Should free speech apply to everyone, /pol/?
yes
also
>implying those anita threats were real
mob of people trying to attack you physically =/= a spooky phone call
>>67219744
Yes
>implying SJW attentionwhores haven't been caught time and again as the sender behind the threats they received
that episode of Law & Order was fucking meme magic, though
They defend Anita but blame Trump on threats
>>67219744
>unverified threat on a nobody
>violent mob threatening to attack valuable billionaire and politician
I hate you
Anita is free to spew her feminist garbage. She's free to lie about getting death threats, too. She does not have the right to censor my shit.
>>67219830
But them calls are spooky mr. leaf.
How do they know my number?
>>67219744
except anita's threat was totally made up by her so she could earn victim points
just remember folks, freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom of consequences
>>67220428
>>67220292
you got proof, gomerpyles?
>>67220187
5 threads on /v/ jizzing at how stupid it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT4hog3qOrs
Clearly Anita's divisive rhetoric was cause for the violent threats.
>>67219744
>Should free speech apply to everyone, /pol/?
Yes. Even the leftist degenerates are allowed to speak.
>>67219744
No it shouldn't. People who are anti-America should ideally be deported, or have rights taken away
>>67220476
The burden of proof is on you, asshole. You can't pull that shit here.
>>67219744
Of course. Even KKK and BLM deserve free speech unless they plan to create violence against other group or people.
>>67220459
Kill yourself
No, should not apply to everyone.
Free speech only applies to me, because only I am correct.
Violence is not covered by free speech. People should protest if they want to, if they resort to violence their rights end. This goes for both sides. If you support violence to suppress freedom of speech, you are a coward.
It looks like the people in this thread don't realize that Free Speech only applies to the government not being allowed to take action that would limit anyone's free speech except in incidents where that free speech will affect someone else's rights (in-sighting violence).
>>67219744
First Amendment just protects you from the government
>>67221196
This is the most retarded liberal meme i've ever seen and i cannot fucking wait for a private militia or some other extremist group to sweep through and with boots on your neck all the people across all the bridges you burn will look and say "Who cares, it's not the government doing it!"
>>67221397
This. That's why I am confused that liberals love to censor other people's opinions but they will scream oppression if they are being censored by other people.
>>67221196
Yes, free speech in the first amendment generally applies to the government.
If you believe in the PRINCIPLE of free speech you would stand against censorship no matter what. If you don't, you're anti-free speech, and a terrible person.
>>67220992
it's true though. it's the same reason you guys encourage people to report to the fbi when they say things about presidential candidates you like
>>67219744
The idea of free speech was not written into this country in order to protect popular opinion.
If you are not willing to protect UNPOPULAR speech than you are not willing to have free speech at all.
without what we have deemed "hate speech" you just have a bunch of assholes agreeing with each others bullshit.
>>67220838
>major news site reports she was threatened
>anon on a mandarin pantomime imageboard says it was a lie
the burden of proof is actually on you, sugartits.
>>67223561
IIRC (there may have been multiple situations like this) she filed no police report on the threat, no law enforcement was consulted regarding it, that certainly puts most of the known 'facts' regarding this squarely in the 'She faked it for media attention' camp.
>>67219744
Yes, the first amendment is explicit about it. Whether people will accept idiotic, yet passionately defended, ideas is another question entirely though,
>>67222154
this is what people don't understand. The most extreme examples of "hate" will always be used by tyrants as the exception that proves the rule. Banal speech such as "how's the weather?" doesn't need protection.
