Fawful has seen God has a vagina on top of his penis
Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright.
5/28/2012 11:40:27 AM
Take that, Glen Beck!
5/28/2012 11:54:36 AM
So, tossing out the anti-legalization side of Gay Marriage arguments is not repression?
....Fine by me.
5/28/2012 11:58:40 AM
When someone is debating in an angry hostile manner that is NOT and I repeat NOT free speech.
Ok, and how are we supposed to catagorize the Republican primary debates? Not to mention the Republican campaign ads on TV? Not to mention the Tea Party Movement in general?
Angry old men.
5/28/2012 12:00:17 PM
fawful, what's taht image? those guys look familiar.
coleen wouldn't know a mirror if it broke on her face...
5/28/2012 12:04:52 PM
Fawful has seen God has a vagina on top of his penis
They're Pop Will Eat Itself. The line comes from their song "Ich Bin Ein Auslander". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76wSk1j02_4
5/28/2012 12:16:38 PM
Yeah, it is. It's loud free speech.
5/28/2012 12:28:18 PM
Then don't use capslock, dear.
5/28/2012 12:31:26 PM
When someone is debating in a stupid and ignorant manner that is NOT and I repeat NOT free speech.
See how that doesn't really work?
5/28/2012 12:33:49 PM
Rabbit of Caerbannog
5/28/2012 12:36:54 PM
Yes it is. Freedom of speech doesn't stop just because the person stopped being nice.
5/28/2012 12:37:13 PM
I will be as hostile as I like to you disgustingly idiotic fundamentalists. I have the right, because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, motherfucker.
Oh wait, I forgot. You are an American Christian. You loathe and despise free speech, and wish to return this country and the world to the Dark Ages which still enthrall such places as Saudi Arabia. Fuck you with a cherry on top. If you are such a baby that you cannot tolerate people disagreeing with you, or even making you look foolish, then move to a country where such behavior is against the law. None of those countries are nice places to live.
5/28/2012 1:19:25 PM
I guess you'll have to stop watching Fox News, then.
Yet another fundie idiot who doesn't understand that the right to freedom of speech only applies to government supression of speech and expression, not any private person or entity that tries to shout you down or shut you up. Just ask the reporter who tried to sue (and lost to) Fox News because they wanted to force her to misreport a news story.
5/28/2012 1:23:18 PM
In that case, shut up.
5/28/2012 1:29:29 PM
Angry and/or hostile speech is still protected speech. I wouldn't care to debate with angry, hostile people, but their speech is still protected.
5/28/2012 2:46:34 PM
The Supreme Court would like a word...
5/28/2012 3:24:08 PM
Wouldn't what most conservatives rant about not be considered free speech then? I mean look at Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter,Rick Santorum, everyone on Fox News etc.
Always love your rants. Makes me feel better somehow, lol.
5/28/2012 4:05:22 PM
yes it is free speech. Especially when you morons cannot take no for an answer. You feel you MUST follow a person around because it's your duty to save our savage soul so we have a tendency to get a little loud. We do have have regular days and dislike anybody interrupting a daily schedule. BTW...found chick tracts in the store placed in what your kind would refer to as 'strategic' places. I collected every tract I saw and tossed them in the garbage outside the store.
5/28/2012 4:09:18 PM
Who defines 'angry and hostile'? You?
5/28/2012 4:27:47 PM
I'm sorry, but the US Constitution doesn't put any limit on free speech even when it is used in an angry and hostile manner, so it looks like you're an idiot.
5/28/2012 5:12:39 PM
Your Argument Is Invalid.
5/28/2012 5:24:03 PM
No. Freedom of speech stops when one's speech advocates, threatens, or otherwise intends to incite behavior that physically harms others or affects their belongings (e.g. violence, vandalism, theft), or when one's speech is deceitful or inaccurate in a way that harms or defrauds others (e.g. the tobacco industry claiming that smoking is "safe" and doesn't cause lung cancer, or a used-car salesman advertising a car with a faulty transmission and 250,000 miles on it as "like new"), because those instances are when one's right to freedom of speech clearly, concretely, and directly infringes upon the rights of others.
On the other hand, freedom of speech does not stop because someone is being a douchebag. You have the right to not have your body hurt, not the right to not have your feelings hurt. If someone on the Internet is saying mean things to you in an angry and hostile tone, then you can easily ignore them. Good grief.
5/28/2012 6:42:17 PM
5/28/2012 7:33:15 PM
Soooooo...does that mean you fundies, right-wing radio guys & teabrains will shut up, now?
THANK YOU, JESUS!
5/28/2012 7:34:40 PM
I don't think you actually understand what "free speech" means... For one thing, it isn't used to describe actual speech at all, but to government policies protecting
speech. In other words, if you say something I don't like and I try to censor you, you saying "Free speech!" isn't short for "What I said was free speech!" but "What I said was a right protected by the principle of free speech!".
The reason the distinction is important is because it highlights what speech actually is protected, and that is: all speech made by private (non-governmental*) parties, barring certain exceptions in rare cases. Those exceptions mostly cover incitements to and threats of violence, and similar incitements to chaos (the famous "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" being such an example). So anger and hostility, as long as they do not contain threats of violence, are protected speech.
It should also be noted that merely stating your point in all caps, even with a repetition for emphasis (without so much as a comma for clarity), does not prove that you are correct. It merely proves that you are loud.
*Speech made by the government is actually severely curtailed; this is why a government employee, such as a governor, cannot endorse a religion (by, say, sponsoring a state-wide prayer
) without violating the separation of church and state. Of course, private individuals are free to do such things, and always will be.
5/28/2012 10:08:56 PM