Current Events > Why does the First Amendment protect incensing speech?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Isnt that blaming the victim, in a sense?

If the phrasing youre choosing to use is causing an opposite party to become enraged thats essentially provocation. Surely there must be consequences for that.
---

You're stupid.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

You're stupid.

---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

You're stupid.

MOOOOOOOODS!!!
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Isnt that blaming the victim, in a sense?

If the phrasing youre choosing to use is causing an opposite party to become enraged thats essentially provocation. Surely there must be consequences for that.

I agree, but I'm highly offended by your choice of words. Based on my subjective claims about being provoked, you should follow your own advice and close your account.
---

Popular speech doesnt need to be protected.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

You're stupid.

---

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Isnt that blaming the victim, in a sense?

If the phrasing youre choosing to use is causing an opposite party to become enraged thats essentially provocation. Surely there must be consequences for that.

I agree, but I'm highly offended by your choice of words. Based on my subjective claims about being provoked, you should follow your own advice and close your account.

This is only funny because the usernames
---

r4X0r posted...

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.

Yet their right not to be cracked in the side of the head for pissing me off trumps my right to respond...
---

Solid Sonic posted...

r4X0r posted...

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.

Yet their right not to be cracked in the side of the head for pissing me off trumps my right to respond...

Yes, yes it does. You must be a sad little person if you think violence is an even remotely appropriate response to mean words
---

Solid Sonic posted...

r4X0r posted...

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.

Yet their right not to be cracked in the side of the head for pissing me off trumps my right to respond...

yikes
---

BuzzyTheCat posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

r4X0r posted...

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.

Yet their right not to be cracked in the side of the head for pissing me off trumps my right to respond...

Yes, yes it does. You must be a sad little person if you think violence is an even remotely appropriate response to mean words

Actually I'm coming at this from another angle.

I have this weird obsession as of late with white supremacy and how hollow their ideology is. Yet I feel like no one can really give them what for because of restrictions on how you can respond to things.

They call black people every slur in the book yet they get the exact reaction I would expect (furor and threats) and they point to it and say "See? Told you," and then their numbers grow because "they're right".

I mean what the fuck. How will you ever stop the growth of this shit unless you actually demonstrate words have consequences? Instead the shield of the First Amendment is what allows their backwards thinking to spread because "no one can actually do anything to you for what you vocalize."
---

I thought this was a joke topic. Are you... are you actually being serious here?
---

s0nicfan posted...

I thought this was a joke topic. Are you... are you actually being serious here?

You'd be surprised at how many unbelievably stupid older people are on CE.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

I mean what the fuck. How will you ever stop the growth of this shit unless you actually demonstrate words have consequences?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqbVbGFl2PI
---

I am genuinely bothered by this.
---

If you're so immature that you can't control yourself over words, that's your problem
---

Solid Sonic posted...

I am genuinely bothered by this.

Think about whether or not you want the things you believe and say to ever be at risk of punishment by others/government just because it's not in vogue.

Nazi Germany didn't rise because of free speech. It rose because of how severe their censorship was. The consequences of your views are that you'd create echo chambers which magnify other types of hateful and bigoted viewpoints.
---

This topic is just as bad as the time I tried to get CE to side with me on the issue of getting cheated on and how you can't retaliate.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

BuzzyTheCat posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

r4X0r posted...

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.

Yet their right not to be cracked in the side of the head for pissing me off trumps my right to respond...

Yes, yes it does. You must be a sad little person if you think violence is an even remotely appropriate response to mean words

Actually I'm coming at this from another angle.

I have this weird obsession as of late with white supremacy and how hollow their ideology is. Yet I feel like no one can really give them what for because of restrictions on how you can respond to things.

They call black people every slur in the book yet they get the exact reaction I would expect (furor and threats) and they point to it and say "See? Told you," and then their numbers grow because "they're right".

I mean what the fuck. How will you ever stop the growth of this shit unless you actually demonstrate words have consequences? Instead the shield of the First Amendment is what allows their backwards thinking to spread because "no one can actually do anything to you for what you vocalize."

