FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Steven Pinker: 4 reasons for defending free speech

Steven Pinker: 4 reasons for defending free speech

(11:23) Steven Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-born American cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: MouseTrap (252 days ago)

The USA needs more people like Pinker. So many naive citizens of the USA still believe they have Freedom of Speech. The gulf between the dream they are fed and reality widens by the day.

ReplyVote up (101)down (38)
Original comment

The USA needs more people like Pinker. So many naive citizens of the USA still believe they have Freedom of Speech. The gulf between the dream they are fed and reality widens by the day.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

Wonderful to see COncernedCitizen crawling back to this site, complete with his usual vague attempts at DoS upvoting. Some people are unable to learn.

Original comment

Wonderful to see COncernedCitizen crawling back to this site, complete with his usual vague attempts at DoS upvoting. Some people are unable to learn.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

How do you know it's him? I'd like to see those logs with the IP addresses so they can be traced.

Original comment

How do you know it's him? I'd like to see those logs with the IP addresses so they can be traced.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

I bet you would. You're not as smart as you like to think.

If you ever get to join the group, you'd be surprised at how much info people can gather from "harmless" and "anonymous" activity.

Original comment

I bet you would. You're not as smart as you like to think.

If you ever get to join the group, you'd be surprised at how much info people can gather from "harmless" and "anonymous" activity.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (253 days ago)

In the USA, free speech has only one exclusion, eminent danger. So you cannot say you're going to kill someone, for example. Hate speech is legal.

In the UK, there are so many exclusions that you can say they do not have freedom of speech. You cannot "alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace". You cannot have a racist speech. You cannot incite religious hatred. You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen or have any image of a dead queen. You cannot even publish post-trial interviews with jurors.

ReplyVote up (101)down (65)
Original comment

In the USA, free speech has only one exclusion, eminent danger. So you cannot say you're going to kill someone, for example. Hate speech is legal.

In the UK, there are so many exclusions that you can say they do not have freedom of speech. You cannot "alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace". You cannot have a racist speech. You cannot incite religious hatred. You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen or have any image of a dead queen. You cannot even publish post-trial interviews with jurors.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (253 days ago)

Really, did you think that? That's cute. There is no meaningful freedom of speech in the USA. What you said was factually untrue. There are many exclusions. Write these down so you know for next time.

Obsecenity.. anything that appeals to sexual interest, anything that describes excretion or sex in an offensive way, anything that is deemed to be without artistic merit.

Lies.. anything in an official capacity (including advertising) that is factually untrue. The exception to this exception is politicians. Great system guys.

Student speech.. students don't have freedom of speech at all and all educators can curtail freedom of speech basically as they see fit.

Political views.. the US government can choose the time, place and manner of how you voice your opinions. They can move you to a 'freedom of speech' zone where no one gets to hear what you're saying. What a joke.

The list goes on, 'fighting speech', 'inciting speech' (different things), 'commericial speech' etc. etc. etc. Such a messed up system. "Only one exclusion", oh you poor naive fool!

ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment

Really, did you think that? That's cute. There is no meaningful freedom of speech in the USA. What you said was factually untrue. There are many exclusions. Write these down so you know for next time.

Obsecenity.. anything that appeals to sexual interest, anything that describes excretion or sex in an offensive way, anything that is deemed to be without artistic merit.

Lies.. anything in an official capacity (including advertising) that is factually untrue. The exception to this exception is politicians. Great system guys.

Student speech.. students don't have freedom of speech at all and all educators can curtail freedom of speech basically as they see fit.

Political views.. the US government can choose the time, place and manner of how you voice your opinions. They can move you to a 'freedom of speech' zone where no one gets to hear what you're saying. What a joke.

The list goes on, 'fighting speech', 'inciting speech' (different things), 'commericial speech' etc. etc. etc. Such a messed up system. "Only one exclusion", oh you poor naive fool!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (253 days ago)

Some of what you state are not speech. Obsecenity for example. Burning a cross on someone front lawn is also not speech and is against the law for other reasons such as arson, destruction of property, etc. Publishing photos of a naked minor child is not speech either so don't be ridiculous about your claims.

You are allowed to lie in public. I can go around and tell people that I'm only 12 years old and that is not illegal. Telling wrong information in an advertisement can be a civil matter, not a criminal one, because people can sue for false advertisement and can cause a class action suit. That doesn't mean you would go to jail for it.

Students have free speech so I don't know where you got your alternative facts from. Even in private colleges, students enjoy more free speech than they should be given. As an owner of an establishment, I have the right to have anyone removed that I want if they violate any rules that I make. You can even tell your students they have to wear a uniform and they can be dismissed if they don't wear said uniform.

Political views are protected by the 1st amendment so I can state my political views anywhere I want and not be arrested for it. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

ReplyVote up (101)down (36)
Original comment

Some of what you state are not speech. Obsecenity for example. Burning a cross on someone front lawn is also not speech and is against the law for other reasons such as arson, destruction of property, etc. Publishing photos of a naked minor child is not speech either so don't be ridiculous about your claims.

You are allowed to lie in public. I can go around and tell people that I'm only 12 years old and that is not illegal. Telling wrong information in an advertisement can be a civil matter, not a criminal one, because people can sue for false advertisement and can cause a class action suit. That doesn't mean you would go to jail for it.

Students have free speech so I don't know where you got your alternative facts from. Even in private colleges, students enjoy more free speech than they should be given. As an owner of an establishment, I have the right to have anyone removed that I want if they violate any rules that I make. You can even tell your students they have to wear a uniform and they can be dismissed if they don't wear said uniform.

Political views are protected by the 1st amendment so I can state my political views anywhere I want and not be arrested for it. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (252 days ago)

If you are serious, this is going to rock your little world:

Freedom of speech isn't just about speech, it's about expression of opinions, be it on paper, in pictures, or verbally. An opinion can be obscene, and if and when it is then USA so-called FoS will not protect it, even when it is spoken out loud.

Lying is not protected by FoS either. Look up 'False statements of fact'. Whether legal action is taken, or punishment is given, is down to the harm or intended harm that your lies might cause, but you can't use FoS to get you out of it.

Student speech in the USA is definitely limited because educators are in loco parentis. They can restrict any speech that interferes with discipline, speech about drugs,"vulgar and offensive" language, and even silence school-operated newspapers.

No, in the USA you can't voice your political views wherever you want. They can make restrictions on the 'time, place and manner', and can move you to a location of their choosing ('free speech zone'!). They can say that your expression of political views is incompatible with the normal activity in that place and stop you. H.R. 347 also stops you from peacefully protesting within proximity of any high-ranking official that the Secret Service are protecting.

Prattling on about whether you can be arrested or go to jail for it is missing the point. Arrest is only one way of curtailing FoS and the USA seem to have plenty of others. Any restriction, censorship, or penalty counts against FoS.

I can't believe me how little about this you knew. It's all on Google. Educate yourself.

ReplyVote up (4)down (101)
Original comment

If you are serious, this is going to rock your little world:

Freedom of speech isn't just about speech, it's about expression of opinions, be it on paper, in pictures, or verbally. An opinion can be obscene, and if and when it is then USA so-called FoS will not protect it, even when it is spoken out loud.

Lying is not protected by FoS either. Look up 'False statements of fact'. Whether legal action is taken, or punishment is given, is down to the harm or intended harm that your lies might cause, but you can't use FoS to get you out of it.

Student speech in the USA is definitely limited because educators are in loco parentis. They can restrict any speech that interferes with discipline, speech about drugs,"vulgar and offensive" language, and even silence school-operated newspapers.

No, in the USA you can't voice your political views wherever you want. They can make restrictions on the 'time, place and manner', and can move you to a location of their choosing ('free speech zone'!). They can say that your expression of political views is incompatible with the normal activity in that place and stop you. H.R. 347 also stops you from peacefully protesting within proximity of any high-ranking official that the Secret Service are protecting.

Prattling on about whether you can be arrested or go to jail for it is missing the point. Arrest is only one way of curtailing FoS and the USA seem to have plenty of others. Any restriction, censorship, or penalty counts against FoS.

I can't believe me how little about this you knew. It's all on Google. Educate yourself.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (252 days ago)

I agree that freedom of speech can be about expression of opinions on paper, in pictures, or verbally. That doesn't mean that any picture has an opinion in it so it should be legal. Child porn is still illegal because it is exploiting children, not sharing an opinion.

Lying is protected by freedom of speech. Trump lies on a daily basis. Hillary lied. They didn't go to jail for it.

Educators have a job to do and if a student is disruptive to the class or prevents the teacher from doing their job, you can remove the student. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about disruption. An example is if you bring in a set of drums and start banging them while the teacher is trying to lecture will result in you getting ejected. But, it's important to understand that if you do say something while on school grounds that is not eminent danger, you cannot be arrested for it.

About school operated papers, those are not owned by the students. Even the New York Times editors have final say on what articles will be published. If you want to start your own paper, then you're free to write whatever the hell you want.

