Stormfront.org Offline, Domain Seized

[Wazzzup]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/54/b9/6454b9a1f8fab33a808254cb58e7906d--patriotic-quotes-freedom-of-speech.jpg">https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/54/b9/6454 ... speech.jpg">https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/54/b9/6454b9a1f8fab33a808254cb58e7906d--patriotic-quotes-freedom-of-speech.jpg[/img]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5d/b7/25/5db725a4625f52f6fbfb93769b11b3e3--freedom-quotes-amazing-quotes.jpg">





http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-free-speech-is-a-bourgeois-prejudice-vladimir-lenin-136-79-69.jpg">http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/ ... -79-69.jpg">http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-free-speech-is-a-bourgeois-prejudice-vladimir-lenin-136-79-69.jpg[/img]

https://redgreenalliancedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/stalin-free-speech.jpeg?w=768&h=407">

[RW]

Do you really not understand that there are restrictions to this freedom and that these restrictions exist usually because the behaviour infringes on the rights of others?



How do you propose a balance in freedom of speech vs infringing on the rights of others?

[Wazzzup]

Do you really not understand that there are restrictions to this freedom and that these restrictions exist usually because the behaviour infringes on the rights of others?



How do you propose a balance in freedom of speech vs infringing on the rights of others?

Restirctions like threats and defamation have been part of common law for centuries, because they harm people severely.



Someone saying they don't like white people, or Muslims or Hispanics may hurt feelings here and there but that's all.  There should never be ANY laws prohibiting it.  

if you think the government exists to protect people's feelings, then lets just get rid of negative speech alltogether-- you can't call anybody stupid, dumb or anything else, don't say a movie sucked, a restaurant had bad food, no negative speech.  



Whoops what happened to freedom?

[Blurt]

See, RW?



This is Wazzup's argument: do away with movie reviews.



It's almost like Wazzup believes that all speech is political speech.



Rightards are funny that way.

[Wazzzup]

See, RW?



This is Wazzup's argument: do away with movie reviews.

Strawman fallacy-- Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version.



You fail.

[RW]

Do you really not understand that there are restrictions to this freedom and that these restrictions exist usually because the behaviour infringes on the rights of others?



How do you propose a balance in freedom of speech vs infringing on the rights of others?

Restirctions like threats and defamation have been part of common law for centuries, because they harm people severely.



Someone saying they don't like white people, or Muslims or Hispanics may hurt feelings here and there but that's all.  There should never be ANY laws prohibiting it.  

if you think the government exists to protect people's feelings, then lets just get rid of negative speech alltogether-- you can't call anybody stupid, dumb or anything else, don't say a movie sucked, a restaurant had bad food, no negative speech.  



Whoops what happened to freedom?

And if hate speech causes people serious harm, should that speech be illegal? I would think advocating genocide isn't something we'd want to be legal.



People are still allowed their opinions without consequence.  You can say you hate white/coloured/religious/gay people and no one will arrest you.  



Are you seriously afraid of the never to come?

[Wazzzup]

Do you really not understand that there are restrictions to this freedom and that these restrictions exist usually because the behaviour infringes on the rights of others?



How do you propose a balance in freedom of speech vs infringing on the rights of others?

Restirctions like threats and defamation have been part of common law for centuries, because they harm people severely.



Someone saying they don't like white people, or Muslims or Hispanics may hurt feelings here and there but that's all.  There should never be ANY laws prohibiting it.  

if you think the government exists to protect people's feelings, then lets just get rid of negative speech alltogether-- you can't call anybody stupid, dumb or anything else, don't say a movie sucked, a restaurant had bad food, no negative speech.  



Whoops what happened to freedom?

And if hate speech causes people serious harm, should that speech be illegal? I would think advocating genocide isn't something we'd want to be legal.

Louis Farrakhan of  Nation of islam did exactly that.  he called for the genocide of white people.  He is a repugnant person, but I don't want him silenced or punished.

People are still allowed their opinions without consequence.  You can say you hate white/coloured/religious/gay people and no one will arrest you.  

We can discuss other places later,  but until then, you CANNOT do that in Sweden---Take a look--

A 53-year-old man from Stockholm has been convicted of offending three women wearing headscarves on the shuttle between Väsby and Märsta. The man held up bacon and ate it in front of them while (allegedly) saying he hated Muslims (and "negroes")



The man will pay each of the three women 5,000 kronor [$625] in damages. In addition, he will pay 9000 kronor [$1125] in fines. The man denies the deeds and said he only wanted to eat his bacon.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/sweden-man-convicted-of-eating-bacon-in-front-of-three-muslims-must-pay-each-625-plus-1125-fine">https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/swed ... -1125-fine">https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/sweden-man-convicted-of-eating-bacon-in-front-of-three-muslims-must-pay-each-625-plus-1125-fine

[Anonymous]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/54/b9/6454b9a1f8fab33a808254cb58e7906d--patriotic-quotes-freedom-of-speech.jpg">https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/54/b9/6454 ... speech.jpg">https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/54/b9/6454b9a1f8fab33a808254cb58e7906d--patriotic-quotes-freedom-of-speech.jpg[/img]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5d/b7/25/5db725a4625f52f6fbfb93769b11b3e3--freedom-quotes-amazing-quotes.jpg">





http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-free-speech-is-a-bourgeois-prejudice-vladimir-lenin-136-79-69.jpg">http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/ ... -79-69.jpg">http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-free-speech-is-a-bourgeois-prejudice-vladimir-lenin-136-79-69.jpg[/img]

https://redgreenalliancedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/stalin-free-speech.jpeg?w=768&h=407">

That's an exaggeration of course..



