Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 4 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,167,901
@1,167,891 (E)
Can you show me which part of the constitution says anything about "dangerous" speech?
Anonymous E replied with this 4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,167,903
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I cannot, but as you know, the Supreme Court interprets law and have said that certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 4 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,912
@previous (E)
The Supreme Court also interpreted the constitution to allow racial segregation as long as it was equal. Can you honestly say the constitution was never intended to allow segregation? How can you be so sure the first amendment was never meant to allow dangerous speech?
Anonymous E replied with this 4 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,913
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Fallacy. you are arguing that, if the Supreme Court once decided something that is today considered wrong, that it can never be trusted and is always wrong. That is a fallacy.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 4 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,916
@previous (E)
Was the constitution ever intended to allow segregation then?
Anonymous E replied with this 4 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,920
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Actually, yes. the "Founding Fathers" were all slave owners. That does not mean it was right, though.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,964
@previous (E)
That’s not true though. Also, the North did not practice segregation. Sure there was self imposed societal segregation but it wasn’t codified like the south
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,970
> spread dangerous lies and misinformation
You won't be arrested for saying stuff like that, so you're free to speak in that sense. But if what you say leads to injury, death, property damage, or monetary loss, then you may held accountable for the damage you've caused.
Anonymous E replied with this 4 years ago, 25 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,973
Let's talk a real world example. If someone walked up to your grandmother and, without touching her at all, yelled in her face, "I'M GONNA RAPE YOU AND KILL YOU BITCH!", would that be permitted under free speech?
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 4 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,995
Free speech should mean you can say what you want unless you interfere with someone else's freedom.
Toilet Seat !cxKfc8j9uY replied with this 4 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,167,999
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
In that case, Biden needs locked up. His speeches have been interfering with my freedom since he took office.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 55 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,168,000
> Let's talk a real world example. If someone walked up to your grandmother and, without touching her at all, yelled in her face, "I'M GONNA RAPE YOU AND KILL YOU BITCH!", would that be permitted under free speech?
Yes.
Anonymous E replied with this 4 years ago, 7 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,168,050
@previous (I)
And you would be perfectly fine living in a society where that sort of thing regularly took place?
Anonymous I replied with this 4 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,168,062
Originally, I don't think it was explicitly against it.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,168,160
@1,167,903 (E)
This is a typical leftist maneuver.
Accuse your opposition of exactly what you're guilty of.
Remember the Lending collapse? Blaming Bush for what the democRATS not only instituted but blocked all efforts to stop?
Russian Collusion and using foreign agents that we now know was what Hildabeast did?
The list is almost endless.
But pretending that the people who want the least government involvement in peoples lives and the closest adherence to Constitutionally recognized personal liberty are pushing Fascism is the most extreme example of twisted reality that I can think of. And it requires complete ignorance of the subject matter to believe such absolute CRAP!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,168,318
@previous (K)
Not sure what you're getting at. Do you believe that the Supreme Court's rulings support a fascist agenda?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 2 days later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#1,168,731
@previous (A)
It's the Fascists that are Not Censored.
The condensed answer is that Twitter censors anything that disputes the Fascist left's mantra. From AGW to Covid to Election integrity to gender dysphoria.
Controlling the narrative so that only one side is allowed to express opinions or present facts that dispute the narrative is , and has been the tactics of every dictatorship including Fascists, Socialist and Communists for as long as they have existed.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 4 years ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#1,169,102