US Russian Hoax

[RabbiKnife]

In my experience, which may or may not be flawed, putting words in quotation marks that are not actual quotes, but are instead used to isolate or emphasize certain words, is often used to suggest that the words inside the quotes are not really used for the plain and unambiguous reading of the words, but instead, are being used to suggest that the words inside the quotes have some hidden or secret or not obvious meaning.

Free speech is just free speech, regardless of who is using the term.  When seen on screen as "free speech," the suggestion is that the speech is either not speech or isn't free.

Just how I have seen  quotations used for emphasis and often for disambiguation.

[Slug1]

In my experience, which may or may not be flawed, putting words in quotation marks that are not actual quotes, but are instead used to isolate or emphasize certain words, is often used to suggest that the words inside the quotes are not really used for the plain and unambiguous reading of the words, but instead, are being used to suggest that the words inside the quotes have some hidden or secret or not obvious meaning.

Free speech is just free speech, regardless of who is using the term.  When seen on screen as "free speech," the suggestion is that the speech is either not speech or isn't free.

Just how I have seen  quotations used for emphasis and often for disambiguation.

I had to lookup the word, "disambiguation," because I had no clue what it meant. If I understand the meaning of the word, my quotes were exactly for the purpose of disambiguation.

[Athanasius]

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?

Mhmm. As RK wrote, writing "free speech" with the quotes - scare quotes - suggested that you thought the speech in question was something other than free speech. That's the convention, anyway. The quotes aren't literally scary, nor the word inside them.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes

And okay, the video is an example of free speech, so...?

[RandyPNW]

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...

There is a difference between discussing ideas and actually plotting seditious acts with your *speech.* That's the kind of *speech* that is normally given legal scrutiny. Perhaps you wish a plot to actually be hatched before discriminating against that "speech?"

But I've had this argument before, and I at that time said I was opposed to "free speech" like holding homosexual parades down Main Ave, replete with nudity, near public schools or near churches. Draw your own limits, though you may not want to call this "free speech" at all?

[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?

Mhmm. As RK wrote, writing "free speech" with the quotes - scare quotes - suggested that you thought the speech in question was something other than free speech. That's the convention, anyway. The quotes aren't literally scary, nor the word inside them.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes

And okay, the video is an example of free speech, so...?

I forget that not all on this board know me enough to know where I stand in support of the Constitution. So, I understand that a use of "" can be misconstrued.

The video is an example of free speech presenting a perspective/opinion. I've watched several vids now where Ukrainian's are expressing how they wondered why it took this long for Russia to do military actions inside of Ukraine in effort to prevent the possibility of greater threat to it's borders.

Now, lets not continue with the misconstrue game, I'm not in support of Russia but due to my experience, understand this opinion presented in the vid I posted.

In 1962 (not to change the context but use this context), had Russia maintained firm and kept nukes in Cuba, would America commit to military actions in Cuba to rid the threat? I don't know... but how would such an action be viewed in relation to the intent of protection of America? 

Now I know, there are no nukes in Ukraine aimed at Russia.

[RandyPNW]

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

I understand. There is a difference between suggesting maybe we should overthrow the govt. and actually plotting to do that. I think that's what you mean? And to some degree, I would agree.

My own philosophy of law and free speech stems from my belief in fundamentals inherent in God's word. I understand that different religions view "God's word" differently or not at all. But I'm speaking from the position of my own "faith."

I understand that liberal philosophy originates from former Christian societies that have had to deal with the infestation of paganism, and as a practical matter, societies must form their own ideals based on the constituent groups within them.

If we strictly take God's Law as the ideal and apply it in a society that is predominantly of faith, then there is no problem basing the limitations of speech on that which protects a religious society. Laws would censure only speech as it becomes a practical matter of preventing social chaos. Determining what kind of "speech" is actually doing that would be the job of responsible leadership--not the mob.

If, however, the society, for whatever reason, has many different groups, and no predominant belief system is in place, then laws governing free speech must be designed to protect those whose speech is, according to my faith, good and yet out of the mainstream, as well as those whose speech is well within the bounds of what protects peace among the various groups.

In other words, this is a practical matter of the limits to which a society should go in censuring speech that is activist. And it all turns on what the predominant "faith" of the society is. If it is Jewish or Christian, then a vast majority may indeed proscribe speech that threatens the social order.

I know some wish to place no limits at all on speech. But as a practical matter, speech can create riots. At some point, speech does need to be censured, in my opinion. Maybe we're defining "free speech" differently, though?

[Athanasius]

There is a difference between discussing ideas and actually plotting seditious acts with your *speech.* That's the kind of *speech* that is normally given legal scrutiny. Perhaps you wish a plot to actually be hatched before discriminating against that "speech?"

I'm talking about speech, and I would allow seditious speech. If you're talking about act, then that's something different. Planning is an act, to be clear.

But I've had this argument before, and I at that time said I was opposed to "free speech" like holding homosexual parades down Main Ave, replete with nudity, near public schools or near churches. Draw your own limits, though you may not want to call this "free speech" at all?

Again, you seem to be talking about act, not speech. There are other laws on the table - in my fictional, not Christian govermented country - regarding public nudity that would be appealed to prevent 'homosexual parades' from putting on a display in front of a public school or the prudes staring out a church window.

I'd also allow drinking in public.

[Athanasius]

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?

Mhmm. As RK wrote, writing "free speech" with the quotes - scare quotes - suggested that you thought the speech in question was something other than free speech. That's the convention, anyway. The quotes aren't literally scary, nor the word inside them.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes

And okay, the video is an example of free speech, so...?

