Hugo isn't very bright, /pol/...
>your after Trump
>your
you got BTFO
b t f o
t
f
o
>Freespeech or die is his twitter
>Does not support free speech
I don't get it. Why is he such a hypocrite?
>>73456475
Kek...
>>73456512
this, OP is a faggot.
>>73456512
Threatening to assassinate a presidential candidate isn't free speech.
>>73456512
>freedom of speech
>making a blatant death threat
pick 1
>>73456950
>Threatening to assassinate a presidential candidate isn't free speech
I thought /pol/ said EVERYTHING is free-speech?
Is hate speech free speech?
>>73457058
>>freedom of speech
>>making a blatant death threat
How about talking about killing niggers and jews, like on /pol/? Should it be shut down and the posters arrested then?
I'm really confused about this freespeech thing guys. Is freespeech only allowed for people who agree with us or what?
>>73456688
I'm not "Literally Stifler". If I got BTFOd like this I wouldn't post it. Especially on /pol/.
>>73456512
Free speech does not stop consequences.
>>73457066
You can't yell fire in a Theater
>>73456512
threatening to kill specific people isnt
you could say "I hope someone kills Trump"
but not " I am going to assassinate Trump"
now, there won't be anything legally done against him probably, but the FBI takes threats against presidential candidates pretty seriously and they will probably show up to his house and talk to him
>>73457220
>Free speech does not stop consequences.
Why does /pol/ get up in arms when someone is fired for saying "nigger" or whatever, then?
>>73457341
I don't actually believe that.
"nigger" is intended to offend. Squabbles in your job get you fired. I'd imagine calling your boss a cunt would get the same result.
>>73457066
It's not the speech itself that is illegal, its the threat.
>>73457341
Learn from a case in 1919
Here’s what Holmes actually wrote:
“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.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. It doesn’t say, “The government has plenty of ways to shut you up.”
>immediate harm to others
>>73457341
nigger = / = threatening to kill someone
this isnt a hard concept bud
>>73457143
Is this really that hard, leaf?
Exceptions to the U.S. first amendment:
-Libel
-Fighting words
-Death threats
Everything else is fair game.
>>73457462
adding on to this though, you do have to remember that one is illegal. the other is not.
This is from a few weeks ago. I believe it still has all of its social media accounts locked out. Would love to see tweets from after the secret service visit. Those are always funny.
>>73457312
>they will probably show up to his house and talk to him
Man I miss the days when they abducted people like this and execute them, chop their bodies up real fine and dump it in the sea. Those were the good old days.
>>73457484
>>73457523
>>73457544
So why get buttmad when someone gets fired for being a racist then?
It's a private company's choice, what's the issue? I'm really not getting the double standard
>>73457786
Employers have every right to fire you, leaf. Don't put words in my mouth
>>73457786
/pol/ is children now. You want coherence and constitutional consistency, go somewhere else.
>>73457786
we think its stupid, but we wouldn't argue to deny the right of the company to do what it wants bud.
we dont want to make firing people illegal...
what is this strawman you've constructed you dumb leaf bastard
>>73457235
Yes you can, you may be responsible for consequences, but the act itself isn't illegal
>>73456512
No no, he means, use your free speech and die.
>>73458134
>Yes you can, you may be responsible for consequences, but the act itself isn't illegal
How does that not make it illegal then you fucking retard?
You can shoot people too, "you may be responsible for consequences". What the fuck?
>>73457066
Don't imply /pol/ have ever agreed on anything.
Free speech has consequences.
Yell "this is a robbery" in a bank, and you'll see what I mean. But yes, hatespeech is free speech, and should be encouraged :^)
>>73458250
>But yes, hatespeech is free speech, and should be encouraged :^)
Should hatespeech and discrimination against whites be encouraged? :^))
>>73457484
>>immediate harm to others
In no case has the mere utterance of the word nigger caused so much as a bruise on a skin cell. Never happened. Ever.
To test this, I mapped out several quadrants on my forearm, and said "nigger" to them in various tones of voice.
The results were conclusive. No bruises, no contusions - not so much as a hair fell out.
I went as far as to duplicate the entire experiment following the consumption of two bowls of GDP with identical results.
>>73458242
Because if everybody sits there and stares at you, then you haven't broken a law.
As opposed to shooting someone, which would be attempted murder even if they laughed it off, as well as several other charges depending on where you live.