There most certainly are social repercussions of speech. However violence or threatening violence is never an acceptable response to what is otherwise just speech. Those threats really do prove them right in your example.

You arent supposed to be able to impose your will or judgement on a cause, person, or issue. That isnt how freedom works. That is itself fascism.
---

BuzzyTheCat posted...

There most certainly are social repercussions of speech. However violence or threatening violence is never an acceptable response to what is otherwise just speech. Those threats really do prove them right in your example.

Yes. You have to be on their level of 4D chess. You see the neo Nazis are allowed to carry weapons and suggest that your people should be wiped off the face of the Earth by any means necessary, or at the very least deported. But that doesn't count as an actual threat because they're not saying they're going to do it...they'd vote for and support anyone who would do it, and they have weapons in hand just in case, but it's not a direct threat.

But the second you reply with "I'll kick your ass" then YOU'RE the bad person.

Or something like that. Because stupidity.
---

That_Happened posted...

BuzzyTheCat posted...

There most certainly are social repercussions of speech. However violence or threatening violence is never an acceptable response to what is otherwise just speech. Those threats really do prove them right in your example.

Yes. You have to be on their level of 4D chess. You see the neo Nazis are allowed to carry weapons and suggest that your people should be wiped off the face of the Earth by any means necessary, or at the very least deported. But that doesn't count as an actual threat because they're not saying they're going to do it...they'd vote for and support anyone who would do it, and they have weapons in hand just in case, but it's not a direct threat.

But the second you reply with "I'll kick your ass" then YOU'RE the bad person.

Or something like that. Because stupidity.

In states that allow open and concealed carry at protests, yes, both groups are usually armed. That isnt a threat to anyone. That is obeying the laws of that state.

No group has openly called for the extermination of any other group in almost a century in the US. If a group were to do that, that itself would be illegal.

Voting for a political issue you care about isnt a threat either. Nor is demanding immigration laws already on the books be enforced. Deportation is a legal process that has existed in the US since its founding. That isnt a threat of violence either.

Yes, saying "ill kick your ass for thinking differently than me" is a threat of violence, illegal, and depending on the situation, is a justification for deadly force to be used against you by the legally armed recipient of that threat.
---

posting just to read these posts :P
---

Solid Sonic posted...

BuzzyTheCat posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

r4X0r posted...

Your imaginary right to not be offended does not trump people's real right to free speech.

Yet their right not to be cracked in the side of the head for pissing me off trumps my right to respond...

Yes, yes it does. You must be a sad little person if you think violence is an even remotely appropriate response to mean words

Actually I'm coming at this from another angle.

I have this weird obsession as of late with white supremacy and how hollow their ideology is. Yet I feel like no one can really give them what for because of restrictions on how you can respond to things.

They call black people every slur in the book yet they get the exact reaction I would expect (furor and threats) and they point to it and say "See? Told you," and then their numbers grow because "they're right".

I mean what the fuck. How will you ever stop the growth of this shit unless you actually demonstrate words have consequences? Instead the shield of the First Amendment is what allows their backwards thinking to spread because "no one can actually do anything to you for what you vocalize."

Do you really think responding with insults, physical violence, and jail time would actually change anyone's mind? When someone insults me, I know I've hit a nerve and they're trying to dodge what I've said. Moreover is furthers the spread. Why should "I" change my language to not offend "you" when you seem to openly want to be more offensive to me than things already synonymous with "evil"?

It's why Trump blindsided so many: people were afraid of the social consequences of saying they supported him, but they still did support him and voted for him. You don't change someone's mind through what is essentially an indoctrination tactic.
---

BuzzyTheCat posted...

In states that allow open and concealed carry at protests, yes, both groups are usually armed. That isnt a threat to anyone. That is obeying the laws of that state.

No group has openly called for the extermination of any other group in almost a century in the US. If a group were to do that, that itself would be illegal.

Voting for a political issue you care about isnt a threat either. Nor is demanding immigration laws already on the books be enforced. Deportation is a legal process that has existed in the US since its founding. That isnt a threat of violence either.

There's some of that 4D Chess right now.
---