Perhaps you could define "free" and "freedom of speech" for us gullible fools ?
It was a factor, but one among many others. The economic and political situation in Europe was far from stable in the early thirties, without this there wouldn’t have been a Hitler and his crazy speeches.In the worse case scenario hate speech has ultimately led to genocide.
I guess we are mixing things up here. The term’Free speech’ is used in relationship with expressing an opinion. What Trump said was an incitement, as such it was just another stupid move of his.Donald Trump exercised his right of free speech to incite insurrection and five people died. Would you tell the bereaved families that his right was more important than their loved ones’ right to life?
You are limiting the scope of the right, on spurious grounds, I think.I guess we are mixing things up here. The term’Free speech’ is used in relationship with expressing an opinion. What Trump said was an incitement, as such it was just another stupid move of his.
Then you can't tell much at all. Of course I am arguing for free speech, as you should be too. Do you not see that ?
Whether free speech will happen during my lifetime I strongly doubt, especially with people such as yourself who can't even understand why it should be a goal...
Some ancient Greeks may have had free speech, and perhaps other ancient small scale groups.
The world today is too interconnected and yet diverse to have total free speech.
In 21st century America, despite the 1st Amendment, you cannot even say OMG without censure.
I said ‘Avole is arguing for unlimited free speech’. You replied ‘I am arguing for [unlimited] free speech, why can you not see that?’
You clearly don’t understand what I have said, despite my saying it in very simple terms.
Or you are trolling.
Either way, other readers of this thread are capable of deciding who is arguing what; and if you are not, I refuse to let you make it my problem.,
I suspect you might have that in common with Avole, then!I'm completely confused now, but there's nothing new in that!
So you believe in the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema then.the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.
So you believe in the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema then.
Again, shouting ‘fire’ in a cinema is not uttering an opinion.So you believe in the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema then.
But the 'right to free speech' is, as Avole tried to argue it, a right to say anything you like without any constraint at all. And if there are things you can't say, then you don't have 'free speech'. So, he would argue that preventing somebody from telling a blind person it was safe to cross the road, when it clearly was not, would be a limit on their right to free speech. It's an absurd argument, but it's what he was effectively saying.Again, shouting ‘fire’ in a cinema is not uttering an opinion.
We certainly all agree on the damage of epic proportions you can provoke by saying, or not saying something at a given moment. No one, left or right, will ever stand for the right to tell a blind person to cross the road just when a lorry approaches, it’s not political it’s common sense.