On May 31, 2026 at 1:17:45 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/31/2026 3:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 31, 2026 at 8:59:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/31/2026 6:18 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book
fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
I doubt that "imminent" carries an expiration date. E.g., "as soon as >>>> humanly possible" would seem a practical equivalence.
Cases subsequent to Brandenburg have interpreted 'imminent' to mean exactly
what it says: the lawless action must occur so close in time to the speech
at
issue to be in conjunction with it. A published book cannot satisfy that >>> criteria. Brandenburg literally requires a scenario where a guy stands >>> before
a crowd and says, "Let's go kill that guy!" or "Let's burn that store down"!
and then immediately leads the crowd to do just that. Speaking in the form
of
a book that takes months to publish, then delivered to stores, then sits on
the shelf for however long, doesn't satisfy the imminency requirement.
Fwiw, I didn't intend something so asynchronous as a "published book",
but rather an online post, whose effect can be as immediate as a
stem-winder in Hyde Park.
Even that would fail the imminency test 99% of the time. Unless the government
can prove the person read the post and reacted with violence within seconds of
the poster hitting the send button, the lawless action is not legally imminent.
And the remoteness of the speech to the lawless action is also a factor. Some lower court cases have held that someone speaking on TV in one place can't be held responsible for another's reaction to it thousands of miles away. The Supreme Court, to my knowledge, hasn't clarified this, however.
Again, though, we come up against the fact that few (if any) words do
have an exact meaning. E.g., is a threat to dynamite the town library
not "imminent" if the fuse is 3 hours long?
Setting a bomb in a library and lighting the fuse isn't a threat no matter how
long it is. That's an action, not speech.
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the >> government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they >> were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real >> bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking >> you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>nations" have made it a crime to object to public policies that have >>>massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything >>>different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they
never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected >>>would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're >>>not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're >>>free, open, and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even
as they're locking you up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free, >>> open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>> nations"
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>> they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a >>>> real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free, >>>> open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>> govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>>>sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>>nations" have made it a crime to object to public policies that have >>>>>massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything >>>>>different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>>>they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they >>>>>never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who >>>>>objected would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>they're not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time
insist they're free, open, and democratic societies who treasure
free speech. Even as they're locking you up for saying anything they >>>>>don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>>>govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats in >any actually free society.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>>> nations" have made it a crime to object to public policies that have >>>>>> massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything >>>>>> different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>>>> they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they >>>>>> never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who
objected would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time
insist they're free, open, and democratic societies who treasure
free speech. Even as they're locking you up for saying anything they >>>>>> don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>>>> govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats in
any actually free society.
moviePig lied. He does want authoritarianism.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>> nations"
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>>> govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats in any actually free society.
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>>
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're >>>>>> locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats >> in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So, e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:25:06 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>>>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>>>> nations" have made it a crime to object to public policies that have >>>>>>> massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything >>>>>>> different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>>>>> they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they >>>>>>> never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who
objected would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>> they're not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time
insist they're free, open, and democratic societies who treasure >>>>>>> free speech. Even as they're locking you up for saying anything they >>>>>>> don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>>>>> govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats in
any actually free society.
moviePig lied. He does want authoritarianism.
Apparently.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who say "We don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't have the right feelings while saying it.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly out on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist >>>>>>>> they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it? >>>>>>
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who say "We >> don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is >>> imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech >>> is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So, >>> e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly out >> on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who say "We
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist >>>>>>>>> they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it? >>>>>>>
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens. >>>
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is >>>> imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech >>>> is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So, >>>> e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the >>>> public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who say "We
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing >>>>>>>>>>> is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and >>>>>>>>>> free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, >>>>>>>>>> but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected >>>>>>>>>> would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist >>>>>>>>>> they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if >>>>>>>>> any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it? >>>>>>>>
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government >>>>>> bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens. >>>>
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't >>>> have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and isYes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly >>>> out
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the >>>>> public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.) >>>>
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media. >>
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who say "We >don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't have the >right feelings while saying it.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and >>>>>>>>>>> free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, >>>>>>>>>>> but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected >>>>>>>>>>> would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist >>>>>>>>>>> they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if >>>>>>>>>> any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it? >>>>>>>>>
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government >>>>>>> bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't >>>>> have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and isYes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the >>>>>> public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.) >>>>>
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media. >>>
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
Okay, Pol Pig.
On 6/7/2026 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Okay, Pol Pig.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that >>>>>>>>>>>> have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol >>>>>>>>>>>> Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are >>>>>>>>>>>> every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if >>>>>>>>>>> any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government >>>>>>>> bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who >>>>>> say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't >>>>>> have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative. >>
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:30:33 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Okay, Pol Pig.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that
have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are
every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if
any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government
bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who
say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't
have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative. >>>
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
See, but that's not speech so I have no problem with locking them up.
On 6/7/2026 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:30:33 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobody@nowhere.com>No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he >>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes it. But a
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that
have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are
every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if
any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if >>>>>>>>>>>>> none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government
bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who
say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't
have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always >>>>>>>>> arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on >>>>>>>>> protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of >>>>>>>>> ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is >>>>>>>> certainly
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
Okay, Pol Pig.
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
See, but that's not speech so I have no problem with locking them up.
But the mobs are carrying placards to bring you their "facts".
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:30:33 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
See, but that's not speech so I have no problem with locking them up.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 3:17:22 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:30:33 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/7/2026 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobody@nowhere.com>No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes it. But a
wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that
have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything
different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are
every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech.
Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if
any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government
bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who
say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't
have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one?
Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one? >>>>>>
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always >>>>>>>>>> arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on >>>>>>>>>> protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of >>>>>>>>>> ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is >>>>>>>>> certainly
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any usual media.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
Okay, Pol Pig.
