Free speech being stifled by the Liberals. They're more and more like the far right every day.
So you think "free speech" means a foreign leader who is actively committing a genocide must be allowed to speak directly to Congress?
Do you think Putin should be able to? What about NK or China's leaders?
How pissed are you when peaceful protesters are attacked by cops?
Because that actually is a free speech issue. But no one is entitled to give a speech to Congress.
I think free speech is the ability for an invited speaker to speak freely in front of Congress. An active campaign to prevent that is absolutely stifling Free speech.
Nowhere am I claiming that they are intending on putting him in jail for what he's saying. That would be illegal. Stifling or subverting the intention of Congress is definitely stifling free speech.
The speaker does not own the house and does not represent the whole of Congress. Opposing the speaker's wishes is not the same as opposing free speech and an invite to speak is not a subpoena.
If it was a subpoena to speak before Congress then it would be a violation to oppose under a contempt charge like any American citizen would get, just like the previous administration violated subpoenas that should have resulted in charges except for Senate Republicans who chose not to do their job and enforce the law.
The speaker can invite whoever they want and the opposition party can try to prevent that within the bounds of the law if they oppose the invitee.
No one says they own it, but they are quite literally the speaker of the House. So when they extend an invitation to someone to speak before the American public and that is undermined then they add us quite literally stifling Free speech.
No, you are equivocating the house speaker and Congress and they are not the same in who they represent. The house speaker represents the majority party and their constituents. Congress, including all of the representatives and senators from both parties, are there to represent the American people.
Explain to the class how exactly you think the concept of "free speech" applies to the leader of a foreign country looking to butter up our elected officials. He can go on Fox "news" if he wants a willing audience.
The US Congress is inviting someone to speak before them. An active effort to undermine and subvert that is unquestionably stifling free speech.
Yeah, they won't let me give a speech to Congress either. They're stifling MY free speech too.
What's that? That's not what free speech means?
Yes, putting together a campaign to stop someone who has been invited to speak before Congress from doing so is absolutely stifling of free speech.
THAT'S NOT WHAT FREE SPEECH IS!!!
It only means literally only one thing: the government isn't allowed to punish you for saying something.
That's literally it. No one is being punished. Bibi can say whatever depraved shit he wants to anyone who will listen, it just turns out that it's not Congress.
You "free speech" literally don't even understand the very basic thing you build your lives around. Less brain cells than an orange tabby.
You're showing your lack of comprehension here. I never said said they're violating the Constitution. If that's how you're interpreting this, that's just ridiculous..
I said they're stifling. Free speech which is exactly what they're trying to do.
Sure, if you change the definition of words then you'll never be wrong. Of course when YOU said "free speech" you didn't mean the commonly understood, legally defined term that people use when the government oppresses its citizens by restricting their ability to speak out against it. You meant some arbitrary broader concept that includes Bibi coming over and explaining why opposing genocide is anti-Semitism directly to Congress. As if any foreign agent has, or should have the right to address the government anytime they want.
I wonder what word you'll redefine next to not be wrong.
If I were him, I'd try to redefine "redefine".
Hah, checkmate atheist.
Ooh....ooh..."'moving the goalposts' means giving your opponent another shot at a field goal".
No one needs to change the definition when you're working overtime to twist what I'm saying. I never said you needed to be arrested for violating the Constitution. I'm pointing out the clear and obvious fact that Free speech before they make hunger so it is being stifled..
That you're supporting this just shows how fascist the claimed progressives have become in America.. if you're afraid of someone speaking then challenge them with ideas. Don't shut them down. I get that's what you're taught to do on campus now, but that's not an effective way to deal with someone or something you disagree with.
Absolutely not! You may have a right to speak but you have no right to an audience. Just because someone wants to talk it doesn't mean I have to "challenge their ideas". I can just not listen. And if they want to come speak in my house I can trespass them. That's what the Democrats are doing.
You can speak, but no one needs to listen. Some ideas don't deserve the respect of a challenge. Anything Bibi wants to say right now is easily in that range.
Yes you can. Just not listen. That's a very good point. Not listening is very different from scuttling the invitation provided by the speaker of the house.
Not really. Either way you're not listening. In one case you're not listening as a group.
You ever get tired of shilling for genocide?
"Freedom of Speech" is not "Freedom to get a free soapbox anywhere you feel like whenever you feel like".
In your version, anybody in the World has a right to address Congress whenever they feel like, in which case it should be first come first served and Netanyahu can join the line just everybody else (as giving priority to some would interfere in everybody else's "Freedom").
No one is saying free speech is giving the entire world a soapbox wherever they want .
We're talking about someone who has been invited by the speaker of the House to speak in front of Congress. This isn't any random person on a soapbox. This is the speaker of the House of Representatives making an official US government invitation to an ally. Undermining that is absolutely stifling Free speech.
I'm sorry but Free Speech is exactly about anybody, a.k.a. random, persons having a freedom, and there is no mention about "allies" or any other special groups having any more right to it than anybody else exactly because you can't have one Freedom for some and a different Freedom for others: Free it's for everybody, otherwise it's not Free, it's Controlled.
You claim this is a Free Speech matter and then your entire argument is about speech for some people controlled by an invitation of a specifica person, the very opposite of Free.
As I said, if Congress should be treated as a Free Speech space then ANYBODY has a right to go there and speak (and Netanyahu can join the queue), if only some people are allowed to go there, controlled by an invitation by a specific person, then it's not Free Speech, it's about a space with access limited by rules, be it to speak or something else, so it's about Congressional Rules and your entire "argument" is total bollocks.
