Freedom of Speech

Here's what Freedom of Speech includes:

Speech you agree with.
Speech you don't agree with.

What about speech that is specifically designed to incite violence?

Example?

Trump telling people to punch rioters at his rallies in 2016 would be a good example.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Trump telling people to punch rioters at his rallies in 2016 would be a good example.

That should fall under Freedom of Speech and therefore be legal.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Trump telling people to punch rioters at his rallies in 2016 would be a good example.

He didn't actually say that. Pretty sure he said he would pay their legal bills if they punched them or whatever. Sure, it was dumb to say that but he had a right to.

Those thugs were coming to a private venue and disrupting his rally. If it was me I would've probably said something worse than that.

Anyway, the democrats and their supporters are on record saying much worse things.

Another thing that should be mentioned, if the Government can prosecute you for exercising speech, then you don't have FoS.

Originally posted by Klaw
Another thing that should be mentioned, if the Government can prosecute you for exercising speech, then you don't have FoS.

Or in the case of Social Media they (the govt) coerce said platforms to go allow to get along and they by proxy squelch free speech 😉

Well Social Media like FB and TT are private companies and therefore should not be forced to adhere to FoS laws.

did you know that organizing acts of insurrection and terrorism are not free speech? that's why trump is rightfully muzzled, though he really deserves a more traditional punishment for treason

🗽 Liberty doesn’t include wrong.

Originally posted by Klaw
Well Social Media like FB and TT are private companies and therefore should not be forced to adhere to FoS laws.

Well then they should call themselves a publisher then instead of a "free speech platform" and thereby lose their liability protection.

They can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Well then they should call themselves a publisher then instead of a "free speech platform" and thereby lose their liability protection.

They can't have it both ways.

Agreed. 👆

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
did you know that organizing acts of insurrection and terrorism are not free speech? that's why trump is rightfully muzzled, though he really deserves a more traditional punishment for treason

But of course when those acts of insurrection and terrorism are coming from leftist thugs like Antifa or BLM that is totally fine, amirite? 🙄

Originally posted by Klaw
Example?

Originally posted by Scribble
If I went up to someone and convinced them to murder someone I didn't like (extreme interpersonal example), or (on a larger social scale) someone inciting a crowd into a violent riot or pogrom

That should fall under Freedom of Speech and therefore be legal.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
did you know that organizing acts of insurrection and terrorism are not free speech? that's why trump is rightfully muzzled, though he really deserves a more traditional punishment for treason

Why, for insisting the election was stolen?

That's just partisan politics, not treason. Supposedly George W. Bush Jr. stole the election in 2000, and again in 2004, listening to pundits and partisan people. Should they all have been in prison?

Originally posted by Klaw
That should fall under Freedom of Speech and therefore be legal.

Originally posted by cdtm
Why, for insisting the election was stolen?

That's just partisan politics, not treason. Supposedly George W. Bush Jr. stole the election in 2000, and again in 2004, listening to pundits and partisan people. Should they all have been in prison?

Ding Ding Ding!

Watch the Leftists deflect.

Originally posted by Scribble
So if I manipulated a mentally ill person into murdering someone I don't like by convincing the mentally ill person that the person I don't like is spying on them / out to get them etc., I shouldn't face any criminal responsibility?

Correct.

I know it might be hard for people to accept.

But I don't think that using speech to incite violence is not protected.

If someone chooses to commit violence with someone's speech as reasoning, that's on the criminal that committed the crime.