Your understanding of the HR347 bill is flawed. It made it a federal crime to trespass on the White House grounds. You are not free to go anywhere you want any time you want so that's why you're not free to speak anywhere you want. For example, I'm not free to go into NORAD so of course I cannot have free speech there -- I'm not allowed to go there! Duh.

Arresting is important in determining if something is Free Speech or not. If I can say it and not get arrested, then I'm free to do it. The government doesn't stop it. Now, on the other hand, if I say something that is false and damages someone's reputation and they lose money because of it, that person can sue me for libel or slander. Still, that is not the governement telling me I cannot do that. It is only a civil matter, not a criminal one.

ReplyVote up (101)down (20)
Original comment

I agree that freedom of speech can be about expression of opinions on paper, in pictures, or verbally. That doesn't mean that any picture has an opinion in it so it should be legal. Child porn is still illegal because it is exploiting children, not sharing an opinion.

Lying is protected by freedom of speech. Trump lies on a daily basis. Hillary lied. They didn't go to jail for it.

Educators have a job to do and if a student is disruptive to the class or prevents the teacher from doing their job, you can remove the student. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about disruption. An example is if you bring in a set of drums and start banging them while the teacher is trying to lecture will result in you getting ejected. But, it's important to understand that if you do say something while on school grounds that is not eminent danger, you cannot be arrested for it.

About school operated papers, those are not owned by the students. Even the New York Times editors have final say on what articles will be published. If you want to start your own paper, then you're free to write whatever the hell you want.

Your understanding of the HR347 bill is flawed. It made it a federal crime to trespass on the White House grounds. You are not free to go anywhere you want any time you want so that's why you're not free to speak anywhere you want. For example, I'm not free to go into NORAD so of course I cannot have free speech there -- I'm not allowed to go there! Duh.

Arresting is important in determining if something is Free Speech or not. If I can say it and not get arrested, then I'm free to do it. The government doesn't stop it. Now, on the other hand, if I say something that is false and damages someone's reputation and they lose money because of it, that person can sue me for libel or slander. Still, that is not the governement telling me I cannot do that. It is only a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (252 days ago)

Read my post? I pointed out that the bizarre exception to the lying clause is politicians, who in the USA can lie as much as they like. The rest of you can't claim FoS as a defence for outright lying.

Yes, educators have a job to do, and in the USA that job allows them to deny students freedom of speech. For example, if your teachers can expel you for peacefully (even silently) expressing an opinion that is anti-war (the Tinker case), even if it doesn't impact discipline, then you don't have FoS. Or, if as a student you want to start a free newspaper, but you can't because they have to be operated by the school, and the school prohibits whatever articles it chooses (such as an article about divorce), then you don't have FoS.

No, HR347 is not just about White House grounds. Look it up. It covers any "building or grounds restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event", including anywhere that the official happens to be attending. Notable cases have even included sports games! Again, no FoS. "Duh" indeed! They will choose the "time, place and manner" .

You are still obsessing about whether you be arrested or go to jail. If you drive without insurance in the USA, it is very unlikely you will be arrested. You may get a fine, lose your license, lose your car, but you won't be arrested for that alone, even though it's 'not allowed'. Arrest is is only one form of controlling behaviour. Don't you get that? Look, if you were told that you will be fined $100 every time you insult the Republicans, but never arrested, then that would be against FoS. If you were told you can only talk about religion at 4am halfway up Mount Whitney, that would be against FoS. Get it?

It really seems as if all this is new to you. If so, I'm glad I can help you out.

ReplyVote up (40)down (101)
Original comment

Read my post? I pointed out that the bizarre exception to the lying clause is politicians, who in the USA can lie as much as they like. The rest of you can't claim FoS as a defence for outright lying.

Yes, educators have a job to do, and in the USA that job allows them to deny students freedom of speech. For example, if your teachers can expel you for peacefully (even silently) expressing an opinion that is anti-war (the Tinker case), even if it doesn't impact discipline, then you don't have FoS. Or, if as a student you want to start a free newspaper, but you can't because they have to be operated by the school, and the school prohibits whatever articles it chooses (such as an article about divorce), then you don't have FoS.

No, HR347 is not just about White House grounds. Look it up. It covers any "building or grounds restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event", including anywhere that the official happens to be attending. Notable cases have even included sports games! Again, no FoS. "Duh" indeed! They will choose the "time, place and manner" .

You are still obsessing about whether you be arrested or go to jail. If you drive without insurance in the USA, it is very unlikely you will be arrested. You may get a fine, lose your license, lose your car, but you won't be arrested for that alone, even though it's 'not allowed'. Arrest is is only one form of controlling behaviour. Don't you get that? Look, if you were told that you will be fined $100 every time you insult the Republicans, but never arrested, then that would be against FoS. If you were told you can only talk about religion at 4am halfway up Mount Whitney, that would be against FoS. Get it?

It really seems as if all this is new to you. If so, I'm glad I can help you out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

If you are in a public school, a teacher cannot expel you for silently expressing your opinion that is anti-war. You referred to the Tinker case but did you actually read the ruling? People on this site must not know how to read what they themselves are referring. Specifically in the Tinker case, the supreme court ruled in favor of the students and the students' free rights should be protected and students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.

If you go to a private school, that school may have rules and codes of conduct that are more strict and could get you expelled if you violate them. If you've ever seen Will Smith's TV series "The Fresh Prince of BelAir" then you would see that everyone must wear a uniform. It's in their rules and you can be expelled if you don't comply. But Will Smith's character found a loophole. He wears his uniform but wears it inside out. It's colorful on the inside so he definitely looks different from everyone else. The private schools can have you removed from the premises if you violate rules because they own that property and can determine who can be there.

Students are allowed to start their own free newspaper if they want. That's called freedom of the press and is part of our 1st amendment too. Do you have any cases that were upheld that disallowed it?

HR347 is absolutely about the White House grounds (and the Vice President's residence). It was there to clarify an earlier law about those "special events" that you are referring to. It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. Refer to the Supreme Court ruling on "United States v Bursey, 04-4832" (I cannot post links as a guest). Clearly this man had a sign that was anti-war. He was arrested and nowhere in the prosecution did he get in trouble for his anti-war stance. It was about violating Title 18 U.S. Code 1752 - Restricted building or grounds. He was asked to leave the restricted area many times and refused. It was swarming with Secret Service because the President was arriving. When he refused to leave, they gave a final warning that he will be arrested. Still he refused. He was arrested.

If you read the Bursey case in detail, everyone including ticket holders to the event had to leave and all cars passing through that area were stopped. Bursey incorrectly thought the Airport was public property so he had every right to be there and couldn't be removed. His ignorance of the law was no excuse especially after he was warned so many times. He was not quoted the specific law that he was violating at the time so he thought the secret service didn't know what they were doing and remained on the grounds. He was wrong and ultimately paid the price which was a $500 fine plus a $10 special assessment.

We do have laws that you must have insurance to drive. That has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press so I don't know why you are bringing that up. By the way, that isn't really true. Extremely rich people do not have to have insurance because they are considered to be "self insured" and it's clear that they could pay the $10,000 that is the minimum insurance coverage you're allowed to drive with.

Perhaps I should have said "arrested" as much as I should have said criminal offense versus civil offense. Criminal offenses are illegal activity that could get you arrested or it could get you a fine. It could even get you a warning if you have a nice police officer. But civil offenses do not get people arrested but you are still accountable for your actions and could be forced to pay for what you have done. Causing an accident is a good example. it's not criminal if it's truly an accident but since it's your fault, you will be the one liable to pay for the accident. If you don't pay, the people who had their cars damaged can sue you and get a judgment against you.

You're right that if I had to pay $100 for every time I insult republicans, that would be against Freedom of Speech. But it isn't illegal to insult republicans and I do that on a daily basis. I will never have to pay a fine for doing so.

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

If you are in a public school, a teacher cannot expel you for silently expressing your opinion that is anti-war. You referred to the Tinker case but did you actually read the ruling? People on this site must not know how to read what they themselves are referring. Specifically in the Tinker case, the supreme court ruled in favor of the students and the students' free rights should be protected and students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.

If you go to a private school, that school may have rules and codes of conduct that are more strict and could get you expelled if you violate them. If you've ever seen Will Smith's TV series "The Fresh Prince of BelAir" then you would see that everyone must wear a uniform. It's in their rules and you can be expelled if you don't comply. But Will Smith's character found a loophole. He wears his uniform but wears it inside out. It's colorful on the inside so he definitely looks different from everyone else. The private schools can have you removed from the premises if you violate rules because they own that property and can determine who can be there.

Students are allowed to start their own free newspaper if they want. That's called freedom of the press and is part of our 1st amendment too. Do you have any cases that were upheld that disallowed it?

