When White Women hide behind Racial Minorities.

You keep saying you are going to leave... yet you are still here .

I didn't bring up the Nazis. It was Firefly who brought up the Nazis (you can go check the record), and Firefly is the only person who has defended Nazis in any way (by refusing to acknowledge that women Nazis were Nazis).

This thread seems applicable... https://able2know.org/topic/408384-1

Maybe it's because you're still talking ****, delusional **** too. You're the one supporting the Nazi's right to march, victimise and persecute. And don't think for a second that anyone believes that horseshit about free speech, you support the Nazis because, like you, they're a bunch of sad inadequates and there's all that shiny leather to boot.

I think we've got to the point where the only person believing the bollocks you're spouting is you.

YOU DO NOTHING BUT LIE AND TWIST AND DISTORT TRUTHS.

TRYING TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH YOU IS LIKE STEPPING INTO A FETID SWAMP.

I support the right of everyone to march. And, in the US, there is nothing to argue about. This is simply a legal fact... we have a Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court. The right of freedom of speech has been long settled.

You are making the same argument that Trump Supporters make about Islamic Terrorists. You accuse me of supporting Nazis. Trump Supporters accuse me of supporting the beheadings under ISIS because I oppose the Moslem ban and support the freedom of religion.

I believe in Freedom of Speech. Under the US, Free Speech is strongly protected under the first amendment for everyone. Deal with it.

And he doesn't half believe it himself.

I also support everyone's right to march. I do not support anyone's "right" to march illegally. Like I don't support anyone's right to march illegally without a permit to interfere with my Constitutional right to free movement.

Guess what? The SCOTUS agrees with me time after time after time.

Hallucinating again??????????

That's a lot easier than dealing with reality.

It allows him to whistle while he works.

I am not exactly sure what point you are making here. The SCOTUS has stood firm on Free Speech over the years for everyone (including Nazis). There is clearly a legal right for everyone to March no matter how offensive their views are.

If you are saying that you agree with the Supreme Court on this... then you agree with me too.

There is no need for us to argue when we agree.

But they have never protected unprotected free speech, for example by requiring picket lines to keep moving so as to not block traffic or to allow strikers to block scab labor or ordering abortion protesters to be so many feet away from clinics or to order them not block entrance to clinics by clients, by requiring permits to march or meet at certain places.

Why don't you feel that permitting is a process that interferes with free speech in that permits are denied sometimes and they limit physical boundaries and even volume and even language used for the expression of free speech?

Why argue when we are in agreement? I have no problem agreeing with you when you are correct.

However the court has been very reluctant to allow many restrictions on "language used". Direct threats and incitement can be restricted under very narrow circumstances when they are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". But calling for a general "revengeance" against racial minorities is protected. It is not producing "imminent lawless action" according to the Supreme Court (see Brandenburg v. Ohio).

The Supreme Court cases are pretty clear. There is no sense arguing about what they say. If you agree with them... then there really isn't much to argue about.

Seriously?

You seem to be looking for an argument, just for the sake of an argument. If you have a point to make give me a Supreme Court case that illustrates it, and we can talk about it.

I have nothing personal against you Emmett, like anyone else sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. I have no problem admitting that I agree with you when you make what I think is a valid point.

Shouldn't "reluctant" need to be documented first?

I gave you the name of a Supreme Court case "Brandenburg v. Ohio", that I think comes pretty close to incitement. Yet, the Supreme Court still came on the side of free speech.

You can either discuss this case or another one. Of course the word "reluctant" is my editorial comment, but you can read the case yourself. The language that the Supreme Court said was protected in that case was pretty offensive and could even be seen as a threat. It was still protected.

Sheesh. I thought we agreed all and everything.