| Robbie |
05-06-2017 10:00 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by makko2
(Post 21749971)
Freedom of speech is open to anyone - it's a matter of consequences and where the platform is; if private property owners don't want certain inflammatory hatemongers speaking on their territory it's their own right to do so at that point - particularly where safety is concerned resulting from intended intentionally divisive inciting rhetoric known to be used by the talkers.
Right-wing extremist speeches are on the same deviant anti-social level as child-porn advocacy. In 1933 and 2016 we saw the results of freedom of lunacy regressively change the world.
|
So you are basically saying that "LIBERAL" people showing up and shutting down a person from speaking means that the person who was trying to speak is the one at fault because of their "hate mongering"?
WTF? Shouldn't people be allowed to hear what the person says and make up their OWN minds as to whether it is "hate" or not?
And so you think that allowing Trump to speak is the same as Hitler speaking in 1933.
You would allow censorship of free speech?
Sounds like FASCISM to me when you have a group deciding for everyone what ideas are and are not allowed to be discussed in public.
And it was "okay" for Trump to be a media darling since the 1970's AND have a top-rated television show on NBC for a decade? But when he decided to run for President as a Republican instead of a Democrat...now he's Hitler.
I can't take that argument seriously at all. And neither could the majority of WORKING people in the U.S. (not counting the millions of voters in California...lol, that state is just so far out there these days) |
