WDSmart

And the reverse could be true. You could express something bland, like "I really don't like Trump," that someone else takes offense at and commits violence.

Thankfully, the opinions of the federal courts on that long ago settled point of law - including the Supreme Court- differed from yours. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't believe the Supreme Court would rule against someone who was fired because of their expression of free speech.

Tell that to Colin Kapernick Yes, that's a good example. His kneeling during the National Anthem was not intended to incite violence. In fact, it was intended to do just the opposite. I don't remember exactly what happened to him. I know he lost his job as quarterback. If he was fired because of that, he should have sued. Of course, his team's owners could just have said they fired him because of his on-field performance or something else.

I'm not obfuscating. Do you believe that ALL hate speech is intended to incite violence? I don't. I believe some hate speech just expresses the person's hate towards something or someone. Like I said above, I could call Kirk a <deleted>, a liar, a racist, etc., but not intend that to incite violence towards him or anyone else.

I agree with you, but I was only semi-quoting the Amendment. Also, as far as "harassment" and "fighting words," as you've defined them above, they do imply they may result in violence. So, violence, as far as I'm concerned, is a simple definition of speech that is not included in "free speech," would be one that incites violence. And, in fact, I'd amend that to be speech that is INTENDED to incite violence, not all speech that does incite violence.

In the case you mentioned above, there is no deterrent for them not to continue hurting you or someone else. There is only the application of your belief in what actions for you are right and what actions are wrong.

Okay, how about this... Free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be political speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be racist speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be misogynistic speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be anti-trans speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. ...etc. Does what I said make sense to you now? Or if I changed the order of the terms, would that be better for you? Hate speech can be free speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence.

So now that you believe someone's done something bad to you, you believe it's okay for you to do something bad to them as revenge?

I'd like you to point out my error. I don't think I made one. If I did, I would acknowledge it. If I didn't, I'd like you to acknowledge that.

IMO, if someone is fired from a job because of a political opinion they expressed, as long as it did not advocate violence, then that is a violation of their Constitutional right to Free Speech, and they should be sued for that.

Yes.

If any speech, including hate speech, advocates violence, then it is not free speech. If any speech, including hate speech, does NOT advocate violence, then it is free speech. That's how I see it anyway...

What I'm saying is applicable to both sides. We, the Left, should not use any tactics we consider "dirty" either.

Hate speech can advocate violence, but not all hate speech advocates violence. As far as I'm concerned, many of the Charlie Kirk quotes I've seen are hate speech (racist/misogynistic/anti-LBGT/anti-trans), but I've not read any quotes that advocate violence.

Even if your first sentence above is correct, you, the right, should not use any tactics you consider "dirty." If you do, then you are just as bad as your opponents, and neither one of you deserves to prevail, because then, we'd all just have a "dirty" country.

Free speech can be hate speech if it expresses hate. You might say you hate someone without suggesting any violence be used against them.

No, I typed what I meant to say. "Hate speech" expresses hate. It does not have to advocate violence. If I say "I hate JonnyF", and he is a damn <deleted>, that is hate speech, but that is not advocating violence.

My definition of "hate speech" is like me saying I think Charlie Kirk was a piece of <deleted>! And I do. I hated most all of what he stood for and said. I have the right to say that because it is also "free speech." If I suggested he be assassinated, which I didn't and wouldn't, that would not be "free speech."

If your point is that you know these tactics are "dirty," then you should not use them. Both sides are guilty of using them, and it has to stop. Again, I'm not saying stop free speech, or that even hate speech is off limits. I'm saying that if you think a particular speech or action is "dirty," then you should not engage in it.

Perhaps you meant "cannot be" and had a Freudian slip? According to the left, free speech is hate speech if they disagree with it. No slip. "Free speech" includes "hate speech," as long as it does not incite violence or physical harm. In other words, Charlie Kirk could demean Blacks and women, and criticize gays and trans, even suggest they should be treated differently under the law, as long as he didn't incite violence - like recommending all of them be gathered up and hanged.

The problem here is that neither the right nor the left is the "older brother." Both are the same, maybe a "twin" brother. My point is that each side, and everyone, should do what they know is right, not justify their actions by saying "He hit me first!"

"Free speech" can be "hate speech" as long as it doesn't advocate violence.

That’s a good thing, keep digging hang them out to dry and expose them for what they are. These are obvious violations of their Constitutional right to Free Speech, so unless they've actually proposed violence, all this is legal.

@Spidermike007 cited sources for every one of those quotes. How could you call that plagiarism?

10 years ago, I may have agreed. But lefties have been canceling, firing and even imprisoning conservatives for hurty words for over a decade now. If there's no pushback, it's only going to get worse. I'd add that the UK is experiencing the same, though the delineation between the different sides of the 2-tier justice system is not exactly the same. I agree that's been happening on both sides of the aisle, and I agree that must stop, or things are going to get a lot worse very soon. What we have to do is quit saying we are justified in doing something like this because the other side did it previously. That "He hit me first!" excuse is just going to go on and on, and will never end. 🥺