Negatory

It's not blame shifting, @Guardian, it's pointing out double-standards. Don't misconstrue the argument.

Mark it off for the technicality here, congrats. Even though no one in this thread would argue with the fact that in an actual fire, no shit, you can say there is a fire. Guardian even said this is "the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," which is totally 100% technically incorrect by your logic, although I'm pretty sure you understood his point. The point is that that America's freedom of speech is almost indistinguishable from many other nations'.

I agree, everyone should not have equality of outcome, they should have equality of opportunity. All men are created equal. Which is why I’m certain you support a 100% redistributed inheritance and death tax, right? (I’m actually sure you don’t, and I’ve never understood this stance).

I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on many points, thanks for the opinions.

Am I in a never ending semantics argument? Is this about can vs may? The courts ruled your first amendment rights don’t apply when there is a “clear and present danger.” “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Also, I'll give it to you that you never said explicitly that what I said was only allowable in America. Although I still don't understand why you pointed it out other than to implicitly hint that I wouldn't be able to share my viewpoint unless I was here. Because in reality, what I said was perfectly allowable in the vast majority of countries, which is why your comment was so out of place and received multiple "why you saying this?" responses from not just myself.

And talking condescendingly to someone about how they should read books and take classes to learn how to focus their thoughts is a typical strategy to belittle and ignore someone's points (an ad hominem attack) when you aren't hitting the substantive parts of the argument. You are now just attacking me, not my argument. Focus.

Other countries have freedom of speech. Your argument is that America has the only real freedom of speech because other countries prohibit some things like hate speech. Well, as you said, you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater, so I guess by your logic, no one has true freedom of speech. Focus.

I read about it and I agree. Democrats are shameful in this case.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. The second paragraph, in my opinion, tries to make a non-partisan issue partisan and cast blame. Crime and Punishment and the protection and the over-empowering of the criminal justice system/police in the US is just as much Ronald Reagan’s fault as it is Bill Clinton’s (and those that support them).

You aren’t addressing my point because I was being sarcastic? I could have said literally everything I said in this forum in almost every first world nation on this planet and suffered no potential consequences. Freedom of speech and political opinion is protected in almost every comparable nation to a HUGE extent. The main thing that separates the US is that hate speech and intentionally inflammatory words are also protected here.... which I honestly don’t think I’ve ever taken advantage of. I do not see the benefit of US freedom of speech vs European freedom of speech in nearly all reasonable discourse. If you can please explain something that I said that would have gotten me in trouble, I would appreciate it (you already implied America is the only place that would let me talk like this). Because there is literally nothing. Also, the press freedom rankings are not useless or a deflection. They serve the point to prove that just because America has a bill of rights and constitution that says something is free doesn’t mean the societal model automatically makes it happen or matter. I.e. we espouse freedom of the press as one of our societal rights and then do a bad job of it. Cheers.

I guess I’m lucky to be in the US, because it allows me to spout my totally socialist viewpoints unabashedly. Whereas if I was in any other country I would be liable to be arrested or fined immediately. Obvious sarcasm if not noted. On another note, did you hear about the Press Freedom Rankings? I hear we are working our way up there, hopefully one day we’ll be as free as all those other first world countries! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country Arbitrary buzzwords about freedom are not helpful, it comes across as thinly veiled threats about how I’m lucky to even get to talk.

Brother, they are held accountable morally, whether you like it or not. Maybe not in a court of law, but you surely understand that really, when it comes down to it, right and wrong is defined by humanity - not by the US legal system. Maybe it’s too philosophical, but your actions actually are judged not just on legality, just as I’m judging the police not just on legality. E.g. you go cheat on your wife, I’ll judge you for it even though it’s not illegal. With that being said, I believe the US legal system gets it mostly right, but my point is that when 50 cops resign from the Buffalo police department after cracking open the skull of a senior citizen because they were mad that they got “in trouble,” it’s not illegal. But it’s pathetic. And they are and should be judged for it. Cheers, friend.

Although, to be clear, there are innumerable accounts of illegal and unlawful abuses of power and authority that have been demonstrated over the last few months.

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States Morality vs legality. As an example, in many US states, the police can permanently seize your assets without charging you with a crime. I would argue that shouldn’t happen. It’s never as clear cut as “the law says so,” and just because laws have loopholes and ways you can take advantage of them shouldnt give carte blanche authority for you, or me, or police to do so. Cheers.

When the lines are fuzzy it should be morality and constitutionality.

Legality =/= morality. Cheers.

It started with an honest attempt at discourse with di1630. I guess the only thing you can do is just ignore him. Is it a lot if it happened one time? Cheers.