HR347 is absolutely about the White House grounds (and the Vice President's residence). It was there to clarify an earlier law about those "special events" that you are referring to. It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. Refer to the Supreme Court ruling on "United States v Bursey, 04-4832" (I cannot post links as a guest). Clearly this man had a sign that was anti-war. He was arrested and nowhere in the prosecution did he get in trouble for his anti-war stance. It was about violating Title 18 U.S. Code 1752 - Restricted building or grounds. He was asked to leave the restricted area many times and refused. It was swarming with Secret Service because the President was arriving. When he refused to leave, they gave a final warning that he will be arrested. Still he refused. He was arrested.

If you read the Bursey case in detail, everyone including ticket holders to the event had to leave and all cars passing through that area were stopped. Bursey incorrectly thought the Airport was public property so he had every right to be there and couldn't be removed. His ignorance of the law was no excuse especially after he was warned so many times. He was not quoted the specific law that he was violating at the time so he thought the secret service didn't know what they were doing and remained on the grounds. He was wrong and ultimately paid the price which was a $500 fine plus a $10 special assessment.

We do have laws that you must have insurance to drive. That has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press so I don't know why you are bringing that up. By the way, that isn't really true. Extremely rich people do not have to have insurance because they are considered to be "self insured" and it's clear that they could pay the $10,000 that is the minimum insurance coverage you're allowed to drive with.

Perhaps I should have said "arrested" as much as I should have said criminal offense versus civil offense. Criminal offenses are illegal activity that could get you arrested or it could get you a fine. It could even get you a warning if you have a nice police officer. But civil offenses do not get people arrested but you are still accountable for your actions and could be forced to pay for what you have done. Causing an accident is a good example. it's not criminal if it's truly an accident but since it's your fault, you will be the one liable to pay for the accident. If you don't pay, the people who had their cars damaged can sue you and get a judgment against you.

You're right that if I had to pay $100 for every time I insult republicans, that would be against Freedom of Speech. But it isn't illegal to insult republicans and I do that on a daily basis. I will never have to pay a fine for doing so.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Did YOU read the Tinker ruling? The school suspended the students for exercising FoS, and even when courts later found in the students’ favour it was explained exactly when educators are legally entitled to restrict FoS – namely when they deem that the speech might “interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline” – that’s far broader than eminent danger. Censoring speech, for any reason, is against FoS. If students start their own paper within a school-sponsored venue, the school has the right to censor their speech for educational reasons (Kuhilmeier) – again, nothing to do with danger. And don’t get me started on your ‘Freedom of the press’ protections… according to RSF index of 2017, you’re 43rd in the WORLD, just behind Belize and Burkina Faso. Good work!

HR347, I have spelled out the exact line which shows you it is NOT about White House grounds. Do you disagree with the wording of the federal law itself? It refers to ANY “building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance. " That means that you are NOT allowed to peacefully protest if you are told the building or grounds are subject to a ‘special event’. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE. It was such an issue people are still campaigning about it – I’m surprised you missed it. And yes, that IS a restriction of Freedom of speech. If you are told where and when you can speak then obviously, clearly, you don’t have the right to FoS. You may get away with it, but you don't have a right.

My reference to not having car insurance was a bit obscure for you; it was simply an example of something that is clearly illegal, something which isn’t allowed, that you still cannot be arrested for. In the same way, sometimes your speech in the USA is considered illegal, and not allowed, because of its “time, place or manner” - and while you won’t be arrested, you are still restricted. Whether the restriction comes from civil or criminal law is arbitrary. If you have ANY type of laws in the land that limit FoS with ANY penalty whatsoever, then obviously your FoS is challenged beyond mere danger.

You’re right, you don’t get fined when you insult Republicans… it was a hypothetical example of a penalty that controls behaviour without arrest. Keep up! However, if you tried to insult Republicans at a basketball match where Mike Pence was in attendance, you can be legally removed. If you tried to do so somewhere on the street, again you can be legally moved on to a ‘free speech zone’. Etc etc.

I’m baffled how Americans can say provably false statements like “free speech has only one exclusion” before spending days furiously arguing with the countless exclusions and precedents that come up that they had never even heard of.

The reason you believe you have FoS is that you don’t understand the term. You think being told when, where and how you speak are not restrictions. They are. Do us a favour and Google ‘time place and manner restrictions’. Maybe you think they’re reasonable restrictions, but they are still restrictions that aren’t ‘eminent danger’ so you were wrong. Take the lesson and move on with your life.

ReplyVote up (3)down (101)
Original comment

Did YOU read the Tinker ruling? The school suspended the students for exercising FoS, and even when courts later found in the students’ favour it was explained exactly when educators are legally entitled to restrict FoS – namely when they deem that the speech might “interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline” – that’s far broader than eminent danger. Censoring speech, for any reason, is against FoS. If students start their own paper within a school-sponsored venue, the school has the right to censor their speech for educational reasons (Kuhilmeier) – again, nothing to do with danger. And don’t get me started on your ‘Freedom of the press’ protections… according to RSF index of 2017, you’re 43rd in the WORLD, just behind Belize and Burkina Faso. Good work!

HR347, I have spelled out the exact line which shows you it is NOT about White House grounds. Do you disagree with the wording of the federal law itself? It refers to ANY “building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance. " That means that you are NOT allowed to peacefully protest if you are told the building or grounds are subject to a ‘special event’. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE. It was such an issue people are still campaigning about it – I’m surprised you missed it. And yes, that IS a restriction of Freedom of speech. If you are told where and when you can speak then obviously, clearly, you don’t have the right to FoS. You may get away with it, but you don't have a right.

My reference to not having car insurance was a bit obscure for you; it was simply an example of something that is clearly illegal, something which isn’t allowed, that you still cannot be arrested for. In the same way, sometimes your speech in the USA is considered illegal, and not allowed, because of its “time, place or manner” - and while you won’t be arrested, you are still restricted. Whether the restriction comes from civil or criminal law is arbitrary. If you have ANY type of laws in the land that limit FoS with ANY penalty whatsoever, then obviously your FoS is challenged beyond mere danger.

You’re right, you don’t get fined when you insult Republicans… it was a hypothetical example of a penalty that controls behaviour without arrest. Keep up! However, if you tried to insult Republicans at a basketball match where Mike Pence was in attendance, you can be legally removed. If you tried to do so somewhere on the street, again you can be legally moved on to a ‘free speech zone’. Etc etc.

I’m baffled how Americans can say provably false statements like “free speech has only one exclusion” before spending days furiously arguing with the countless exclusions and precedents that come up that they had never even heard of.

The reason you believe you have FoS is that you don’t understand the term. You think being told when, where and how you speak are not restrictions. They are. Do us a favour and Google ‘time place and manner restrictions’. Maybe you think they’re reasonable restrictions, but they are still restrictions that aren’t ‘eminent danger’ so you were wrong. Take the lesson and move on with your life.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Dear lord, you must be dense or something.

HR347 is about restricting the entry of people into the White House grounds and the Vice President's residence. It modifys a prior law to make it more clear that it also includes those locations. You have some stupid idea that if you're restricted from entering a place that your freedom of speech is being violated. Well then, if you want to think of it that way, I can prohibit my neighbor from entering my house so I'm taking his ability of free speech away. What an idiot.

If you want to wear a t-shirt to the Super Bowl stating Trump is stupid, you're allowed to do that. There's nothing prohibiting you from saying what you want there. But, it is a private venue and not owned by the public so if you're disturbing other people, they have the right to eject you from the premises.

You somehow think that you should be able to go anywhere at any time and do whatever you want. That is not what freedom of speech is. There are many restricted locations that the general public is not allowed to go. That is not restricting freedom of speech. Due to freedom of the press, I'm allowed to go into the mall and take photos of anything I want there. Nobody can stop me from taking the pictures. However, since that is private property, the only thing they can do is ask me to leave. Do you get it now? Did that penetrate your thick head?

About being legally removed from a basketball match if Mike Pence was there shows you still don't get it. You do not have the right to be there except that the owner of the venue allows you to be there. They can eject you from the building for any reason that breaks one of their rules that they make up. As an example, we have the right to carry guns in the USA. But the basketball venue proably disallows that so you cannot bring your gun. If you do, you can be ejected. They create the rules just like I create the rules in my own home. If one of my guests starts making a fuss over something I disagree with, I have the right to remove that person from my home. Understand it yet? Are we getting close at least?

I think you need to reread the Tinker rule because it's clear the supreme court sided with the students.

You said if a student starts their own paper but then said within a school-sponsored venue. That makes no sense. If they want to remember what is going on during that venue and then go home and write about it on their own time on their own equipment using their own electricity and paper, they can do that. If the school required people to sign a NDA before going into the venue, then you could be accountable for any civil penalties during a suit for breaking the NDA confidentiality.

ReplyVote up (101)down (6)
Original comment

Dear lord, you must be dense or something.

