Milo set fire to your lawn?
Because if he didn’t, we really ought to be worrying about the people who are doing actual harm. You know. THOSE people.
The ones with masks and baseball bats and absolutely no sense of proportion. Those assholes are the dangerous ones.
Yeah, coz being anti-fascist and anti-nazi is so horrible and out of vogue. Got to stop those people. Better to let fascists and nazis take over. May as well, right?
That’s your absolutism, not mine.
It’s nice to know you also take the Klan seriously.
Well, they could use a better publicity department. `Coz if anybody can make something uncool, it’s Antifa.
Ever heard of a yes or no question? You cannot get any more absolute than that, can you?
You’re as absolute as they come, and not in a good way.
And if anyone can make being a fascist or nazi cool, it is Milo and Spencer!
People already let May take over. Another damn mess 
I see what you did there…
"Free speech has limits. You aren’t allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre because someone’s probably going to get hurt. Your right to say what you like is trumped by your responsibility to stop me being trampled to death by a stampede of panicked theatre-goers. Death threats; rape threats; bomb threats; online abuse that drives someone to suicide – these are all things that free speech doesn’t cover – and which aren’t appropriate to defend in its name. Doing so makes it even harder for people to speak freely – not least because that idea of “speaking freely” becomes co-opted by people who mistake it for “I should be able to shout ‘free speech’ at you until you stop talking”.
You just keep adding things to the list. That’s a very worrying trend.
I’ve noticed that people who want to ban various expressions of opinion tend to be very nasty, violent, thuggish people. The correlation is far too strong to be mere chance. You are in extremely bad company.
Banning guns is something a naive person might endorse. Banning speech is something even a naive person can see is just plain wrong.
Oh, and by the way: Most of the far left’s rhetoric is very much akin to shouting “fire” in an crowded theater. So knock it off.
Hey, my friend is here!! And a little testy, to boot!
Like the ones who kill doctors in their churches? Or blow up clinics?
Who said anything about banning anything? They just do not want to hear that racist drivel and took steps to make sure they didn’t have to. That is all.
Oh, educate me on the far left rhetoric and shouting fire. I am listening, er, reading.
Wow, condoning the use of violence to shut down free speech. How very noble of them. Noble savages, you might say. I don’t even think that’s why they were really there though. Their real goal was to bash heads in and light shit on fire. For some people, violence and destruction is its own reward.
Well, you know, absolute freedom! One’s profanity is another’s free speech. One’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Have you ever watched interviews with antifa members? These people are dumb as rocks. They don’t even understand what terms like “fascism” and “free speech” mean. The only thing motivating them is teenage rebellion. And the ones that are no longer teenagers? Well that’s just embarrassing.
It’s rightly generally accepted that the USA has the best freedom of speech laws on the planet. Of course it is difficult to draw a line with things like incitement to violence, slander, libel etc. However, IMO the Americans in the past who set the rules did an excellent job and have made their country a beacon for free speech. Any successful attack on freedom of expression in the US becomes an excuse for far less liberal regimes elsewhere to restrict free speech even further.
But shouldn’t a line be drawn somewhere? I mentioned in another thread that one’s this is another’s that.
If the majority rule one way, isn’t that just leaving individual liberty up to the whims of the majority?
A line is and has been drawn. Every country already has legislation regarding freedom of speech and expression. You get the spectrum from North Korea through to the USA. I prefer the USA.
Democracy is essentially about majority rule, but checks and balances can and should be put in place to protect individuals who swim against the current.
I agree that the system has served us well and I would be loathe to see it altered.