You mad bro? If you are still feeling as edgy, here, you can edit the rest of the saying:

You should play devil's advocate. I try to, because I recognize that I am becoming more biased the more I see. And I don't like it. It's hard to stay impartial, and I appreciate your response. 1) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/02/george-floyd-protest-minneapolis-cops-shoot-paint-people-porch/3123781001/ - The argument is that the police said there is a curfew, and you have to listen to the police. Additionally, they only used paint, not rubber bullets as I said previously - I was wrong. Doesn't change that I don't think that they should have been shot at on their own porch or ordered inside. 2) I think they had this guy under control when they started assaulting him. I get your point, but it's not in play in this video imo. 3) Why does someone have to have pre-conceived notions to believe that you shouldn't be shot at if you don't present a threat? He is literally on a skybridge above the cops (the skybridge is to the Louisville Courthouse), not in the mess. I find it hard to wrap my mind around justification for a shot ever happening here. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/louisville-shot-fired-security-guard-video 4) I will admit that this video has little context - it isn't even confirmed 100% that those are proud boys. It's a few minutes before a curfew, and they are outside. The cops shouldn't be talking to any specific groups just "so [they] don't look like [they're] playin favorites." The cops ended up apologizing for a perception of impartiality. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/salem-police-chief-apologizes-in-response-to-viral-video-of-officer/283-d7f4ce66-6f8d-4a25-a478-ae3999648d51 5) There are actually two videos there. Disorderly conduct for bumping into a cop that stops 6" in front of you? YGBSM. It's like being arrested for resisting arrest, and it's a pathetic technicality. https://patch.com/new-york/eastmeadow/3-arrested-east-meadow-protest 6) Okay, fine. No context. I agree that protesters that take advantage of a legitimate protest to loot and destroy private property should go to jail. It's easy for people to call a whole protest a riot and immediately condemn every person there as a criminal, when it's only a few. And I guess what would come back is that it's just as easy for people like me to call the justice system broken because of the actions of a few bad apples. I feel confident in saying I don't support cops who support other cops who abused power. And I also don't support protestors who support other protestors who break the law and capitalize on anarchy.

Valid points. The biggest one that I didn't realize is that DUI (of marijuana) is probably an increasing crime that needs to be dealt with somehow. I still think that legalizing it is better for society than jailing and ruining people's lives/productivity. I actually listened to this podcast recently, and I seem to remember him arguing that legalization is actually what would help dismantle the cartels' power, it's just that legalization of cocaine/heroin is so outside of society's political realm that it's unfeasible. With that being said, I have a friend that is going to die of heroin addiction, and I do not believe that heroin/meth/opiods should be legal. At the same time, I do not believe that jailing those that use the drugs actually fixes the problem. In America, the moment you are arrested for doing meth, your life is over for good - there is no redemption, there is no way to remove that, there is no making up for it. Treating drug abuse purely as a crime is a short-sighted approach that doesn't hit the root cause.

In this thread: "patriot" shows no concern for authoritarian, unconstitutional actions because it's happening to someone with views different than their own. I'm sure with your vast wealth of historical knowledge you will understand this reference: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist."

I am opposed to police arresting people with no basis and not being held responsible. Since they are using unmarked cars and obfuscating their badge numbers and identities to do it, yes, I am opposed to those things as well. Here's the last couple months in America: I am opposed to cops shooting home owners with rubber bullets when they are video taping off of the porch of their own property: https://streamable.com/u2jzoo I am opposed to cops beating suspects that are cuffed: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/7e1074c8-1f77-4922-b088-4a2069f5b23e (have about 50 more of these, let me know) I am opposed to cops shooting at people just for recording them: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/b702c820-1837-4025-8a08-91e8a3cdff07 I am opposed to cops giving preferential warning to the Proud Boys (white nationalists) before breaking up groups: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/aec4e019-59bc-4eec-b119-df877024ce57 I am opposed to cops using tactics like getting 6" away from people or literally stopping in front of them to claim that they were assaulted and then arresting them unjustly: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/70c2a732-a9b6-4d5d-8ce4-81625742ccd4 https://peertube.live/videos/watch/8ba7a5d9-7e63-4dc5-a193-e0330c20cee2 I am opposed to cops over-aggressing and using chokeholds on people half their size while pretending that they are the good guys: https://peertube.live/videos/watch/55b36828-a647-478e-87f9-810fc7ab7a55 None of these incidents has resulted in a criminal charge. And you aren't going to watch any of them because your mind is already made up.

Also what’s your point? Fallacies are okay?