HR347 is about restricting the entry of people into the White House grounds and the Vice President's residence. It modifys a prior law to make it more clear that it also includes those locations. You have some stupid idea that if you're restricted from entering a place that your freedom of speech is being violated. Well then, if you want to think of it that way, I can prohibit my neighbor from entering my house so I'm taking his ability of free speech away. What an idiot.

If you want to wear a t-shirt to the Super Bowl stating Trump is stupid, you're allowed to do that. There's nothing prohibiting you from saying what you want there. But, it is a private venue and not owned by the public so if you're disturbing other people, they have the right to eject you from the premises.

You somehow think that you should be able to go anywhere at any time and do whatever you want. That is not what freedom of speech is. There are many restricted locations that the general public is not allowed to go. That is not restricting freedom of speech. Due to freedom of the press, I'm allowed to go into the mall and take photos of anything I want there. Nobody can stop me from taking the pictures. However, since that is private property, the only thing they can do is ask me to leave. Do you get it now? Did that penetrate your thick head?

About being legally removed from a basketball match if Mike Pence was there shows you still don't get it. You do not have the right to be there except that the owner of the venue allows you to be there. They can eject you from the building for any reason that breaks one of their rules that they make up. As an example, we have the right to carry guns in the USA. But the basketball venue proably disallows that so you cannot bring your gun. If you do, you can be ejected. They create the rules just like I create the rules in my own home. If one of my guests starts making a fuss over something I disagree with, I have the right to remove that person from my home. Understand it yet? Are we getting close at least?

I think you need to reread the Tinker rule because it's clear the supreme court sided with the students.

You said if a student starts their own paper but then said within a school-sponsored venue. That makes no sense. If they want to remember what is going on during that venue and then go home and write about it on their own time on their own equipment using their own electricity and paper, they can do that. If the school required people to sign a NDA before going into the venue, then you could be accountable for any civil penalties during a suit for breaking the NDA confidentiality.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Oh dear dear. Now you’re all upset because you’re out of your depth, struggling to justify what you’d always been told. Look, I’m just the messenger. I will ask you again, look it up. Search GovTrack HR347 and you will see the exact wording of the law. READ IT.

Go to section C)1)C: (B)."a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be TEMPORARILY VISITING ; or(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a SPECIAL EVENT of national significance."

But you think it’s just about the White House and the VP residence? Poor fool. It’s not about being in places you’re not allowed to go to, or trespassing, because you have existing laws for that (25 CFR 11.411), don’t you? In fact, that whole section or HR347 is precisely to cover places that the public ARE allowed to go to, such as sporting events. Or do you think that everyone who attends the Olympics is trespassing? Duh.

No, I don’t think free speech means you can go anywhere and do anything you want. Where did I say that? Creating strawmen now because you can’t argue against my actual points? You don’t have the RIGHT to voice your political opinions at the Super Bowl. It’s not the stadium staff or owners that care, it’s the Secret Service. Sure, you can wear a t-shirt if you like, but the Secret Service are well within the law to remove you and punish you because the Super Bowl is an NSSE. They might not, in the same way you can drive a car without insurance and get away with it, but you don’t have that right and you never will, even if the venue is public, even if you’re in the street if there is a temporary visit or a special event there. The fact you have ‘free speech zones’ proves that they control exactly where you have free speech.

I said the court sided with the students in the Tinker case, but again if you had read it you’d know the court also explained where educators CAN restrict freedom of speech, and it’s NOT about ‘eminent danger’ as you originally but broadly about any discipline. I’ve copied and pasted the exact wording. Which bit don’t you understand?

If a student came into school with their own paper and pens, and disseminated their own leaflets about divorce or abortion inside the school, the school still has a right to restrict them for ‘educational reasons’ because it’s within a “school sponsored venue”. It’s nothing to do with eminent danger or even discipline. Or do you think because they’re passing it round under the school electric lights, the school has a right to restrict it? Well be careful what you say under someone else’s streetlight, you terrified twit!

Look, a minor tweak would have saved you this meltdown. You originally said “In the USA, free speech has only one exclusion, eminent danger.”

I think what you must have meant is “In the USA, free speech has many exceptions, including eminent danger, disorderly speech at a venue where the Secret Service are in attendance, disorderly or disruptive speech in any public location that is temporarily supervised by the Secret Service, protest speech outside of a ‘free speech zone’ where such a thing has been arranged, defamatory speech, commercial speech, speech that threatens discipline or opposes educational values, and various other restrictions to ‘time, place and manner’ of the speech.”

Now you know. Any questions?

ReplyVote up (33)down (101)
Original comment

Oh dear dear. Now you’re all upset because you’re out of your depth, struggling to justify what you’d always been told. Look, I’m just the messenger. I will ask you again, look it up. Search GovTrack HR347 and you will see the exact wording of the law. READ IT.

Go to section C)1)C: (B)."a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be TEMPORARILY VISITING ; or(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a SPECIAL EVENT of national significance."

But you think it’s just about the White House and the VP residence? Poor fool. It’s not about being in places you’re not allowed to go to, or trespassing, because you have existing laws for that (25 CFR 11.411), don’t you? In fact, that whole section or HR347 is precisely to cover places that the public ARE allowed to go to, such as sporting events. Or do you think that everyone who attends the Olympics is trespassing? Duh.

No, I don’t think free speech means you can go anywhere and do anything you want. Where did I say that? Creating strawmen now because you can’t argue against my actual points? You don’t have the RIGHT to voice your political opinions at the Super Bowl. It’s not the stadium staff or owners that care, it’s the Secret Service. Sure, you can wear a t-shirt if you like, but the Secret Service are well within the law to remove you and punish you because the Super Bowl is an NSSE. They might not, in the same way you can drive a car without insurance and get away with it, but you don’t have that right and you never will, even if the venue is public, even if you’re in the street if there is a temporary visit or a special event there. The fact you have ‘free speech zones’ proves that they control exactly where you have free speech.

I said the court sided with the students in the Tinker case, but again if you had read it you’d know the court also explained where educators CAN restrict freedom of speech, and it’s NOT about ‘eminent danger’ as you originally but broadly about any discipline. I’ve copied and pasted the exact wording. Which bit don’t you understand?

If a student came into school with their own paper and pens, and disseminated their own leaflets about divorce or abortion inside the school, the school still has a right to restrict them for ‘educational reasons’ because it’s within a “school sponsored venue”. It’s nothing to do with eminent danger or even discipline. Or do you think because they’re passing it round under the school electric lights, the school has a right to restrict it? Well be careful what you say under someone else’s streetlight, you terrified twit!

Look, a minor tweak would have saved you this meltdown. You originally said “In the USA, free speech has only one exclusion, eminent danger.”

I think what you must have meant is “In the USA, free speech has many exceptions, including eminent danger, disorderly speech at a venue where the Secret Service are in attendance, disorderly or disruptive speech in any public location that is temporarily supervised by the Secret Service, protest speech outside of a ‘free speech zone’ where such a thing has been arranged, defamatory speech, commercial speech, speech that threatens discipline or opposes educational values, and various other restrictions to ‘time, place and manner’ of the speech.”

Now you know. Any questions?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Did you read the law that HR347 modified? Try reading it for a change. I mentioned it before and I'll say it one more time. Title 18 U.S. Code 1752. Notice that it has the new working about the White House and the Vice President's home and does not mention anything about restriction of freedom of speech in those sections. It's not about places people ARE allowed to go, it's about places the people ARE NOT allowed to go hence the name "Restricted building or grounds."

Free speech zones have been provided by many schools so students have a place to discuss whatever they want without disrupting classes that are in session. Free speech does not mean you can be a nuisance and prevent other people from learning.

Students are allowed to disseminate their own leaflets if they want. That's freedom of the press. Show me a case that has been upheld where a student was arrested or fined for doing so but not for disruption, trespassing, or any other crime. Unless it is a private school, public schools do not shed freedom of speech rights while on campus. That was already stated in the Tinker case as you must have already seen but refuse to believe.

ReplyVote up (101)down (1)
Original comment

Did you read the law that HR347 modified? Try reading it for a change. I mentioned it before and I'll say it one more time. Title 18 U.S. Code 1752. Notice that it has the new working about the White House and the Vice President's home and does not mention anything about restriction of freedom of speech in those sections. It's not about places people ARE allowed to go, it's about places the people ARE NOT allowed to go hence the name "Restricted building or grounds."

Free speech zones have been provided by many schools so students have a place to discuss whatever they want without disrupting classes that are in session. Free speech does not mean you can be a nuisance and prevent other people from learning.

Students are allowed to disseminate their own leaflets if they want. That's freedom of the press. Show me a case that has been upheld where a student was arrested or fined for doing so but not for disruption, trespassing, or any other crime. Unless it is a private school, public schools do not shed freedom of speech rights while on campus. That was already stated in the Tinker case as you must have already seen but refuse to believe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Yes, I read the modified HR347 which is how I quoted it. Yes, it mentions the White House, but the problem is (as I have pointed out 3 or 4 times), it also includes anywhere that another “person protected by the Secret Service is or will be TEMPORARILY VISITING ; or a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a SPECIAL EVENT of national significance." I'm getting deja vu. I feel like I'm trying to explain chess to a pigeon.

