US Russian Hoax

[Fenris]

Everybody knows you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater without causing a panic--therefore, there is no "right" to do so unless there is an honest to goodness "fire!"

Actually, you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Look it up.

If we allow the kind of hostility going on in our country right now politically, we won't survive as a nation, or as America. We will become a one-party state, wthout real civil liberties.

If we stifle free speech we won't be America anymore.

[Fenris]

Free speech doesn't exist for the sake of comfortable conversation.

Exactly. The whole concept of free speech specifically exists to protect speech that one finds uncomfortable. Or that one disagrees with. If we restrict speech to things that the majority agrees with, well, that's trivial.

[Fenris]

So, once the "true" purpose of the military operation is clear, intent can be discerned and then, one can say Russia is doing evil or good.

Russia is doing evil. End of story.

[Fenris]

Putin now putting his nuclear forces on alert. The stated reason is "aggression from the west". He's talking about harsh words and economic sanctions I guess. Yeah, he's evil.

[RandyPNW]

Everybody knows you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater without causing a panic--therefore, there is no "right" to do so unless there is an honest to goodness "fire!"

Actually, you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Look it up.

If we allow the kind of hostility going on in our country right now politically, we won't survive as a nation, or as America. We will become a one-party state, wthout real civil liberties.

If we stifle free speech we won't be America anymore.

I'm not interested in getting technical. The point is, there are limits to so-called "free speech."

I do believe in "free speech" in the true sense of that word, as expressing honest views, politically, religious, etc. I'm just saying that if a political system is to survive, the antithesis cannot be allowed--kind of like putting matter and anti-matter together.

You can't have freedom and allow, at the same time, speech that is seditious, leading to the opposite of freedom.

I'm harmless, friend. I wouldn't advocate for anybody to go to jail for being Jewish. But if you want to put me in jail for being a Christian, now then I must want to censure your speech.

[Athanasius]

Putin now putting his nuclear forces on alert. The stated reason is "aggression from the west". He's talking about harsh words and economic sanctions I guess. Yeah, he's evil.

Putin has lost it https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html

This was an article published on the 26th, then taken down. It talks about Putin's victory in Ukraine in answering the 'Question of Ukraine' towards the restoration of the USSR and undoing of the mistakes in 1991.

[Athanasius]

I'm not interested in getting technical. The point is, there are limits to so-called "free speech."

I do believe in "free speech" in the true sense of that word, as expressing honest views, politically, religious, etc. I'm just saying that if a political system is to survive, the antithesis cannot be allowed--kind of like putting matter and anti-matter together.

You can't have freedom and allow, at the same time, speech that is seditious, leading to the opposite of freedom.

I'm harmless, friend. I wouldn't advocate for anybody to go to jail for being Jewish. But if you want to put me in jail for being a Christian, now then I must want to censure your speech.

The antithesis has to be allowed because that's what allows us to explore the world, form ideas, come to a particular view, reject this in favour of that. Free speech isn't just allowing someone to talk freely. Free speech lays at the foundation of an entire mechanism that makes the modern West possible. Free speech is a paradox in that it must allow for speech that would itself eliminate free speech.

Do you know who else allows speech except for the seditious kind? Russia, North Korea, China, Venezuela...

[RabbiKnife]

Free speech must be absolute or else it is not free

Free speech has limits on in terms of direct— not indirect-  harm to others

Governments should never be given the power to limit any speech

[Kingfisher]

Truth is treason in an empire of lies. - George Orwell

I don't trust any government or politician to police speech.

Free speech is foundational to the American way of governance.
I vehemently disagree with limiting anyone's speech. I would not limit someone's speech that they would like to limit free speech. That 's the beauty of allowing the speech to happen. The sharing of ideas can sharpen viewpoints allowing citizens to have the opportunity to have a voice beyond just voting.

[CadyandZoe]

And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".

No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.

Maybe we should set up a panel to question these people. We could call it... I dunno, an "inquisition"?

Absurd. When a person reveals themselves to be a global citizen, simply treat them that way. A global citizen should not be allowed to vote or hold office, for instance.

[Athanasius]

No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.

That's a roundabout way of agreeing with Fenris.

[Slug1]

Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.

[RabbiKnife]

And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".

No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.

Maybe we should set up a panel to question these people. We could call it... I dunno, an "inquisition"?

Absurd. When a person reveals themselves to be a global citizen, simply treat them that way. A global citizen should not be allowed to vote or hold office, for instance.

So, by what legal authority does one revoke a natural born citizen's citizenship?
Who gets to decide the definition of a "global citizen"?

[Athanasius]

Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.

Why in scare quotes?

[Slug1]

Why in scare quotes?

Well, since this is the first response, I'll lay it out. I was "making" a "point" in how free speech becomes offensive at the worse or "questionable" in the least while simply speaking to others.
You questioned, I'm answering.

During actual verbal communication, not this written style of medium, I would have "spoken louder" before showing that vid to anyone I was speaking with. Possibly a large group even and should a person have asked, "why speak louder when you mention free speech?" I would have pointed out the above.
Tell me, if I had done this instead:
Here is an example of free speech, whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Would my post be "less" scary???

Or, what if I did this:

Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.

Or even more scary... "FREE SPEECH,"
Ok, all that rhetorical stuff aside... can I ask a question?
How and/or why does adding quotes, make a point... scary?