I forget that not all on this board know me enough to know where I stand in support of the Constitution. So, I understand that a use of "" can be misconstrued.

The video is an example of free speech presenting a perspective/opinion. I've watched several vids now where Ukrainian's are expressing how they wondered why it took this long for Russia to do military actions inside of Ukraine in effort to prevent the possibility of greater threat to it's borders.

Now, lets not continue with the misconstrue game, I'm not in support of Russia but due to my experience, understand this opinion presented in the vid I posted.

In 1962 (not to change the context but use this context), had Russia maintained firm and kept nukes in Cuba, would America commit to military actions in Cuba to rid the threat? I don't know... but how would such an action be viewed in relation to the intent of protection of America? 

Now I know, there are no nukes in Ukraine aimed at Russia.

Where was it suggested that you supported Russia?

[RandyPNW]

There is a difference between discussing ideas and actually plotting seditious acts with your *speech.* That's the kind of *speech* that is normally given legal scrutiny. Perhaps you wish a plot to actually be hatched before discriminating against that "speech?"

I'm talking about speech, and I would allow seditious speech. If you're talking about act, then that's something different. Planning is an act, to be clear.

But I've had this argument before, and I at that time said I was opposed to "free speech" like holding homosexual parades down Main Ave, replete with nudity, near public schools or near churches. Draw your own limits, though you may not want to call this "free speech" at all?

Again, you seem to be talking about act, not speech. There are other laws on the table - in my fictional, not Christian govermented country - regarding public nudity that would be appealed to prevent 'homosexual parades' from putting on a display in front of a public school or the prudes staring out a church window.

I'd also allow drinking in public.

As long as drinking is allowed in Heaven, I would certainly allow it!

But yes, I'm talking about a specific kind of speech that would be the antithesis to a stable theocracy or to a stable democracy. The fine line between harmless speech and speech that is a form of activism is something that needs to be explored, in my judgment.

Ask the Progressives. They certainly realize that certain speech on social media is a threat to their idea of a stable democracy. At some point, civil disobedience becomes to them an act of sedition.

Now don't think I'm a Progressive, or agree with their kind of philosophy. My point is they realize that to opt for a specific kind of society, speech can indeed be a threat to that society and to its peace.

In a predominantly Christian society, certain forms of speech should be banned, including the promotion of pagan systems. The Law of Moses certainly banned that kind of speech upon threat of death.

But I do realize that most societies today do not enjoy a large Christian majority, indicating the need for more liberal laws on behalf of people who simply don't know better and are not deliberately advocating for the overthrow of God's Kingdom.

In other words, our laws, from a Christian perspective, should be based on realities, and not on ideals that do not presently exist. I can't improve on God's Law, and so I always begin there and work down to what is practical.

F. Schaeffer made a big point of placing the Law of God *before* the Law of the King. I'd have to agree with him.

[Slug1]

Where was it suggested that you supported Russia?

Hasn't happened and I just don't want anyone going there akin to a perception I made scary words because of a pair of "".

[Fenris]

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

Very narrow limits. So called "hate speech" is protected. Religious blasphemy is protected. Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater is protected. Speaking out against the government and ruling party is protected.

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.

Why can't it survive? Because you, personally, don't think it can? That's not a reason.

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.

I don't want to put anyone in jail for anything they say. Why are you trying to paint yourself as a martyr?

[Fenris]

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.

So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.

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.

Lemme check the Constitution. Flip flip. Yeah, don't exclude "global citizens" from holding office or voting. Sorry.

[Fenris]

If we strictly take God's Law as the ideal and apply it in a society that is predominantly of faith, then there is no problem basing the limitations of speech on that which protects a religious society.

Now you see, here's the problem with this. Take "God's law" how? Your own personal beliefs? Because billions of people consider themselves "Christian" yet don't all agree on some very basic fundamental concepts, let alone how to apply the bible. So what you mean is that you want your own, personal understanding of the bible to used as a guide for passing civil and criminal laws in a nation of 300 million people.

Let alone that government's role in a western society is not to protect religion. Maybe in a country that practices Sharia, sure. I think it's kind of a big deal for the Taliban.

[Fenris]

Now don't think I'm a Progressive, or agree with their kind of philosophy.

You're quite the authoritarian though.

In a predominantly Christian society, certain forms of speech should be banned, including the promotion of pagan systems. The Law of Moses certainly banned that kind of speech upon threat of death.

Who gets to define "pagan"? In the middle ages the Catholic Church had a field day with this one.

[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.

So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.

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.

Lemme check the Constitution. Flip flip. Yeah, don't exclude "global citizens" from holding office or voting. Sorry.

You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I  don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.

Perhaps you are unaware of the crisis we face in the United States today with regard to citizenship, specifically the attack on the very concept of citizen. Those who want to destroy our country, i.e. traitors, are working with all diligence to destroy the concept of citizen in favor of "resident". Global citizens have no loyalty to any particular country; they have no need of borders; they vote for initiatives and candidates which favor the cosmocracy. Such people are against nationalism and certainly don't put America first.

This effort is manifest in various ways such as open borders, non-citizen voter, welfare payments to non-citizens, H-2B non-agricultural visas, The Dream Act, changes to birthright citizenship.

Yes, I believe that anyone who is working to destroy the nation should not be allowed to vote or hold office. And I believe you WILL find that in the constitution.