Do you understand the implications? That means it isn’t trespassing to be at the Super Bowl but if you stand outside and picket, even when it’s a public place, then the Secret Service has the legal right to remove you or prosecute. It’s an NSSE. I can’t make that any more obvious for you. Get over it! They are your laws. If you don’t like them, vote to change them. (Oh my bad, it doesn’t work like that in the states.)

If it’s about trespass on White House property, why is HR347 there? Genuine question. Weren’t there already laws to stop you jumping the fence at the White House, or did you guys only just think of stopping that kind of behaviour?

Holy crap! You genuinely don’t know what a Free Speech zone is! Look it up! It isn’t really about having a safe space in schools and universities – they set them up at political conventions and presidential rallies to tell you where you’re allowed to protest! Google it. Free speech on their terms. Nice one.

The Tinker case showed exactly how FoS IS restricted in "school-sponsored venues" when relating to discipline, not eminent danger, and Kuhlmeier case showed exactly how FoS IS restricted in publications “so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate [educational] concern”, not danger. So again, you were wrong about the eminent danger thing. Did I mention that already? Maybe politics just isn't your thing.

ReplyVote up (5)down (101)
Original comment

Yes, I read the modified HR347 which is how I quoted it. Yes, it mentions the White House, but the problem is (as I have pointed out 3 or 4 times), it also includes anywhere that another “person protected by the Secret Service is or will be TEMPORARILY VISITING ; or a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a SPECIAL EVENT of national significance." I'm getting deja vu. I feel like I'm trying to explain chess to a pigeon.

Do you understand the implications? That means it isn’t trespassing to be at the Super Bowl but if you stand outside and picket, even when it’s a public place, then the Secret Service has the legal right to remove you or prosecute. It’s an NSSE. I can’t make that any more obvious for you. Get over it! They are your laws. If you don’t like them, vote to change them. (Oh my bad, it doesn’t work like that in the states.)

If it’s about trespass on White House property, why is HR347 there? Genuine question. Weren’t there already laws to stop you jumping the fence at the White House, or did you guys only just think of stopping that kind of behaviour?

Holy crap! You genuinely don’t know what a Free Speech zone is! Look it up! It isn’t really about having a safe space in schools and universities – they set them up at political conventions and presidential rallies to tell you where you’re allowed to protest! Google it. Free speech on their terms. Nice one.

The Tinker case showed exactly how FoS IS restricted in "school-sponsored venues" when relating to discipline, not eminent danger, and Kuhlmeier case showed exactly how FoS IS restricted in publications “so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate [educational] concern”, not danger. So again, you were wrong about the eminent danger thing. Did I mention that already? Maybe politics just isn't your thing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

Did you see anything in the law that prohibited free speech or was it just about restricted areas like I mentioned?

Again about schools. Free speech is allowed. Disruption to a class in session is not. Understand or do you still have questions?

ReplyVote up (101)down (1)
Original comment

Did you see anything in the law that prohibited free speech or was it just about restricted areas like I mentioned?

Again about schools. Free speech is allowed. Disruption to a class in session is not. Understand or do you still have questions?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

Yes I did. Let me help you - if you can be removed from a public area for peacefully voicing a political opinion because the Secret Service decide the area is temporarily restricted, that’s against freedom of speech. If you can be stopped from peacefully protesting in a public area because they decide your speech is ‘disorderly’, that’s against freedom of speech. If you can be stopped from protesting in a public area because they haven’t designated it as a ‘free speech zone’, that’s against freedom of speech. Understand? Nothing. To do. With danger.

Yes, I have a question which you have still failed to answer. You say it’s about restricted areas and trespass. Did you already have laws about trespassing on White House grounds? Google it if you're not sure.

OK, I get it, so free speech is mostly allowed in schools, apart from when it’s disruptive or against the educational principles, correct? Good. So you therefore accept that there ARE limitations on your freedom of speech that have nothing to do with ‘eminent danger’. Thank you! You're making a tiny bit of progress at last!

ReplyVote up (2)down (101)
Original comment

Yes I did. Let me help you - if you can be removed from a public area for peacefully voicing a political opinion because the Secret Service decide the area is temporarily restricted, that’s against freedom of speech. If you can be stopped from peacefully protesting in a public area because they decide your speech is ‘disorderly’, that’s against freedom of speech. If you can be stopped from protesting in a public area because they haven’t designated it as a ‘free speech zone’, that’s against freedom of speech. Understand? Nothing. To do. With danger.

Yes, I have a question which you have still failed to answer. You say it’s about restricted areas and trespass. Did you already have laws about trespassing on White House grounds? Google it if you're not sure.

OK, I get it, so free speech is mostly allowed in schools, apart from when it’s disruptive or against the educational principles, correct? Good. So you therefore accept that there ARE limitations on your freedom of speech that have nothing to do with ‘eminent danger’. Thank you! You're making a tiny bit of progress at last!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

"if you can be removed from a public area for peacefully voicing a political opinion because the Secret Service decide the area is temporarily restricted, that’s against freedom of speech." Damn, I didn't think anyone could be that stupid but you proved me wrong. As I said over and over again, they are restricting access to those areas and not restricting free speech.

The old law did cover the White House grounds but the new version of the law makes it more clear.

Disruptive can be anything. You can be banging on your desk and making a lot of noise and still get ejected from a classroom. If you're talking over the teacher, that is disruptive too. It's not that you don't have free speech, it's that you are preventing the teacher from doing his/her job.

Original comment

"if you can be removed from a public area for peacefully voicing a political opinion because the Secret Service decide the area is temporarily restricted, that’s against freedom of speech." Damn, I didn't think anyone could be that stupid but you proved me wrong. As I said over and over again, they are restricting access to those areas and not restricting free speech.

The old law did cover the White House grounds but the new version of the law makes it more clear.

Disruptive can be anything. You can be banging on your desk and making a lot of noise and still get ejected from a classroom. If you're talking over the teacher, that is disruptive too. It's not that you don't have free speech, it's that you are preventing the teacher from doing his/her job.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (249 days ago)

"They are restricting access to those areas and not restricting free speech." Jaysus. I don't know how I can make this simpler for you. Let's try one word at a time:

They. Are. Not. Restricting. Access.

NSSEs. Are. Public . Events. In. Public . Places.

SuperBowl. Olympics. Political conventions. OK?

You already had rules about trespass, violent behaviour and disturbing the peace.

So what powers does HR347 give them that they didn't technically already have? You say the new law is clearer - how?

Don't panic, I'll help you.

The law gives them the new right to remove someone who is at a public event, in a public place, who is NOT trespassing, who is NOT being violent or disturbing the peace, just because an official is nearby. Maybe they can put them in a 'free speech cage' so suckers like you think they still have a voice. "You wanna protest against Trump's presidency? OK little guy, why don't tell us all about it, in this metal cage, 2 miles away from the presidential rally on an old parking lot outside town. Exercise your freedom of speech there, mmkay?" And you lap it up. It's tragic but amusing you don't see what they're doing.

By the way, it's not just me, you should really ask help from a US neighbour. I appreciate your education system is flawed, and Americans swallow the unfree media more readily than most nations, but HR347 and 'free speech zones' have caused protests and controversy among your brighter compatriots. It seems like you're the last person to find out. Ask a friend.

Original comment

"They are restricting access to those areas and not restricting free speech." Jaysus. I don't know how I can make this simpler for you. Let's try one word at a time:

They. Are. Not. Restricting. Access.

NSSEs. Are. Public . Events. In. Public . Places.

SuperBowl. Olympics. Political conventions. OK?

You already had rules about trespass, violent behaviour and disturbing the peace.

So what powers does HR347 give them that they didn't technically already have? You say the new law is clearer - how?

Don't panic, I'll help you.

The law gives them the new right to remove someone who is at a public event, in a public place, who is NOT trespassing, who is NOT being violent or disturbing the peace, just because an official is nearby. Maybe they can put them in a 'free speech cage' so suckers like you think they still have a voice. "You wanna protest against Trump's presidency? OK little guy, why don't tell us all about it, in this metal cage, 2 miles away from the presidential rally on an old parking lot outside town. Exercise your freedom of speech there, mmkay?" And you lap it up. It's tragic but amusing you don't see what they're doing.

By the way, it's not just me, you should really ask help from a US neighbour. I appreciate your education system is flawed, and Americans swallow the unfree media more readily than most nations, but HR347 and 'free speech zones' have caused protests and controversy among your brighter compatriots. It seems like you're the last person to find out. Ask a friend.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (253 days ago)

"or have any image of a dead queen" ? Thanks for letting me know: I'd better get rid of those old Victorian stamps I have.

I'll pop a quick email to this newspaper as well LINK for talking about a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. Very naughty of them.

