Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/16/2025 2:30:58 PM PDT by RandFan
The GOP has turned so hard on free speech that now even “libertarian” Rand Paul is calling for a “crackdown” on those using their First Amendment rights.
“I was assaulted six, seven years ago, attacked from behind, had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed, and still online, on a daily basis people say they wish that it would happen to me all over again,” Paul said Tuesday on Fox Business. “And by sort of making light of what I suffered, they are encouraging other people to do it. That oughta be taken down, and social media oughta be able to take that down.
“People say, ‘Oh people have a right to say things.’ Well, actually, they don’t necessarily have a right to say things; many people have in their contract what we call a morals clause … or a conduct clause,” Paul continued, as he compared the First Amendment to a military conduct code. “I think it is time for this to be a crackdown on people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Oh the government sure as heck does have a right to control your speech. Have you forgot the patriot act?
Have you forgotten already that it’s against the law to yell fire in a crowded theater?
Have you forgotten already that it is against the law to use language that insights violence?
Correct. But how about laughing at it? Gloating over it? Specifically, should the government crack down on/jail/fine anybody who laughs at someone on the receiving end of violence?
Business can, and should, hire or fire at will, but I'm talking specifically about the role of government.
There were plenty of similar comments in support of Luigi Nicholas Mangione murdering the man in New York in cold blood.
I don’t think any of those comments had reprecussions. Incitement to violence and murder is not protected speech.
San I reading this right? Rand is a rabid LIBERTARIAN, and he has a problem with free speech? (I’m probably missing something.)
San I reading this right? Rand is a rabid LIBERTARIAN, and he has a problem with free speech?
But for about a decade, from the left, this is the mantra:
Our violence is speech.
Your speech is violence.
“Correct. But how about laughing at it? Gloating over it? Specifically, should the government crack down on/jail/fine anybody who laughs at someone on the receiving end of violence?”
It has happened here on the FR countless times... “Good... Can’t wait to piss on it”.
Anyone else see the Kirk situation being taken advantage of to implement control and punishment of online speech, political ideology, and permit warrantless privacy invasion? They are going to push for open backdoors to web servers next.
What happened to Kirk is an atrocity, and of course celebrating it is evil and ruthless. But is the cost of their “remedies” going to end up being government overreach that will carry into a future liberal administration? I’m watching government in real time take advantage of this situation to legalize government overreach and digital control...
I absolutely see and support the organic spinoff of private employers and organizations punishing employees. This is well within their rights and common sense because those employees also represent the face and integrity of the company or organization. But I also see the government talking about implementing laws and criminal charges for disparaging speech. This is a private sector issue, not a government issue and the end result will not be selective, it will be one size fit’s all.
It is all good now as far as conservatives see it, but conservatives are not going to control that power in the near future. We may be sorry what we are asking for here... So which is the lesser of the two evils?
Actually they can.
Contrary to the mythology screamed on social media, you do not have a right to political intimidation and violent threat. The people you are threatening have a superior right to be free from such behavior. The US has a long history of dealing with domestic terrorists engaging in political violence. The KKK, the Weatherman and the Anarchists are just some examples
The idea that anything you say, post or publish is “free speech” is a myth.
I extremely agree. Hakim Jeffries needs to shut up. Ancient Persian proverb said, “Don’t let your tongue cut off your head.”
See George Zinn. Arrested and charged with obstruction of justice by claiming he was the shooter.
Also later charged with abusive child porn on his phone. They got a warrant.
While unkind, simply vocally wishing someone harm is not illegal in the U.S. because it is generally protected under free speech. However, this “wish” can become unlawful if it crosses the line into a credible “true threat” or becomes part of a pattern of harassment.
What constitutes a “true threat”?
A threat becomes illegal when it is a “true threat,” which is an explicit statement of intent to commit illegal violence. The factors that determine if speech is a true threat include:
Intent: The speaker meant to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.
Reasonable fear: The statement causes a reasonable person to fear for their safety.
Context: Factors such as how the message was communicated, the history between the individuals, and the speaker’s ability to carry out the threat are considered.
Harassment and other criminal conduct
Even if not a “true threat,” repeatedly wishing someone harm could be considered harassment, depending on the frequency and context. Harassment is defined as repeated, unwanted behavior that causes distress or fear. The legal criteria for harassment vary by jurisdiction, so local laws would need to be considered.
When a “wish” becomes a threat
Type of speech Example Legal status
“I hope you die” or “I hope something bad happens to you.” Generally protected. This is an expression of opinion and does not contain a credible threat of action by the speaker.
“I’m going to kill you,” or “I am going to break into your house tonight and cut your throat while you sleep.” Illegal. These are specific, unconditional threats that create a reasonable fear of harm.
Sending a person thousands of aggressive and intimidating messages over two years, which causes the recipient to fear for their safety. Illegal. A repeated course of conduct that causes emotional distress can constitute harassment.
A statement like, “You’ll be sorry you did that,” if delivered with aggressive actions and in a history of violence between the parties. Illegal. The context can transform ambiguous language into a credible threat of future harm.
In short, the law protects the expression of a mere wish for someone’s misfortune, no matter how offensive. However, if that statement becomes a specific, credible threat of action by you, or part of a repeated pattern of behavior intended to cause fear, it can become an unlawful act.
Rand said he wants to crack down on people for "making light" of the despicable attack on him. Because that incites violence.
Oh really?
And as you stated, if the demoncraps obtain power again, they will surely use that same power to crack down on most of FR for "making light" of whatever bad thing happens to a leftist. I mean, who decides what after-the-fact jokes or "making light" of a demoncrap's demise rises to the level of "inciting violence"?
If someone is making threats about some future act, sure, go after them. But laughing about it afterwards? What is this? The Bureau of Thought Crimes now?
I think inciting violence is a pretty direct set of comments, like, “We have to kill ‘X.’” or “We have to physically hurt ‘X.’” “Wishing” doesn’t cut it with me, either.
The rest is simply posturing. Even a list of people isn’t inciting violence, in my mind.
Yes, that is what I believe, too.
Yes, totally agree. And what does that have to do with someone on the internet laughing or mocking someone after the fact?
Jail or fine?
Heck no.
Fire? Sure.
If you are callous about the victim of a violent crime, why should that attitude infect your workplace?
Yep, we have to be careful and not act out of emotion. Because if we do it WILL come back to haunt us someday soon...
Keep the government out of it... Or speaking out against Trannies and gays will get the FR shut down because they consider that violent hate speech.
I think its like shouting FIRIE in a theater, someone is going to get hurt.
They can be legally fired by their employer. They can be excluded from other organizations.
I was just giving an example of free speech that did not incite violence that is illegal.
The owner of this site legally restricts speech and arguments.
We all have the right to remain silent BUT!!!! anything we say can and will be used against us in a court of law.
I actually want these lefties to exercise their free speech even more. Why? Because then their employers can use their free speech to say “you’re fired” including government employees, especially teachers.
Their online rants also jeopardize any chance of them ever running for public office and can be used against them during campaigns.
The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.
Context and audience is everything.
The simple phrase “nice tits” can get you sex or can get you fired or even arrested if harassment at work or said to a minor by an adult.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.