There's room for all speech as long as it's peaceful..



We can choose to ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Louis Farrakhan of  Nation of islam did exactly that.  he called for the genocide of white people.  He is a repugnant person, but I don't want him silenced or punished.

If he is doing that and anybody is harmed, I would hope he is sued in a civil case at the very least.

[RW]

Do you really not understand that there are restrictions to this freedom and that these restrictions exist usually because the behaviour infringes on the rights of others?



How do you propose a balance in freedom of speech vs infringing on the rights of others?

Restirctions like threats and defamation have been part of common law for centuries, because they harm people severely.



Someone saying they don't like white people, or Muslims or Hispanics may hurt feelings here and there but that's all.  There should never be ANY laws prohibiting it.  

if you think the government exists to protect people's feelings, then lets just get rid of negative speech alltogether-- you can't call anybody stupid, dumb or anything else, don't say a movie sucked, a restaurant had bad food, no negative speech.  



Whoops what happened to freedom?

And if hate speech causes people serious harm, should that speech be illegal? I would think advocating genocide isn't something we'd want to be legal.

Louis Farrakhan of  Nation of islam did exactly that.  he called for the genocide of white people.  He is a repugnant person, but I don't want him silenced or punished.

People are still allowed their opinions without consequence.  You can say you hate white/coloured/religious/gay people and no one will arrest you.  

We can discuss other places later,  but until then, you CANNOT do that in Sweden---Take a look--

A 53-year-old man from Stockholm has been convicted of offending three women wearing headscarves on the shuttle between Väsby and Märsta. The man held up bacon and ate it in front of them while (allegedly) saying he hated Muslims (and "negroes")



The man will pay each of the three women 5,000 kronor [$625] in damages. In addition, he will pay 9000 kronor [$1125] in fines. The man denies the deeds and said he only wanted to eat his bacon.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/sweden-man-convicted-of-eating-bacon-in-front-of-three-muslims-must-pay-each-625-plus-1125-fine">https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/swed ... -1125-fine">https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/sweden-man-convicted-of-eating-bacon-in-front-of-three-muslims-must-pay-each-625-plus-1125-fine

I am not a big fan of making bullying illegal but I fully support arresting those who call for genocide or death to others.  Even without hate speech laws, its threatening a group with violence.



Next you're going to tell me you don't think people should be prosecuted for threatening to take other people's rights away.

[Harry]

So, laughing's not free speech?

Woman who laughed during Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing turns down plea deal, gets second trial

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-laughed-sessions-hearing-trial-article-1.3461258">//http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-laughed-sessions-hearing-trial-article-1.3461258

She may not get the last laugh after all.



A woman who was arrested for chuckling during Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing in January will be tried a second time, according to HuffPost.



Desiree Fairooz had been previously convicted for her noisy disruption, but the 61-year-old protester caught a break when a judge threw out the guilty verdict in July.



She had a chance to avoid a second trial, but rejected a plea deal because it would have been an admission of guilt, she told HuffPost.



Judge tosses conviction of protester who laughed at Jeff Sessions



Now the Justice Department, headed by Sessions, will put Fairooz on trial again in November.



Fairooz had been busted for "disorderly and disruptive conduct" during Sessions' Attorney General confirmation hearing, along with two other protesters. She laughed when an Alabama senator testified that Sessions had a record of "treating all Americans equally under the law."



Sessions saw a possible federal judgeship in the 1980s go up in smoke after being accused of racial discrimination.



Fairooz was convicted in May, along with the other two protesters and faced one year in prison. However, a judge overturned the conviction two months later on the grounds that the government made improper arguments. Judge Robert Morin said that the laughter alone was not enough to convict.

[Anonymous]

I remember you laughed at The Daily Caller as a source. You just quoted a prog tabloid. ac_toofunny

[Harry]

I remember you laughed at The Daily Caller as a source. You just quoted a prog tabloid. ac_toofunny

Point taken.  



CNN are running it.



http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/doj-woman-laughed-jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing/index.html">//http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/doj-woman-laughed-jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing/index.html



It doesn't seem to be on Fox yet.

[Harry]

The above articles are just updates regarding the outcome of Friday's status hearing where the prosecution publicly stated the decision to retry.



Here's a six week old article from Fox News which mentions the Sep 1 status hearing.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/14/judge-sets-new-trial-for-protester-who-laughed-at-jeff-sessions.html">//http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/14/judge-sets-new-trial-for-protester-who-laughed-at-jeff-sessions.html



Happy now?

[RW]

The above articles are just updates regarding the outcome of Friday's status hearing where the prosecution publicly stated the decision to retry.



Here's a six week old article from Fox News which mentions the Sep 1 status hearing.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/14/judge-sets-new-trial-for-protester-who-laughed-at-jeff-sessions.html">//http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/14/judge-sets-new-trial-for-protester-who-laughed-at-jeff-sessions.html



Happy now?

The issue that I have with so many of these arguments is people tend to only argue the application they like but when the shoe is on the other foot, they say nothing or even support the exact opposite.



Nothing will be said about this that will support the cause of free speech by this crowd.