>>73456379
Well...gotta admire the chutzpah.
Hope when they deport him he steals a bunch of big ladders from Home Depot on his way out so he can get back over the wall kek.
>>73458426
>Because if everybody sits there and stares at you, then you haven't broken a law
It is illegal and you will be arrested because you caused a panic in a public place.
>>73456512
Because Hugo can't into American cultural values I guess.
>>73457066
No one has forbidden him from saying this.
>>73457753
>Delete
>>73457786
A private company has the right to fire someone for any reason. In fact, their freedom doesn't go as far as it should - you should be allowed to fire (or refuse to hire) someone because they're a nigger, for instance.
With that said, they have the freedom to fire someone for speaking their mind, and we have the freedom to boycott or otherwise fuck with their company for being little SJW kowtowing twats.
>>73457143
The problem is twitter has a liberal mentality, all this assassination shut for Donald on twitter are ignored, but say your gonna kill niggers or Hillary and you will be banned on your post will be deleted.
>>73457143
It's not complicated. A direct threat will be investigated.
I'm not sure how this restricts his first amendment rights?
Hundreds of people have made threats against Trump. Only a handful have faced legal consequences after the authorities determined they were credible threats.
See;
/pol/ can say "Boy I wish we'd kill all the Martians", what they can't say without fear of investigation is "I'm going to kill the Martian next door tomorrow at noon."
>>73458668
>and we have the freedom to boycott or otherwise fuck with their company for being little SJW kowtowing twats.
So do you agree that the business that refused to make a gay cake for a wedding was rightfully run out of business?
>>73457341
Because we believe it should apply evenly across the board or not at all.
Thankfully this is starting to happen and leftists are equally liable to Get Consequenced, which is making reasonable moderates buttmad.
It's dirty, but it's got to be done.
>>73457143
Honeybuns, I understand you're "A FUCKING LEAF" and therefore not particularly good at logic or reason, but let me walk you through this real slow:
If I say "it would be great if niggers and jews were killed", that's not a direct threat. That's me expressing my honest opinion - that I'd be glad if niggers and jews were killed. I'm not asking anyone to kill niggers or jews. I'm not saying I'm going to do it. It's not a direct threat; it is protected speech, and that's the kind of thing you generally see here. You almost never see direct threats on /pol/.
On the other hand, if someone like the dipshit in the OP straight up says they're going to kill someone, that's a direct threat.
Do you understand now, America's hat, or are you just trolling as usual?
>>73458904
They have the right to boycott. That doesn't mean what they are doing is right.
>>73458904
Rightfully? God, no. Legally? Yes, probably. I'm not super familiar with exactly what tactics the people "running them out of business" used, but if all they did was try to shame them with the facts of the situation, that's perfectly legal.
They're still faggots and fag-enablers who I hope die of AIDS, though.
>>73458904
>Rightfully run out of business
I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to boycott it AND publicize it.
I don't believe the government should be allowed to close it down or force it to serve customers it doesn't want to.
Just as a private company should be allowed to operate it's bathrooms as it sees fit. Have men and women only. Have gender neautral. Whatever you want.
>>73457769
Gee anon, how come you get TWO countries?
>>73459161
>I don't believe the government should be allowed to close it down or force it to serve customers it doesn't want to.
Right, this. Which is, if I remember correctly, what ultimately happened in this case, which makes it a total travesty of justice.
>>73459047
You do see direct threats on 4chan frequently. And consequently mods report these threats and the NFL sleeps easily.
What makes the Canadian angry is that these same rules now apply to mentally deficient leftists.
>>73459140
By run out of business what he means is that the government fined them until they lost all their money and had to close.
They legally have to serve sexual deviants or pay a fine and lose their business.
>>73459375
Yeah, that's horseshit and a complete abuse of the legal process. In a perfect world everybody involved would be tarred and feathered and left outside to be eaten by crows.
>>73459450
Wouldn't the tar kill the crows though?
How about we use honey instead?
>>73457066
The first amendment guarantees that your speech is free from government persecution. SJW get this confused and think their right to spew bullshit applies to any place they enter. Trigglypuff shouted free speech during her childish tantrum. The thing is she could have been stopped because the government wouldn't be ooressing her.
I can lose my job for hate speech but the government can't imprision me for it.
