comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 48 seconds ago
Making false accusations isn’t an expression of ‘Free Speech’, that’s why we have libel laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the US the 1st Amendment provides for defamation. Which enabled the SH plaintiffs to bring their case in the first place.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander

comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Ladmin We Win (U1250)
posted 2 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by David The King Beckham (U10026)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by David The King Beckham (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by David The King Beckham (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
Who’s gonna rock up to defend him first?

UWW? TUX? Oscar?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poolmyfinger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Told you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I bet your reward is letting your wife get plowed by her new boyfriend while you watch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone’s touchy one of their idols has been exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don’t give a fvck about Alex Jones. If you knew how to read, you’d see that I said I don’t buy into the SH conspiracy. It happened.

What I won’t ever agree with is anyone getting sued for damages over an opinion, especially one that he actually believed.

There should be no limit to speech. Ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ill throw in Godwin's law, there was a guy in the 30's and 40's who kind of proved that there should be a limit to free speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you favor the government being able to dictate which speech is allowed or not?

Sounds very Orwellian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think that it is ok for people to falsely brandish a person as a rapist or pedophile?

comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
Free speech is such a nonsense phrase, and so many people in America don't seem to understand what their own constitution actually means when it talks of free speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure.

So, how about you - as someone who isn’t American - try to explain what the First Amendment in my country’s constitution means.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means your government can't infringe on your right tk say what you want. Nowhere does it stayed that you cannot be reprimanded by a private citizen for the damage your speech might cause, I.e. consequences.

Jones was free to say what he did, his right to have InfoWars was never threatened, so his 1st ammendment rights were not infringed.

But his speech caused serious distress to the impacted families who have now successfully sued him for damages.

So can you tell me where his 1st ammendment rights have been infringed? Or is this just the American legal system doing what it is designed to do?

brandish No idea why I used that word then. I meant label.

I almost made a comment earlier (off 606) about how I didn't see anyone defending Alex Jones's right to free speech. Then I came on here and actually saw it happening

So what if 'he believed it', for God's sake. Should we allow football fans to racially abuse players as long as they 'believe' they're from an inferior race?

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
I almost made a comment earlier (off 606) about how I didn't see anyone defending Alex Jones's right to free speech. Then I came on here and actually saw it happening

So what if 'he believed it', for God's sake. Should we allow football fans to racially abuse players as long as they 'believe' they're from an inferior race?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely mind boggling logic.

Excuse all them typos phones don't allow for fast typing 😒

'Believing' malicious lies, and getting others to believe them, has a price.

https://twitter.com/388shark/status/1580287501276626945?s=19

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
I almost made a comment earlier (off 606) about how I didn't see anyone defending Alex Jones's right to free speech. Then I came on here and actually saw it happening

So what if 'he believed it', for God's sake. Should we allow football fans to racially abuse players as long as they 'believe' they're from an inferior race?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He never believed it for a second I'd say, he knows the game, a modern day Rush Limbaugh, play to the crowd ann rile them up = profit.

Like InfoWars went all gung-ho on "soy boy" saying men who eat or drink soy are turning feminine, they also sell a "supplement" called Brain Force that, guess what, has soy as an ingredient.

Paul Joseph Watson who is the British face of InfoWars and was the main man pushing this whole soy boy nonsense then had to make a video where he, and this is true, said "brain force is so strong and makes you so masculine that we had to add some soy just to balance it out", the whole thing is a grift aimed at taking money of vulnerable people, it's sad but also hilarious.

comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
I almost made a comment earlier (off 606) about how I didn't see anyone defending Alex Jones's right to free speech. Then I came on here and actually saw it happening

So what if 'he believed it', for God's sake. Should we allow football fans to racially abuse players as long as they 'believe' they're from an inferior race?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He never believed it for a second I'd say, he knows the game, a modern day Rush Limbaugh, play to the crowd ann rile them up = profit.

Like InfoWars went all gung-ho on "soy boy" saying men who eat or drink soy are turning feminine, they also sell a "supplement" called Brain Force that, guess what, has soy as an ingredient.

Paul Joseph Watson who is the British face of InfoWars and was the main man pushing this whole soy boy nonsense then had to make a video where he, and this is true, said "brain force is so strong and makes you so masculine that we had to add some soy just to balance it out", the whole thing is a grift aimed at taking money of vulnerable people, it's sad but also hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh for sure, I remember a couple of years ago when that frontline doctors of America was (is?) a thing and they were saying big Pharma was evil and they would cure you. Then it turned out the ‘cure’ was you calling a premium rate number for ages then paying something like $500 for a phone consultation and them a prescription of hydrox or ivermectin.

Grifters, the lot of them. You only have to see Russell Brand be a complete sellout to what he was presenting himself as just 3/4 years ago

On one hand PMF is claiming there should be “no limit” to free speech; anyone can claim/state whatever they want without consequence. But on the other cites the first amendment. Which literally cites provisions for defamation/liable/slander.

“Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another. When in written form it is often called ‘libel’. Defamation has always acted as a limit on both the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. There is no such thing as a false opinion or idea – however, there can be a false fact, and these are not protected under the First Amendment. When these false facts harm the reputation of others, legal action can be taken against the speaker”

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20%26%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Press%20Defamation&text=Defamation%20is%20the%20communication%20of,the%20freedom%20of%20the%20press.

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
On one hand PMF is claiming there should be “no limit” to free speech; anyone can claim/state whatever they want without consequence. But on the other cites the first amendment. Which literally cites provisions for defamation/liable/slander.

“Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another. When in written form it is often called ‘libel’. Defamation has always acted as a limit on both the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. There is no such thing as a false opinion or idea – however, there can be a false fact, and these are not protected under the First Amendment. When these false facts harm the reputation of others, legal action can be taken against the speaker”

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20%26%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Press%20Defamation&text=Defamation%20is%20the%20communication%20of,the%20freedom%20of%20the%20press.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s a raft of stuff to add to that: the dissemination of national security and military intelligence, child porrnography, fraud, speech inciting lawless action, commercial speech (like advertising), copyright, protection from imminent violence…

You cannot uphold the rest of the rights and protections detailed in the Constitution if the First Amendment is interpreted as dictating that literally anyone can say literally anything they like in literally any given situation. It’d render the entire document self-contradictory, and, of course, the US an incredibly dangerous place.

Imagine if politicians could freely dictate military secrets to foreign powers, people could coerce fellow citizens with learning disabilities to commit crimes on their behalf, or McDonalds could tell all of their customers that every super size Big Mac meal added a year to their life

Paul Joseph Watson who is the British face of InfoWars and was the main man pushing this whole soy boy nonsense then had to make a video where he, and this is true, said "brain force is so strong and makes you so masculine that we had to add some soy just to balance it out"
————

comment by David The King Beckham (U10026)
posted 22 seconds ago
Paul Joseph Watson who is the British face of InfoWars and was the main man pushing this whole soy boy nonsense then had to make a video where he, and this is true, said "brain force is so strong and makes you so masculine that we had to add some soy just to balance it out"
————

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder what he thinks/wants us to think the consequences of NOT doing that might have been

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 26 minutes ago
On one hand PMF is claiming there should be “no limit” to free speech; anyone can claim/state whatever they want without consequence. But on the other cites the first amendment. Which literally cites provisions for defamation/liable/slander.

“Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another. When in written form it is often called ‘libel’. Defamation has always acted as a limit on both the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. There is no such thing as a false opinion or idea – however, there can be a false fact, and these are not protected under the First Amendment. When these false facts harm the reputation of others, legal action can be taken against the speaker”

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20%26%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Press%20Defamation&text=Defamation%20is%20the%20communication%20of,the%20freedom%20of%20the%20press.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who would have thought that PMF had no idea what is written in the US Constitution?

Oh yes, all of us.

The guy who’s annoying me recently is Aseem Malhotra. He’s this British cardiologist who’s made it his lifes mission to being down the system for killing us all with the evil vaccines.

He recently unveiled the work of a lifetime which was lauded by GB News as proof of the big clotshot scam.

He was the editor of the paper that published it 😂

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/article-by-cardiologist-aseem-malhotra-made-unsupported-claims-about-benefits-risks-covid-19-vaccination/

comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
On one hand PMF is claiming there should be “no limit” to free speech; anyone can claim/state whatever they want without consequence. But on the other cites the first amendment. Which literally cites provisions for defamation/liable/slander.

“Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another. When in written form it is often called ‘libel’. Defamation has always acted as a limit on both the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. There is no such thing as a false opinion or idea – however, there can be a false fact, and these are not protected under the First Amendment. When these false facts harm the reputation of others, legal action can be taken against the speaker”

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20%26%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Press%20Defamation&text=Defamation%20is%20the%20communication%20of,the%20freedom%20of%20the%20press.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s a raft of stuff to add to that: the dissemination of national security and military intelligence, child porrnography, fraud, speech inciting lawless action, commercial speech (like advertising), copyright, protection from imminent violence…

You cannot uphold the rest of the rights and protections detailed in the Constitution if the First Amendment is interpreted as dictating that literally anyone can say literally anything they like in literally any given situation. It’d render the entire document self-contradictory, and, of course, the US an incredibly dangerous place.

Imagine if politicians could freely dictate military secrets to foreign powers, people could coerce fellow citizens with learning disabilities to commit crimes on their behalf, or McDonalds could tell all of their customers that every super size Big Mac meal added a year to their life
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Super Size me

https://www.amazon.com/Infowars-Life-Capsules-Powerful-Nootropic/product-reviews/B011P3DHHS?pageNumber=5


Brandon
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Life changing for the best
Reviewed in the United States on April 26, 2019
Amazing product. I have unlocked information I obtained over time I wasn't aware I possessed. In conversing I can now articulate perfectly.

comment by David The King Beckham (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.amazon.com/Infowars-Life-Capsules-Powerful-Nootropic/product-reviews/B011P3DHHS?pageNumber=5


Brandon
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Life changing for the best
Reviewed in the United States on April 26, 2019
Amazing product. I have unlocked information I obtained over time I wasn't aware I possessed. In conversing I can now articulate perfectly.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha ha ha ha ha ha 😂

Snake oil salesmen for the digital age.

It’s hilarious how many Republicans hide behind the constitution when they seemingly know fack all about it.

This worship of the constitution is embarrassing anyway, especially one that is so out of date.

https://twitter.com/badvaccinetakes/status/1580431175872499712?s=46&t=UcsR_ikWYVymgWaOHSU6qQ

comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
Free speech is such a nonsense phrase, and so many people in America don't seem to understand what their own constitution actually means when it talks of free speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure.

So, how about you - as someone who isn’t American - try to explain what the First Amendment in my country’s constitution means.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he has a x-cuse.

Tho tbf u have same c-cuse

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
https://twitter.com/badvaccinetakes/status/1580431175872499712?s=46&t=UcsR_ikWYVymgWaOHSU6qQ


----------------------------------------------------------------------

FFs, I liked that paper planes song. She’s dead to me now

comment by David The King Beckham (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
It’s hilarious how many Republicans hide behind the constitution when they seemingly know fack all about it.

This worship of the constitution is embarrassing anyway, especially one that is so out of date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The gun law they love is an Amendment. It is time for another one.