8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not necessarily as revenge. Possibly that. But certainly as a deterrent. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the definition of penal justice? You committ a crime and go to jail. In some countries you are executed or physically harmed in some way e.g. hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. 

 

All societies have this concept in some form. As do most religions.  

 

An eye for an eye being the most well known phrase in western societies. 

 

The alternative would be that you should be allowed to hurt someone but that they are not allowed to hurt you. That doesn't make sense. Where is the deterrent for them to not continue hurting you or someone else?

 

 

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. 

The hypocrisy is astonishing. Was Spencer Cox (Utah governor) fired after he made fun of the assassination of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hartman and her husband? He even spread the conspiracy that this was done by ‘marxists’. How come that a-hole can still be governor?

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Hate speech can be free speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence.

 

No, that's not true. See the thing is the left has created categories which allow speech to criminalised even when it does not advocate violence, for instance:

 

Harassment:

Speech that, especially when combined with conduct, creates a hostile environment

 

Then there are the old exceptions to free speech:

 

Fighting Words:

Speech that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from the person it is directed at. 

 

So hate speech does not advocate violence, but falls in the above categories could still be "unfree" speech sanctioned by the law.

19 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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.

 

No you are not making sense.

 

It would have been better to simply admit the error than type that garbage in an attempt to obfuscate.  😃

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

Tell that to Colin Kapernick

45 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

The word is 'emigrate,' and Americans are moving out by the score. That you don't see it is only because Fox News and TruthSocial don't report it. Try some news sources from other countries. They are reporting the increase in Visa applications from the US.

The US is the only place in the world where a poor nobody can change their life. Your posts are always wrong, this post of yours is the most wrong ive seen

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

 

Thankfully, the opinions of the federal courts on that long ago settled point of law - including the Supreme Court- differed from yours. 

6 minutes ago, angryguy said:

The US is the only place in the world where a poor nobody can change their life. Your posts are always wrong, this post of yours is the most wrong ive seen

Your post adds a whole new dimension to the definition of ‘uneducated.’ Does it embarrass you?

US courts have consistently ruled that employees can be fired for making vile comments online, especially in the private sector where the First Amendment offers no protection from employer action.

 

For government workers, the First Amendment provides limited protection, but vile comments often lose this protection because they can disrupt the workplace or harm the public's perception of the agency. 

 

For private-sector employees

For those who work at private companies, there is generally no protection from being fired for online posts.

 

Courts have upheld employers' rights to terminate workers for online speech that violates company policy or negatively impacts the business.

 

Key legal points include: 

 

No First Amendment protection: The First Amendment restricts government control over speech, not that of a private company. Therefore, private employers have wide latitude to discipline or fire an employee over social media posts.

 

At-will employment: In most states, employment is "at-will," meaning an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason that is not illegal. Vile online comments are a lawful reason for termination.

 

Protecting against hostile work environments: If an employee's discriminatory, hateful, or harassing online comments are brought into the workplace and affect other employees, the employer can be held liable for creating a hostile work environment. Courts have consistently ruled that employers have a duty to take action against such conduct to protect their workers.

 

Company reputation: Courts recognize that vile online posts, even if made on personal time, can damage a company's public image and reputation. Employers are legally justified in firing employees to protect their brand.

 

Social media policies: Having a clear social media policy strengthens an employer's position in court. If a fired employee signed and acknowledged a policy that bans discriminatory or harassing online posts, the termination is easier to defend. 

 

For public-sector employees:

For government workers, the First Amendment provides limited, not absolute, protection for speech. Courts use a balancing test to weigh the employee's interest in free speech against the government's interest in maintaining an efficient workplace. In cases involving vile comments, courts have often sided with the employer. 

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ha ha, love that phrase "hurty words"...haven't heard that one before, but it does brilliantly show up the juvenile trend of the last decade,where the young and easily offended snowflakes demand "safe spaces" to avoid being faced with reality in one form or another.

43 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, that's not true. See the thing is the left has created categories which allow speech to criminalised even when it does not advocate violence, for instance:

 

Harassment:

Speech that, especially when combined with conduct, creates a hostile environment

 

Then there are the old exceptions to free speech:

 

Fighting Words:

Speech that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from the person it is directed at. 

