I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post.
Their particular speech is NOT constitutionally protected. The First Amendment does not cover it. Their speech is ACTUALLY illegal because it's a direct call or promotion for violence. As in - the glowies can actually come to your door and haul your ass out for saying something that promotes direct violence against a sitting political official.
The left's version of "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, the garbage THEY are spewing about wanting to see Trump killed is NOT. It is actually illegal speech, one of the few out there.
You can actually spin this whole thing by accusing companies of promoting laws being broken if they continue to allow their employees to say shit like this, because it is.
In other words, I have no moral qualms about taking the high road. The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced, and because incitement to violence is AGAINST THE LAW and not only that, and promoting peaceful speech is the bedrock of a civilized first nation, I have no problems seeing people lose their livelihoods for PROMOTING VIOLENT RHETORIC.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?
I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post.
Their particular speech is NOT constitutionally protected. The First Amendment does not cover it. Their speech is ACTUALLY illegal because it's a direct call or promotion for violence. As in - the glowies can actually come to your door and haul your ass out for saying something that promotes direct violence against a sitting political official.
The left's version of "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, the garbage THEY are spewing about wanting to see Trump killed is NOT. It is actually illegal speech, one of the few out there.
You can actually spin this whole thing by accusing companies of promoting laws being broken if they continue to allow their employees to say shit like this, because it is.
In other words, I have no moral qualms about taking the high road. The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced, and because incitement to violence is AGAINST THE LAW and not only that, and promoting peaceful speech is the bedrock of a civilized first nation, I have no problems seeing people lose their livelihoods for PROMOTING VIOLENT RHETORIC.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?