Please point me towards your information source - I'm worried I'm breaking the law in all sorts of ways I hadn't realised.

Original comment

"or have any image of a dead queen" ? Thanks for letting me know: I'd better get rid of those old Victorian stamps I have.

I'll pop a quick email to this newspaper as well LINK for talking about a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. Very naughty of them.

Please point me towards your information source - I'm worried I'm breaking the law in all sorts of ways I hadn't realised.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (253 days ago)

Maybe you didn't read the whole article that you linked. This: "In a recording of the event published on YouTube, Mr Smith added: “When the Queen dies, the moment she is declared dead, Charles is king. So there is no gap. And there is certainly no official plan for a referendum. He is king immediately. The coronation would be about six months later."

ReplyVote up (101)down (46)
Original comment

Maybe you didn't read the whole article that you linked. This: "In a recording of the event published on YouTube, Mr Smith added: “When the Queen dies, the moment she is declared dead, Charles is king. So there is no gap. And there is certainly no official plan for a referendum. He is king immediately. The coronation would be about six months later."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (252 days ago)

I take total responsibility for your misunderstanding of my point: I obviously didn't express myself clearly enough. Sorry.

The original Guest who started this hare running said, " You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen. " So I linked to an article reporting some people speaking about the abolition of the queen (or more precisely, the monarchy) and said they must be very naughty to do that.

I don't understand how your comment on the immediate transfer of the monarchy to the next in line or the lack of a plan for a referendum is relevant.

Original comment

I take total responsibility for your misunderstanding of my point: I obviously didn't express myself clearly enough. Sorry.

The original Guest who started this hare running said, " You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen. " So I linked to an article reporting some people speaking about the abolition of the queen (or more precisely, the monarchy) and said they must be very naughty to do that.

I don't understand how your comment on the immediate transfer of the monarchy to the next in line or the lack of a plan for a referendum is relevant.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (252 days ago)

It is relevant because there is always a monarch so you talking about it after the queen dies is still illegal because there will be a new monarch immediately after. Try to keep up, that should have been easy to understand especially since you were the one that linked to the article.

Original comment

It is relevant because there is always a monarch so you talking about it after the queen dies is still illegal because there will be a new monarch immediately after. Try to keep up, that should have been easy to understand especially since you were the one that linked to the article.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (252 days ago)

It's not relevant because it's a completely separate discussion.

You said "You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen." I gave an example of people speaking about the abolition of the queen - and they haven't been prosecuted because it's not illegal in the UK. Look, here's another organisation actively (and legally) campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy LINK Where do you get these "alternative facts" from?

You raised two secondary issues about there being no gap between one monarch dying and the next in line taking over - and Mr Smith having no plans for a referendum.

Those secondary issues are as relevant as responding to someone saying, "You can't abolish the monarchy", with "The queen can wear a hat if she wants to." I.e. not relevant.

Anyway, please tell us more about this eminent danger you keep going on about. Is it a particularly distinguished or famous kind of danger? We just have the ordinary kind over here.

Original comment

It's not relevant because it's a completely separate discussion.

You said "You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen." I gave an example of people speaking about the abolition of the queen - and they haven't been prosecuted because it's not illegal in the UK. Look, here's another organisation actively (and legally) campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy LINK Where do you get these "alternative facts" from?

You raised two secondary issues about there being no gap between one monarch dying and the next in line taking over - and Mr Smith having no plans for a referendum.

Those secondary issues are as relevant as responding to someone saying, "You can't abolish the monarchy", with "The queen can wear a hat if she wants to." I.e. not relevant.

Anyway, please tell us more about this eminent danger you keep going on about. Is it a particularly distinguished or famous kind of danger? We just have the ordinary kind over here.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (252 days ago)

His yardstick is whether it's arrestable, so he's still correct... assuming everyone in the link and everyone in that organisation are now lingering in jail somewhere.

Original comment

His yardstick is whether it's arrestable, so he's still correct... assuming everyone in the link and everyone in that organisation are now lingering in jail somewhere.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (251 days ago)

Whether what exactly is arrestable? And "he" is "still correct" how?

"He" claimed, " You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen or have any image of a dead queen," which is palpable nonsense.

How come Republic LINK are allowed to campaign for the abolition of the monarchy? Which law do you or "he" claim they have broken?

And not allowed to " have any image of a dead queen" ? What about all those UK stamp collectors who have a Penny Black (look it up) with an image of Queen Victoria. What law are they supposed to have broken?

Join the dots for me, cite the laws that have been broken and I'll happily concede.

You seem to know a lot about what "he" is thinking - perhaps you can explain what this "eminent danger" is that "he" keeps going on about. It sounds really interesting.

ReplyVote up (47)down (101)
Original comment

Whether what exactly is arrestable? And "he" is "still correct" how?

"He" claimed, " You cannot speak about the abolition of the queen or have any image of a dead queen," which is palpable nonsense.

How come Republic LINK are allowed to campaign for the abolition of the monarchy? Which law do you or "he" claim they have broken?

And not allowed to " have any image of a dead queen" ? What about all those UK stamp collectors who have a Penny Black (look it up) with an image of Queen Victoria. What law are they supposed to have broken?

Join the dots for me, cite the laws that have been broken and I'll happily concede.

You seem to know a lot about what "he" is thinking - perhaps you can explain what this "eminent danger" is that "he" keeps going on about. It sounds really interesting.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

You should know your own laws if you plan on living in the UK. Refer to The Treason Felony Act 1848. Although it has not been prosecuted since 1879, the law still exists and they could prosecute if they want.

It is a criminal offense with a life imprisonment sentence. The guardian did launch a campaign which you linked and that initiated a legal challenge to the law based on the Human Rights Act of 1998 but your "lords" dismissed the newspapers case. The "lords" stated that the specific section 3 of the act is a relic of a bygone age and doesn't fit into their modern legal system. However, the law has not been revoked and could be used against you when you least expect it sometime in the future.

Regarding the Penny Black, I think you misunderstood the statute. She doesn't look dead on that stamp. Why don't you create an image using photoshop of Queen Elizabeth hanging from a noose and print it poster size and then put it in your front yard for everyone to see? I dare you.

Note: When I said queen previously, I should have said monarch. That might have added some confusion about when the queen dies, then a new monarch is assigned immediately. Once she's dead, she's no longer the monarch.

Eminent danger is used in the terms of freedom of speech when someone insites a riot. It's like yelling that you're going to kill everyone in that theater. Saying something that leads people to believe their life is in eminent danger can be illegal, unless of course, you yell fire in the theater and there really is a fire in the theater.

Original comment

You should know your own laws if you plan on living in the UK. Refer to The Treason Felony Act 1848. Although it has not been prosecuted since 1879, the law still exists and they could prosecute if they want.

It is a criminal offense with a life imprisonment sentence. The guardian did launch a campaign which you linked and that initiated a legal challenge to the law based on the Human Rights Act of 1998 but your "lords" dismissed the newspapers case. The "lords" stated that the specific section 3 of the act is a relic of a bygone age and doesn't fit into their modern legal system. However, the law has not been revoked and could be used against you when you least expect it sometime in the future.

Regarding the Penny Black, I think you misunderstood the statute. She doesn't look dead on that stamp. Why don't you create an image using photoshop of Queen Elizabeth hanging from a noose and print it poster size and then put it in your front yard for everyone to see? I dare you.

Note: When I said queen previously, I should have said monarch. That might have added some confusion about when the queen dies, then a new monarch is assigned immediately. Once she's dead, she's no longer the monarch.

Eminent danger is used in the terms of freedom of speech when someone insites a riot. It's like yelling that you're going to kill everyone in that theater. Saying something that leads people to believe their life is in eminent danger can be illegal, unless of course, you yell fire in the theater and there really is a fire in the theater.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Are you joking? So an ancient act that hasn't been enacted for nearly 140 years is a restriction on Freedom of Speech, but a law tweaked by Obama and enacted several times since isn't? Impressive US logic.

Original comment

Are you joking? So an ancient act that hasn't been enacted for nearly 140 years is a restriction on Freedom of Speech, but a law tweaked by Obama and enacted several times since isn't? Impressive US logic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Yes, a law that is still a law and not revoked that prohibits you from speaking your mind is a restriction on Freedom of Speech. If your "lords" found it to be ancient and no longer necessary, they should have repealed it but they didn't. Know why? Because any law created by parliment that has anything to do with the monarch must first be approved by the monarch before it can be discussed. Weird isn't it? This is how the monarch can maintain control forever and why your country will never be a real democracy.

Original comment

Yes, a law that is still a law and not revoked that prohibits you from speaking your mind is a restriction on Freedom of Speech. If your "lords" found it to be ancient and no longer necessary, they should have repealed it but they didn't. Know why? Because any law created by parliment that has anything to do with the monarch must first be approved by the monarch before it can be discussed. Weird isn't it? This is how the monarch can maintain control forever and why your country will never be a real democracy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Oh Gordon Bennett. You absolutely have no clue. I don't have enough crayons and puppets to explain this to you, so just believe what you're told, dear cousin. You're not ready for the real world just yet.

