I haven’t and probably will not ever say what you can and cannnot say at a whatever rally you attend.
Think about what what means.
Seriously.
Wrong.
What did you say?
I could not hear that last part.
Yes, you have. You’ve asserted that it’s wrong for someone to “shout over” or “interrupt” a speaker at a rally.
That’s a limitation on the “free speech” (as defined by you) of the person at a rally who wants to interrupt or shout over somebody.
See why trying to define “free speech” to mean “you get to actually SAY something without some jackass trying to shout over you, interrupt you, or otherwise keep you from actually saying something” is so broad and vague as to be essentially meaningless in practical terms?
Does “free speech” according to you mean “anything you want to say that doesn’t involve shouting over or interrupting somebody else”? Does it mean “anything you want to say as long as you’re the one who paid for the microphone”? Or what? How are you defining “free speech” as a non-legal term outside of First Amendment conditions?
Yeah, I’m a rebel that way.
PS. you still haven’t got a fucking clue about what what means and the difference it makes.
Amazingly, the one thing that IS relevant is what you are saying isn’t.
So, you don’t support “free speech” if the speech in question involves shouting over or interrupting somebody else’s speech.
Fine. What other constraints are you tacitly placing on your definition of “free speech”? For example, where do you stand on the old “yelling Fire in a crowded theater” situation?
What?
What?
Take your time. We’re all well aware that you haven’t thought this through.
I can’t hear you over the din of people protesting because they think you are…
Man, this is debate gold Jerry, fricking debate gold I tells ya.
The opppostion states that “shouting over the opposition is some sorta free speech thing”…and you pretend you can’t hear them…gold Jerry…gold
I’m sorry to destroy your illusions of “debate gold”, but pretending not to be able to read what somebody posted when they asked you a question you don’t know how to answer is not actually a brilliant debating tactic.
The original question stands: If you’re going to insist that “free speech” should be defended as a much broader concept than defined by First Amendment restrictions, then exactly how do you choose to define “free speech”?
Obviously, it’s not merely “being able to say something”, as we’ve already found examples of “saying something” that you think should not be defended as “free speech”.
What?
Lots of noise here…could not quite make out what you said.
Yet it seems your opinion that the protester at the Trump rally did something wrong.
So it follows that you have a sense of the right and wrong things one can say at a Trump rally.
I am asking you to tell us what those things are.
WHAT?
Like I said, take your time. The fundamental point here is not to embarrass you about your lack of understanding on the issue, but rather to make it clear that the buzzword “free speech” actually requires some thoughtful limitations placed on its definition to make it meaningful.
What?
Couldn’t hear you over the din of other posters yelling “what?!” and enjoying their free speech rights…
You will not use this sort of nonsense in GD again. If you’re gonna debate then debate. Otherwise play games elsewhere.
No warning issued.
I thought you were arguing that the protester at the Trump rally was in the wrong. That they denied Trump’s free speech.
When a Trump supporter yells, “Hell yeah! You rock Trump!” I think you will not complain that the person is denying Trump’s free speech rights or is disturbing his speech.
Yet it seems in your view if a person at a Trump rally shouts, “You’re a fuckin tool Trump!” you would deem that inappropriate.
So again, I ask you, what is “ok” to say at a Trump rally in your view?
Another “what?”…just because…
PS simuel post with the mod warning.
I might or might not take it to about this message board / bitch fest monday.