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
See, but that's not speech so I have no problem with locking them up.
But the mobs are carrying placards to bring you their "facts".
Makes no difference. Just because you're speaking while committing other crimes doesn't insulate you from liability for those crimes.
You can't walk into a bank, hold it up, steal the money, then when caught, claim immunity from prosecution because you had a political slogan on your t-shirt while you were robbing the bank.
On 6/7/2026 6:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 3:17:22 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:30:33 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:But the mobs are carrying placards to bring you their "facts".
On 6/7/2026 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig"Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one? >>>>>>>
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes it. But a
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or
worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that
have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything
different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol
Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are
every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech.
Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if
any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if
none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government
bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on >>>>>>>>>>> its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who
say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't
have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one? >>>>>>>
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always >>>>>>>>>>> arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on >>>>>>>>>>> protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of
ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is
certainly
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any >>>>>>>>> usual media.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
Okay, Pol Pig.
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
See, but that's not speech so I have no problem with locking them up. >>>
Makes no difference. Just because you're speaking while committing other
crimes doesn't insulate you from liability for those crimes.
You can't walk into a bank, hold it up, steal the money, then when caught, >> claim immunity from prosecution because you had a political slogan on your >> t-shirt while you were robbing the bank.
Sorry to disappoint you (and your chihuahua) but that's exactly what
I've been saying. Any reasonable person would conclude that blocking
major traffic is more about holding the public interest hostage than it
is about whatever message the banners shout.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 6:47:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 6:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 3:17:22 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/7/2026 5:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:30:33 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:But the mobs are carrying placards to bring you their "facts".
On 6/7/2026 5:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 2:05:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 1:34:34 PM PDT, "moviePig"Is your *meme* an actual exchange or your interpretation of one? >>>>>>>>
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 4:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 12:38:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/7/2026 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 10:08:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/6/2026 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotes it. But a
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or
worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that
have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything
different than
what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol
Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are
every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech.
Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if
any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if
none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
...depending on how they say it.
Making such determinations isn't the proper role of government
bureaucrats
in
any actually free society.
Any society, free or otherwise, must place restraints on >>>>>>>>>>>> its citizens.
It is not necessary for society to punish the speech of people who
say "We
don't have free speech" because a bureaucrat determines they didn't
have the
right feelings while saying it.
Is that an actual exchange or your interpretation of one? >>>>>>>>
It's what you said in response to the meme I posted. >>>>>>>>>
As I said, 'speech' is the communication of ideas. Via any >>>>>>>>>> usual media.And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always
arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on >>>>>>>>>>>> protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of
ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is
certainly
out
on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
Okay, Pol Pig.
See me when your 101 freeway is next shut down by mobs.
See, but that's not speech so I have no problem with locking them up. >>>>
Makes no difference. Just because you're speaking while committing other >>> crimes doesn't insulate you from liability for those crimes.
You can't walk into a bank, hold it up, steal the money, then when caught,
claim immunity from prosecution because you had a political slogan on your
t-shirt while you were robbing the bank.
Sorry to disappoint you (and your chihuahua) but that's exactly what
I've been saying. Any reasonable person would conclude that blocking
major traffic is more about holding the public interest hostage than it
is about whatever message the banners shout.
And those arrested would be charged with anything from disorderly conduct to blocking a public right-of-way. The government won't be charging them or punishing them for their speech.
However, above you *would* have the government charging people for saying "We don't have free speech" if you or one of your apparatchiks determined they were using wrongthink when they said it. That is punishment of speech, not actions.
And thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is
imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech
is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So,
e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly out on >the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
Sorry to disappoint you (and your chihuahua) but that's exactly what
I've been saying. Any reasonable person would conclude that blocking
major traffic is more about holding the public interest hostage than it
is about whatever message the banners shout.
However, above you *would* have the government charging people for saying "We
don't have free speech" if you or one of your apparatchiks determined they >> were using wrongthink when they said it. That is punishment of speech, not >> actions.
What I said was "...depending on how they say it". E.g., they can >speak/write it to their hearts' content, but they can't etch it into the >sidewalk in front of 10 Downing St.
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 21:47:49 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you (and your chihuahua) but that's exactly what
I've been saying. Any reasonable person would conclude that blocking
major traffic is more about holding the public interest hostage than it
is about whatever message the banners shout.
OK so were the Muslims who blocked all entrances / exits from the
Quebec City Catholic cathedral for several hours "exercising their
rights"? And if not, why did the Quebec Provincial Police not
intervene?
I personally believe organizing a crowd to block roadways and
sidewalks IS not exercising a right to free speech but effectively
abducting those inside.
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:05:36 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Then why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative.
And if they don't have a placard? I have the right to read a book
aloud in public subject to the usual conditions (e.g. obscenity,
national security, creating a danger to the public and a few lesser
causes)
On 6/12/2026 7:42 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:05:36 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
And if they don't have a placard? I have the right to read a bookThen why would picket-lines be exempt?
I'd allow a picket-line to the degree that its placards are informative. >>
aloud in public subject to the usual conditions (e.g. obscenity,
national security, creating a danger to the public and a few lesser
causes)
If there's no placard, there's likely no "speech".
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:11:52 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Freedom of speech also includes publications both periodicals andAnd thus the question of who'll watch the watchers always arises (and is >>> imperfectly answered). The only limits *I'd* impose on protected speech >>> is that it actually *be* speech, i.e., the communication of ideas. So, >>> e.g., picket-lines, sit-ins, traffic-blocks are suffered only at the
public's indulgence. (No, I don't expect a SCOTUS nomination soon.)
Yes, restricting the 1st Amendment only to the spoken word is certainly out on
the far fringes of constitutional interpretation.
books.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494929:44:16 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,982 |