saying that either. Punching people in the face is not a great way to change their minds that they are being “the bad guy”. And I think seeing alot of people post that, is counter productive to the goal of getting along and solving problems together reasonably.
But I don’t, and shouldn’t, control what everyone else thinks is a good idea.
One Question:
Do you think the government should ban CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Materials)?
If yes, then you are already okay with limits the First Amendment and your argument is invalid
If no, you’re a pedophile and you need to GTFO
No. The government has no right to accessing anybody’s materials. Warrant or not.
You are not wrong. The Supreme Court finding presidential immunity and then allowing an insurrectionist to run in contravention of the 14th amendment seems to have finally put the old document to rest.
We live according to royal decree now.
lol it never has the united states has a long history of killing, maiming, and imprisoning protestors
is this a joke? or actually posted?
Well, protests aren’t illegal, so there’s nothing to worry about, right?
