You are absolutely correct, SCOTUS has always upheld freedom of speech, even when the speech is considered a threatening opinion or hate speech. It is a ruling against liberals because it is liberals who are trying to eliminate and curtail freedom of speech - in the U.S. as well as Europe. I can cite many examples if you are interested.
Only the US has freedom of speech. The rest of the west has all kinds of bans and restrictions on speech.
I'm actually a classic liberal, but I refuse to call myself a liberal due to the bullshit identity politics we've seen over the last 15 or so years.
Also, as an egalitarian, I despise feminism.
@ RoyalCrown89 - The fist picture does have a lot of baggage and that's what the reaction is based on. It's not derailment to complain about the picture in a thread about being civil.
@ Strangeloop - RC is probably the most centrist liberal here. While he may be a bit SJW on some topics, he's far from a bike lock liberal. He advocates for true free speech as defined by the USSC and condemns the violence by both sides.
Children are allowed to be attacked, but only if they themselves have done wrong. "Sins of the father" type stuff is banned.
"Attack" in this case means criticize/critical of. This is things like GWB's daughters underage drinking with secret service protection.
You are not allowed to do baseless attacks on kids because of their parents.
LibDem are basically the SJW party and their leader is a homophobe.
Labour has turned into a quasi communist party under it's current leader. The top 3 people in the party support terrorism. They refuse to condemn their praise of the IRA's terrorism and they are quick to downplay muslim terrorism. Usually, they are like the Democrats.
Tories are the conservative party. It's pretty much just like the Republicans, with a lot of views on issues.
The Supreme Court doesn't vote "against" a political party. That's not their job and not what happened here.
It's liberals that insist that we ban speech that might offend.
**So tell me again how it's the conservatives who are homophobes. **
Does the existence of liberal homophobia make conservative homophobia disappear?
Did I say that?
Yea, I mean, when you say "tell me how conservatives are homophobes", you are absolutely implying that there is no conservative homophobia. Or that liberals deserve the brunt of the issue.
More liberal stupidity.
"conservatives are homophobes!!!"
"liberals love LGBTs"
Bullshit.
Liberals don't like LGBTs any more than conservatives. However, they are worse because they are liars and hypocrites.
"IT" refers to rule violations by liberals while crying about rule violations.
Let's use your example of Fred and Sutie.
They get into a slagging match. Sutie and other liberals will complain in the forums, the help desk, reported topics and site email. I'll be called "alt-right" and accused of abusing my powers and whatnot. Fred won't complain and just get on with it.
Why are you insistent on limiting it to "Trumptard" vs "libtard"? Expand it out and you'll see that both sides are pretty equal in name calling.
I was called a racist simply because I pointed out 2 proven lies told by Rep John Lewis. I didn't mention race, just that he lied. That was enough to make me a racist. Why do you want to ignore things like that, if you want to talk about facts.
How about ban all name calling and just use "liberal" and "conservative"??? But, I'm sure you get a kick out of the incivility.
I'm sorry, but I can't take any you say seriously.
Why should I bother, you're gonna excuse it away anyway.
I've travelled too. So what.
Islam loves gay people, maybe you should move to a muslim country.
BTW, you are full of shit. I never said ALL.
As for not being open to new ideas, you are the last person to complain about that. "Oh me, Oh my, I have to posts by my enemies so I can down vote them. Who cares what they say, they must be down voted." You're pathetic.
Republican Ralph Norman won a special election Tuesday to fill the South Carolina congressional seat
Republican Karen Handel won a special election Tuesday to fill the a Georgia congressional seat.. her win was over a democrat who was using the vote as a mandate against Trump, and spent a record amount for a congressional campaign.
Oh.. and the polls said Jon Ossof would win.It would seem that the overwhelming animosity directed at Trump by the media moonbats is fizzling and backfiring.
Can Frederick go one post without using "moonbat"? Nope.
And with that post, are you really sure you want me to follow the rules like you demand?