 

So hate speech does not advocate violence, but falls in the above categories could still be "unfree" speech sanctioned by the law.

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. 

8 minutes ago, TDCNINJA said:

US courts have consistently ruled that employees can be fired for making vile comments online, especially in the private sector .

You have repeatedly used the word ‘vile.’
Could you please gives us the legal definition (as it seems to differ from the one most MAGAs are using in this instance) of the word ‘vile.’

Not YOUR definition, the legal one. Thanks. 

37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

No you are not making sense.

 

It would have been better to simply admit the error than type that garbage in an attempt to obfuscate.  😃

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. 

31 minutes ago, TDCNINJA said:

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

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. 

30 minutes ago, TDCNINJA said:

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

 

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.

2 hours ago, novacova said:

Ignorant statement by one who lacks any understanding of the 2nd amendment.

Let’s deal with the 1st. There’s a reason why it’s the first. Of course if you ignore it anything goes, right?

53 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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

 

The problem is this is kind of academic, because hate speech laws, where jurisdictions have these laws, are inchoate offences, meaning they are meant to step in before the actual violence happens. 

 

So they are very much open to interpretation. And no actual violence generally takes place, and is supposedly prevented.

 

We never know then, could violence really have happened, or not.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The problem is this is kind of academic, because hate speech laws, where jurisdictions have these laws, are inchoate offences, meaning they are meant to step in before the actual violence happens. 

 

So they are very much open to interpretation. And no actual violence generally takes place, and is supposedly prevented.

 

We never know then, could violence really have happened, or not.

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.

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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.

 

Where are you trying to get at with this interesting detour?

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

18 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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.

 

Where are you trying to get at with this interesting detour?

I don't consider it a "detour." I thought we were trying to nail down the definition of "Free Speech," and how incitement of violence enters into that.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe it would not solely depend on whether or not your speech RESULTED in acts of violence. I think it would all depend on whether or not you INTENDED your speech to incite violence.

In that case, your speech, even if it did not result in violence, may NOT be considered Free Speech if the courts believe INCITING violence was your intention. But on the other hand, as stated above, if you spoke with NO INTENTION of inciting violence, then even if violence occurred, that would be considered Free Speech.

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Amazing how adamant his supporters are about NOT wanting people or news outlets quoting any of the outrageous things he has said, after his death, despite the fact that he was an supporter of free and open dialogue. Bizarre, at best. The man was very outspoken and said some very dumb stuff. That can't be erased. 

 

Show me where they've said that ? You can't.

What they have said is "Show the whole quote and in context" You know, be honest and up front about it.

Oh wait, thats gone way over your head, I almost forgot, you're the plagiarizer. WHich oddly, I thought was against the rules.
Nice AI reply by the way.

     Scary times in America when a news commentator, whose job it is to comment, is fired for making a comment that was simply stating the obvious.   And, just one of a number of other actions targeting free speech.  Scary.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

 

Nonsense. It is a huge deterrent. That's why petty crime is so low in places like Saudi Arabia compared to say, London. 

 

And stop trying to sound like that bald kid out of The Matrix. It's not clever. 😃

 

 

 

3 hours ago, novacova said:

Nice descriptive of yourself as one being stuck in a bubble incapable of peering in. One thing is very clear to most of us peering in, is that the left has moved into a state of complete disarray and confusion and are now trying to argue and rationalize their way through the mess that they themselves have chosen to put themselves into. That is exactly where you are now, clearly.

What is your definition of "left"?

Progressive, science based, democratic, value our constitution, improving living conditions, equality, health care, and respect and much more ?

Yes, I stand for it.

Remember lefties, you people away say.   Speech has consequences.  LOL...

3 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

improving living conditions,

Thank you capitalism. 

4 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

What is your definition of "left"?

Progressive, science based, democratic, value our constitution, improving living conditions, equality, health care, and respect and much more ?

Yes, I stand for it.

 

Science based?  😆

 

Brrroooooooo.

4 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Thank you capitalism. 

Not for you? Outcast already?🤣

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Science based?  😆

 

Brrroooooooo.

Sure, the huge group of conspiracy members and Kennedy followers wouldn't agree. Are YOU a member already?🎉

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

 

That comment just proves you have no idea what the Constitutional right to free speech means.

 

There are many other workplace protections for employees, but the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech is not one of them.