I understand the freedom of speech argument, but the issue I have is not just with their vile rhetoric but the physical actions of marching in military style formations in body armour through a street, I can only assume the constitution protects their rights to do so which is very worryingNope, not having this. Freedom of speech, no matter how much it might revolt a person, must be an absolute right.
Doesn't give them the right to run me over when the VAST majority tells them to rightly [Poor language removed] off.
Nope, not having this. Freedom of speech, no matter how much it might revolt a person, must be an absolute right.
Doesn't give them the right to run me over when the VAST majority tells them to rightly [Poor language removed] off.
since they elected a white supremacist to the top job
Nope, not having this. Freedom of speech, no matter how much it might revolt a person, must be an absolute right.
Doesn't give them the right to run me over when the VAST majority tells them to rightly [Poor language removed] off.
Surely Freedom of speech only covers the person on the podium talking hate.
The people standing in assembly with weapons, flags and misspelled signs is more of an expressive thing than speech. They are their supporting those spouting hate.
The guy in the car mowing people down or the guys physically assaulting people is not and should not be considered freedom of speech.
I agree that the freedom of speech is a must and protecting the constitution is ingrained in american society but it was written in a time were you could shoot thy neighbour if you so wished if they offended you. It was written in a time that hasn't devolved like it has now. The forefathers set the tone and man did thrive in the US but to see thing devolve and people stand behind this protection without recourse is an issue.
Laws and rules can be respected and left alone but their comes a time to amend them slightly. Sure didn't they themselves amend it over time to get it right?
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are the same thing, or at least under the same umbrella
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Siri confirmed centrist. lol
Siri confirmed centrist. lol
Freedom of speech though covers all speech no matter how vile or detestable it may be.I don't agree that free speech has no limits. Anything that's either blatantly racist or incites racial hatred should be deemed as infringing the law.
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.