Someone who has nothing to do with islam, because muslims don't do things like that, was shot dead while attempting to do a "peace attack".
Nazi puppets (police) shot and killed him after he set a suit case on fire (can be seen in the photos). When the Nazi puppets (police) inspected his body, they found that he was wearing a "love vest".
"IT" refers to rule violations by liberals while crying about rule violations.
Let's use your example of Fred and Sutie.
They get into a slagging match. Sutie and other liberals will complain in the forums, the help desk, reported topics and site email. I'll be called "alt-right" and accused of abusing my powers and whatnot. Fred won't complain and just get on with it.
Why are you insistent on limiting it to "Trumptard" vs "libtard"? Expand it out and you'll see that both sides are pretty equal in name calling.
I was called a racist simply because I pointed out 2 proven lies told by Rep John Lewis. I didn't mention race, just that he lied. That was enough to make me a racist. Why do you want to ignore things like that, if you want to talk about facts.
MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM, (2017) No. 15-1293
See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-1293.html#sthash.mHieS4Eb.dpuf
In a unanimous vote, the US Supreme Court ruled against liberals when it comes to free speech.
"Offensive" logos (trademarks) are protected under free speech.
While this case had nothing to do DIRECTLY with Dick Gregory's autobiography NIGGER, if the case had gone the other way, the book would either be banned or forced to recall them and change the name/cover.
Hate speech is protected speech.
Many are voting against the Republican woman as a vote against Trump.
Doesn't that make them women haters?
Here's a quick one. It's biased in that it uses "fake news and clickbait" to justify what was done.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/31/facebook-tweaks-the-feed-to-bury-fake-news-and-clickbait/
I wonder if they did everything possible to ensure he would win like they did with Hillary.
CNN should change it's name to DNC News.
20 years ago CNN was one of the world's most respected news sources, now it's a fucking joke.
Oh the irony.
It's liberals who claim they are on the right side of history, just like ISIS.
It's liberals who cover their faces to "protest", dressing just like ISIS.
It's liberals, just like ISIS, who do not have a problem with using violence to get their way.
Btw, those people downvoting are essentially saying it is acceptable to attack Muslims and not have the President respond in a timely manner to such acts.
You are a typical bike lock liberal, with your blatant hypocrisy.
You spam the fuck out of the down vote button against your enemies no matter what they say. You don't care what is said, you look for the name of the poster.
I never knew that disagreeing with a poster implied that you would want to hit them with a bike lock ???
And I know why you and Frederick have yet to respond to the initial post. Both of you have no problem with Muslims being attacked by bigoted/hateful people because you think they're all terrorists. And you probably support actions by racist white supremacist stabbers, such as this:
For ages I have asked liberals to condemn the violence and it took ages but finally 6 or so stepped forward to condemn it. You weren't one of them. Not surprisingly, the liberals who condemned the violence got as many down votes as conservatives do. I'm betting it was you, DrWas, wafflez and a couple others.
In 23 days, peaceful, loving muslims have killed 1,246 people in "peace attacks". And we now have another, thankfully thwarted, "peace attack" in Brussels.
Was it you or your fellow bike lock liberal DrWas who said you don't have to condemn violence because you aren't the President?
The fact that you search out posts by your enemies to down vote them, no matter what they say, shows the mentality you have. At least RoyalCrown89 has the decency to actually read the posts and vote on them based on what is posted.
If I started enforcing the rules in the way liberals want, you'd be crying on the help desk far more than you guys do now.
This feels very much like you're drawing an assumption, in the belief it absolves you from doing your job. It doesn't.
Oddly, liberals violate the rules as much, if not more, than the conservatives but complain about the rules not being followed/enforced almost exclusively.
This is observationally untrue, but since you made the claim, go ahead and share the method by which you can prove it. Or, are we back to alternative facts?
We see it here in various threads.
However, you'll need to become a staff member to see the Reported Posts section, help desk and others.