"Would you like to buy a piece of Alex Jones?"
- Thread starter J_Dee
- Start date
Contrarians keep arguing this, but this is being intentionally obtuse.
The suggested connotation here is that if one uses intentional deception leading to injury that such speech can lead to criminal or civil charges. This is left implied in the example, where contrarians suggest a random person is just yelling “FIRE” with no ensuing chaos.
So, let’s be more distinct for the contrarians.
If one lies about a terror attack, such as a bomb in a public place, is that free speech?
Given that many people have been arrested for exercising their ability to communicate, the blatantly obvious answer is that no…there can be punishments for speech.
It's pretty simple, speech is speech. Even yelling fire is speech, when people make actions that's when things happen. IF people listen to you then its on them. By assuming that yelling fire means a trampling or two means that you are taking the agency away from people and consider them incapable of thinking and acting on their own.
just listen to hitch :
I understand the point you’re making, but my point is that there is a huge array of examples where Americans have been jailed or sued for speech. So, the argument that anything can be said with out penalty is factually incorrect.
Like the kids in Louisville in the early 2000’s who called parents and told them their kids had died as a prank…. We can say that’s free speech, but they were also found guilty.
Do ppl that regurgitate this phrase even know the cases it was involved with and the context of it?
Both are authoritarians. Just different flavors. Right or left. The political board is literally auth-left vs auth-right.
But that’s the point and why I say people arguing against it are being contrarian.
If what Alex Jones said had no impact on victims then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The issue isn't the speech. It's people who decide to listen. By assuming it's speech and not others actions, that are the problems. You are, like I said, taking the agency away from people and consider them incapable of thinking and acting on their own. The victims would not have an impact made on them, if they simply did not listen to Jones' speech.
Okay, but meanwhile Alex Jones has to pay 1B+ ultimately due to his speech and impact on victims. So, regardless of ideology or philosophy, he had ramifications for speech.
You asked if yelling fire in a theatre is free speech, which it is. It only becomes a problem if someone chooses to listen to you. Alex Jones saying the sandy hook shooting was a hoax, is free speech too. The issue is not speech, speech is speech. It's people's actions. The victims could simply ignore Alex Jones, just as you could to someone yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theatre.
Right and I’m saying that connotation is implied with the fire example.
Obviously if I claim there is a bomb or incoming terror attack then argue “people didn’t have to listen to me” after following reaction it would not suffice in court.
But if I write the same thing on my wall and no one sees it then…
So you agree the issue is not speech, it's actions. Good, that was all I was saying.
I’d say more accurately it’s intentional deception leading to monetary, physical or emotional damages
Until you consider the fact his looney listeners started harassing parents. Pretty hard to ignore that.
I’m sorry but if a guy riled up a bunch of people to go after the parents of children killed in a horrific act because of batshit conspiracy theories, as a parent they have every right to go after him.
He’s lucky cooler heads prevailed and he just got sued. I don’t know if I would have the same self restraint as a parent.
He’s lucky cooler heads prevailed and he just got sued. I don’t know if I would have the same self restraint as a parent.
And yet Hitchens was pleased when Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath.
Hitchens also would have liked to have seen Clinton punished for his defamation of all of the women who brought forth accusations. He believed the Clintons were vicious in their false attacks on these women and should have been held accountable.
It’s one thing to defend the right of someone to espouse unpopular or even offensive views. But it’s an entirely different thing when someone is spreading highly damaging lies about an individual and causing real harm. Hitchens took serious issue with situations where someone was clearly lying about another individual.
Lol at Jcmcgraw
Show us some more arm muscles you big ol burly broke back mountain gentleperson.
Show us some more arm muscles you big ol burly broke back mountain gentleperson.
The amendment that protects our god given right of freedom of speech, from the government? You realize the constitution doesn't grant us our rights, correct? They put them on paper to defend them from the government. One reason you gun grabbers will fail. You can't just remove the 2A. It still wont change the fact, that It's a god given/natural right to own guns. Just as freedom of speech, assembly, religion etc is.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
You apparently think way too much of yourself, I’ll buy you a beer on Saturday. No fighting, I promise. But I will tell you what it’s like to look into the eyes of a parent who lost a child.
Well, another thread runs off the rails.
JFC. Paddock rarely disappoints.
JFC. Paddock rarely disappoints.
I should be awarded a billion dollars as compensation after reading those JGCraw posts. Goodness.