Yes, the USA is the leader of the free world, a paradigm of political fairness. Any system where someone like Trump can get fewer votes and still become president is a marvel. That's right, your Republic where you can buy your way into power is the envy of the world; we're jealous of your system where no amount of voting can change the decrepid statutes written centuries ago that your daily lives are tied to; where historical enemies can subvert your elections, where a small group of the economic elite control your politics. Behold American democracy in action! Where do we sign?

Original comment

Oh Gordon Bennett. You absolutely have no clue. I don't have enough crayons and puppets to explain this to you, so just believe what you're told, dear cousin. You're not ready for the real world just yet.

Yes, the USA is the leader of the free world, a paradigm of political fairness. Any system where someone like Trump can get fewer votes and still become president is a marvel. That's right, your Republic where you can buy your way into power is the envy of the world; we're jealous of your system where no amount of voting can change the decrepid statutes written centuries ago that your daily lives are tied to; where historical enemies can subvert your elections, where a small group of the economic elite control your politics. Behold American democracy in action! Where do we sign?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

You're trying to change the subject. The way our president is elected is by an electorial college. It was created this way to make sure that every state gets a vote. It's to prevent the top states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas from having all voting power. The electorial college also gives some voting power to the residents of DC. Do your research before you mock our system.

Our system is at least better than yours. You don't even vote for your prime minister. The best you can do is vote for a Minister of Parliment that represents your geographic area. When was the last time you had an election for your monarch? Oh, that's right. You're still one of the ancient countries from the dark ages that still has a monarch who many of you claim has no power but actually has more than you think.

Original comment

You're trying to change the subject. The way our president is elected is by an electorial college. It was created this way to make sure that every state gets a vote. It's to prevent the top states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas from having all voting power. The electorial college also gives some voting power to the residents of DC. Do your research before you mock our system.

Our system is at least better than yours. You don't even vote for your prime minister. The best you can do is vote for a Minister of Parliment that represents your geographic area. When was the last time you had an election for your monarch? Oh, that's right. You're still one of the ancient countries from the dark ages that still has a monarch who many of you claim has no power but actually has more than you think.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

We all know about your collegiate vote system now Trump has been elected. Nice one guys. Oh yes, we’re all taking notes because we’re jealous of what you’ve got going on.

“Our system is at least better than yours”. Grow up and then learn something: Our system is just different. Money plays next to no part in our politics, go figure. We elect people into parliament who we think are capable of the job, and of selecting the best amongst them to lead. That way, we avoid absurd personality cults like in the USA, where one person gains dominance because they can plough money into advertising, has ties with trade giants, or has a privileged and prominent role in entertainment. So democratic!

Yes, we have an unelected Queen – a living person, part of the current world who has had her privileges and roles reduced over centuries, and provides a non-political head of state who can engage with diplomacy without becoming embroiled in party politics. Instead, it’s our parliament that reviews and changes legislation year in, year out, with few restrictions. Anyone that has any idea of UK politics knows the Queen stays well out of it.

Meanwhile, you have an unelected set of ancient statutes and restrictions forced on you that restrict nearly every aspect of your lives – not part of the current world, not amenable to reason, and entirely outdated, yet nearly impossible to change, and a very active pressure in your politics forever more. That’s right, there’s nothing you can do about it. Suck it up. And while the UK parliament can, does and has changed how the monarch operates, there is basically sweet FA that you can do about your constitution which is why despite the massive changes in society, technology and politics, you’ve managed to add minor amendments just a handful of times since it was written by a bunch of anxious racist white guys. It’s a brilliant system you have!

Anyway, my apologies. You just a naïve and Concerned Citizen who doesn’t even know what’s going on in your own country, so why would I expect you to comprehend the history and complexities of a constitutional monarchy? I’ll leave this one to Bob.

Original comment

We all know about your collegiate vote system now Trump has been elected. Nice one guys. Oh yes, we’re all taking notes because we’re jealous of what you’ve got going on.

“Our system is at least better than yours”. Grow up and then learn something: Our system is just different. Money plays next to no part in our politics, go figure. We elect people into parliament who we think are capable of the job, and of selecting the best amongst them to lead. That way, we avoid absurd personality cults like in the USA, where one person gains dominance because they can plough money into advertising, has ties with trade giants, or has a privileged and prominent role in entertainment. So democratic!

Yes, we have an unelected Queen – a living person, part of the current world who has had her privileges and roles reduced over centuries, and provides a non-political head of state who can engage with diplomacy without becoming embroiled in party politics. Instead, it’s our parliament that reviews and changes legislation year in, year out, with few restrictions. Anyone that has any idea of UK politics knows the Queen stays well out of it.

Meanwhile, you have an unelected set of ancient statutes and restrictions forced on you that restrict nearly every aspect of your lives – not part of the current world, not amenable to reason, and entirely outdated, yet nearly impossible to change, and a very active pressure in your politics forever more. That’s right, there’s nothing you can do about it. Suck it up. And while the UK parliament can, does and has changed how the monarch operates, there is basically sweet FA that you can do about your constitution which is why despite the massive changes in society, technology and politics, you’ve managed to add minor amendments just a handful of times since it was written by a bunch of anxious racist white guys. It’s a brilliant system you have!

Anyway, my apologies. You just a naïve and Concerned Citizen who doesn’t even know what’s going on in your own country, so why would I expect you to comprehend the history and complexities of a constitutional monarchy? I’ll leave this one to Bob.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

You should double check what roles, resposibilities, and powers your monarch really has. Don't just say that she wouldn't use them because the people would revolt and overthrow the monarch. That doesn't work because the people would overthrow all their dictators but they don't. Well, sometimes they do but there are still many left.

Original comment

You should double check what roles, resposibilities, and powers your monarch really has. Don't just say that she wouldn't use them because the people would revolt and overthrow the monarch. That doesn't work because the people would overthrow all their dictators but they don't. Well, sometimes they do but there are still many left.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

Nice little sidestep. I'll repeat that the monarch has been accountable to the UK population for a few centuries, despite having next to no meaningful powers. The monarch has seen their rights being eroded under their noses at the whim of parliament and the people. Monarchy is constantly evolving and changing, the last significant alteration to her powers as in 2012 and took less than a year to get through. Meanwhile, the US constitution is accountable to no one, moreorless static and has more power than anyone living in your country and anyone you can elect. Your most RECENT amendment was ratified 26 years ago and took 202 YEARS to get through! Look it up! Absolutely hilarious.

Original comment

Nice little sidestep. I'll repeat that the monarch has been accountable to the UK population for a few centuries, despite having next to no meaningful powers. The monarch has seen their rights being eroded under their noses at the whim of parliament and the people. Monarchy is constantly evolving and changing, the last significant alteration to her powers as in 2012 and took less than a year to get through. Meanwhile, the US constitution is accountable to no one, moreorless static and has more power than anyone living in your country and anyone you can elect. Your most RECENT amendment was ratified 26 years ago and took 202 YEARS to get through! Look it up! Absolutely hilarious.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (248 days ago)

So you think the fact your queen can declare war on another nation isn't a meaningful power. Wow, you really are stupid. Even the USA President cannot declare war, it must be done by congress. No single person in the USA has that much power, it is split amongst three branches of government.

Original comment

So you think the fact your queen can declare war on another nation isn't a meaningful power. Wow, you really are stupid. Even the USA President cannot declare war, it must be done by congress. No single person in the USA has that much power, it is split amongst three branches of government.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (248 days ago)

Oh I like this game. Oh gee, like, I can't believe how dumb you are. Like, you must the dumbest person ever. You're dumb like no one I've ever seen, and I've seen Trump.

The ability to 'declare' war from an absolutist monarch might be meaningful, but in a constitutional monarchy it isn't, because the deployment of troops has to be approved by parliament. I realise you don't understand the difference, but that's your problem. "Parliament now decides when Britain goes to war. The vote against military intervention in Syria on 29 August 2013 upheld a new parliamentary prerogative that gradually developed through debates over earlier actions in Iraq and Libya."

In the USA, the POTUS has the power to order a nuclear strike which is far more dangerous than any 'declaration', and his only realistic barrier is the secretary of defense, an unelected former general, who Trump put into position and can dispose of. There are campaigns in congress to limit the POTUS nuclear powers because Americans who aren't quite as dumb as you (like, so dumb) realise it's a major problem. Only your Supreme Court can decide whether your laws are legal, and they too are unelected, plus of course they are forever tied to whatever you racist ancestors decided without your permission centuries before you were even born. How does that freedom feel?

In a real democracy like the UK, the unelected Supreme Court doesn't decide on law as they can be overuled by a majority in parliament who we vote for. "Unlike the legislatures of many other countries, (parliamentary sovereignty) is bound by no fundamental charter or constitution; but has itself the sole constitutional right of establishing and altering the laws and government of the empire."

I guess in a country where you can be removed for speaking your mind (HR347), fined for using profane language (Mississippi), where you can't take office if you're an atheist (Texas), where unelected judges decide your laws, and where a TV personality with fewer votes than a politician can buy his way into your White House, I see that you won't see how important that kind of freedom is.

Original comment

Oh I like this game. Oh gee, like, I can't believe how dumb you are. Like, you must the dumbest person ever. You're dumb like no one I've ever seen, and I've seen Trump.

The ability to 'declare' war from an absolutist monarch might be meaningful, but in a constitutional monarchy it isn't, because the deployment of troops has to be approved by parliament. I realise you don't understand the difference, but that's your problem. "Parliament now decides when Britain goes to war. The vote against military intervention in Syria on 29 August 2013 upheld a new parliamentary prerogative that gradually developed through debates over earlier actions in Iraq and Libya."

In the USA, the POTUS has the power to order a nuclear strike which is far more dangerous than any 'declaration', and his only realistic barrier is the secretary of defense, an unelected former general, who Trump put into position and can dispose of. There are campaigns in congress to limit the POTUS nuclear powers because Americans who aren't quite as dumb as you (like, so dumb) realise it's a major problem. Only your Supreme Court can decide whether your laws are legal, and they too are unelected, plus of course they are forever tied to whatever you racist ancestors decided without your permission centuries before you were even born. How does that freedom feel?

In a real democracy like the UK, the unelected Supreme Court doesn't decide on law as they can be overuled by a majority in parliament who we vote for. "Unlike the legislatures of many other countries, (parliamentary sovereignty) is bound by no fundamental charter or constitution; but has itself the sole constitutional right of establishing and altering the laws and government of the empire."

I guess in a country where you can be removed for speaking your mind (HR347), fined for using profane language (Mississippi), where you can't take office if you're an atheist (Texas), where unelected judges decide your laws, and where a TV personality with fewer votes than a politician can buy his way into your White House, I see that you won't see how important that kind of freedom is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (247 days ago)

The secretary of defense is elected. First, that position is nominated by the President. Then the senate takes a vote if they will allow that person to be in office. There have been 3 times in the past where the senate's voting has resulted in a failure of the President to fill cabinet positions. This same confirmation process is for supreme court justices too. Do your research before guessing how the system works or you will embarrass yourself even more than you already have.

Original comment

The secretary of defense is elected. First, that position is nominated by the President. Then the senate takes a vote if they will allow that person to be in office. There have been 3 times in the past where the senate's voting has resulted in a failure of the President to fill cabinet positions. This same confirmation process is for supreme court justices too. Do your research before guessing how the system works or you will embarrass yourself even more than you already have.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (247 days ago)

HILAAAARIOUS! Sorry dumbass, the US secretary of defence is APPOINTED by the president not ELECTED, Wikipedia it. I actually find it hard to believe you didn't even know that. You're like dumber than dumb. So dumb.

None of your peasants have the right to vote for him or against him. Sure, the senate can 'advise' the president with their own private vote, but that doesn't make the position elected, any more than a recruitment panel voting for their favourite candidate does. The POTUS decides, just like with the judges, and no vote of yours will ever make the blind bit of diffence. Deal with it.

Honestly dumbass, that took 20 seconds to confirm on Google.

Anything else we can humiliate you on?

Original comment

HILAAAARIOUS! Sorry dumbass, the US secretary of defence is APPOINTED by the president not ELECTED, Wikipedia it. I actually find it hard to believe you didn't even know that. You're like dumber than dumb. So dumb.

None of your peasants have the right to vote for him or against him. Sure, the senate can 'advise' the president with their own private vote, but that doesn't make the position elected, any more than a recruitment panel voting for their favourite candidate does. The POTUS decides, just like with the judges, and no vote of yours will ever make the blind bit of diffence. Deal with it.

Honestly dumbass, that took 20 seconds to confirm on Google.

Anything else we can humiliate you on?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (245 days ago)

The constitution specifically states that the president NOMINATES and after consent of the senate (that's where the voting happens), they get appointed or rejected. The senate has rejected nominees before.

Original comment

The constitution specifically states that the president NOMINATES and after consent of the senate (that's where the voting happens), they get appointed or rejected. The senate has rejected nominees before.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (245 days ago)

Go back and read it again. The POTUS " shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall APPOINT .. all .. Officers of the United States".

'Advice and consent' is pretty meaningless when the president can refuse to appoint anyone he doesn't approve of. He gets the final say and always will.

Nothing about elections because the offices aren't elected positions.

Original comment

Go back and read it again. The POTUS " shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall APPOINT .. all .. Officers of the United States".

'Advice and consent' is pretty meaningless when the president can refuse to appoint anyone he doesn't approve of. He gets the final say and always will.

Nothing about elections because the offices aren't elected positions.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (245 days ago)

That's where you're wrong. The President does not have the final say on appointments. He only nominates. There have been situations in the past where a nominee was not confirmed by the senate.

Obama tried to nominate a supreme court justice but the Senate did not confirm his nominee because it was a republican senate and they were waiting for the next republican president to make his nomination.

Original comment

That's where you're wrong. The President does not have the final say on appointments. He only nominates. There have been situations in the past where a nominee was not confirmed by the senate.

Obama tried to nominate a supreme court justice but the Senate did not confirm his nominee because it was a republican senate and they were waiting for the next republican president to make his nomination.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (245 days ago)
Latest comment:

Sheesh, I literally copied and pasted the exact wording from your constitution that proves he APPOINTS, not "only nominates". You must hate your constitution to argue with it so much. Don't blame you.

POTUS is the ONLY person who can nominate and the ONLY person who can appoint. The senate can try to block his choice, but they can't nominate anyone or appoint anyone or elect anyone themselves without his say-so, so yes, POTUS has the final say. Write to him and complain.

Anyway, when are you going to reply to TheBob? We're all in suspense about what 'eminent danger' means and where it features in your constitution.

ReplyVote up (101)down (45)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Sheesh, I literally copied and pasted the exact wording from your constitution that proves he APPOINTS, not "only nominates". You must hate your constitution to argue with it so much. Don't blame you.

POTUS is the ONLY person who can nominate and the ONLY person who can appoint. The senate can try to block his choice, but they can't nominate anyone or appoint anyone or elect anyone themselves without his say-so, so yes, POTUS has the final say. Write to him and complain.

Anyway, when are you going to reply to TheBob? We're all in suspense about what 'eminent danger' means and where it features in your constitution.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (247 days ago)

Here here.

Though I'm still waiting for the full and detailed explanation of this "eminent" danger. We just don't have it over here and Google tells me nothing. If it's not to do with Eminem, is it maybe something to do with M&M's? Is it a special sweet and chocolatey kind of danger you have in the US?

Original comment

Here here.

Though I'm still waiting for the full and detailed explanation of this "eminent" danger. We just don't have it over here and Google tells me nothing. If it's not to do with Eminem, is it maybe something to do with M&M's? Is it a special sweet and chocolatey kind of danger you have in the US?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (247 days ago)

Do you have an easier question for him? I'm not sure he gets what you're driving at, poor kid.

Original comment

Do you have an easier question for him? I'm not sure he gets what you're driving at, poor kid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (247 days ago)

You are not highly educated enough to understand. He has words, the best words. Personally, I believe 'eminent' is a word you can use when you don't understand your own constitution and have never read it, but you want your hunches to sound more official. Freedom of Speech gives you the right to make up words for that purpose. I guess we're all just too dumb to get it.

Original comment

You are not highly educated enough to understand. He has words, the best words. Personally, I believe 'eminent' is a word you can use when you don't understand your own constitution and have never read it, but you want your hunches to sound more official. Freedom of Speech gives you the right to make up words for that purpose. I guess we're all just too dumb to get it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (248 days ago)

Regarding the Penny Black, you need to be more precise in your self expression.

Regarding eminent danger - that's very interesting. Is it called "eminent" because it's well known? Or does it have something to do with Eminem, who I uderstand performed in a theatre?

Original comment

Regarding the Penny Black, you need to be more precise in your self expression.

Regarding eminent danger - that's very interesting. Is it called "eminent" because it's well known? Or does it have something to do with Eminem, who I uderstand performed in a theatre?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Jim Jefferies gets Jordan Peterson to admit he was wrong
Jim Jefferies gets Jordan Peterson to admit he was wrong
Steven Pinker: 4 reasons for defending free speech
Steven Pinker: 4 reasons for defending free speech
Is the very idea of university under threat?
Is the very idea of university under threat?
Jim Jefferies takes a look at America's First Amendment
Jim Jefferies takes a look at America's First Amendment
Trevor Noah on free speech, James Comey, and almost getting deported
Trevor Noah on free speech, James Comey, and almost getting deported