You can't try and bypass the rules by claiming it's all about Free Speech at the very same time you want it for just this one person just this one time - that's just complete total hypocrisy.
Sure, you've convinced me, anyone that the speaker of the house thinks deserves that platform should have it then, ally or not.
That you think limiting the ability of people to speak before Congress, isn't stifling free speech is beyond absurd.
Why don't you just give Bibi a nice reach-around, and leave the rest of us out of it?
I'm hardly concerned with who's the one giving the speech and entirely concerned with the fact the Democratic party is working overtime to stifle Free speech before the American Congress.
That's still not free speech tho.
But in any case, why does it matter?
Is Bibi a US citizen?
It's absolutely free speech. I'm not saying someone needs to be arrested for violating a Constitution, but the fact that you're supporting the subversion of free speech in Congress is absolutely ridiculous.
It doesn't matter whether the invited party is a citizen or not. They are invited by the speaker of the House once that platform is extended, It's what matters..
You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they're against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.
In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee's speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.
Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.
The reasoning is abundantly clear. The speaker of the House quite literally by definition is in charge of who speaks before the house. Undermining and subverting the invitation of someone to speak before Congress is absolutely limiting free speech before the American public.
That you're trying to make this a legal argument, proves to me that you understand the problem here. I'm not claiming this is a legal issue. This is a moral issue and the Democrats who constantly claim moral superiority have lost credibility with this action. If they have a problem with what a foreign leader has to say then they should take to the floor with a rebuttal. Well, over half of Americans support this particular Ally. American people have jobs that are entirely independent on the support of this. Ally. Throwing a hissy fit and refusing to allow someone of that stature to speak before Congress is a very sad demonstration of weakness.
Holding people at the border and arresting peaceful protesters are also examples of stifling Free speech. Both can be true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It's wild to me watching liberals turning into the scaredy cats that they claim. The conservatives are with actions like this. Hardly progressive.
You're literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn't even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.
I'm literally claiming reality. Scuttling an invitation from the speaker of the House is absolutely stifling free speech. I've never made the claim. It's a constitutional violation you'd have to be in absolute moron to interpret my comment that way.
There are many ways to stifle Free speech. I see people making that claim regarding the chance for intifada college campuses. Being an expression of free speech. I'm amused and fascinated by the people claiming that shutting down an encampment that's calling for in intifada which is unquestionably. A violent action is stifling Free speech. Well they have issues with a politician being invited to speak before Congress.
Got it, giving an opinion that someone should not be invited to speak at a specific location is apparently not an expression of free speech, it's suppression of free speech. Just like how if someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face, it'd be suppression of speech for you to ask them to do that somewhere else.
Free speech means that the government can't punish you for saying things. That's it.
That's the legal definition. It's insane that you're trying to argue that THAT is what's needed to consider the limiting of speech to be unacceptable. Your bias has clouded your ability to reason. I'm quite sure you're not making those claims about the campus protests being shut down by the schools.
Campus protests being shut down by schools is absolutely a completely different situation than someone being invited to give a speech. Saying no to someone giving a speech isn't punishing them.
As you've been told multiple times, free speech doesn't guarantee you a platform wherever or whenever you want. In fact, by your definition of free speech, the entire parliamentary procedure is a violation of free speech. Which is a ridiculous take.
You're right, it is very different. The campus encampments are calling for intifada. Calling for violence should not be accepted. That is starkly different from an invitation to a foreign Ally being scuttled by people too afraid to hear what someone has to say.
Yes, calling for the Palestinian people to rise up against the invading country that is actively genociding them is definitely a bad thing.
I'm being sarcastic, so hopefully that was obvious.
Not wanting people to speak before Congress is STIFLING FREE SPEECH but banning books, drag shows, certain religions in school, protests, pronouns, tribal modifiers and minority hairstyles is NOT!
Of course they are. Where do you find me saying otherwise?
Free speech being stifled by the Liberals. They're more and more like the far right every day.
So you think "free speech" means a foreign leader who is actively committing a genocide must be allowed to speak directly to Congress?
Do you think Putin should be able to? What about NK or China's leaders?
How pissed are you when peaceful protesters are attacked by cops?
Because that actually is a free speech issue. But no one is entitled to give a speech to Congress.
I think free speech is the ability for an invited speaker to speak freely in front of Congress. An active campaign to prevent that is absolutely stifling Free speech.
Nowhere am I claiming that they are intending on putting him in jail for what he's saying. That would be illegal. Stifling or subverting the intention of Congress is definitely stifling free speech.
The speaker does not own the house and does not represent the whole of Congress. Opposing the speaker's wishes is not the same as opposing free speech and an invite to speak is not a subpoena.
If it was a subpoena to speak before Congress then it would be a violation to oppose under a contempt charge like any American citizen would get, just like the previous administration violated subpoenas that should have resulted in charges except for Senate Republicans who chose not to do their job and enforce the law.
The speaker can invite whoever they want and the opposition party can try to prevent that within the bounds of the law if they oppose the invitee.
No one says they own it, but they are quite literally the speaker of the House. So when they extend an invitation to someone to speak before the American public and that is undermined then they add us quite literally stifling Free speech.
No, you are equivocating the house speaker and Congress and they are not the same in who they represent. The house speaker represents the majority party and their constituents. Congress, including all of the representatives and senators from both parties, are there to represent the American people.
Explain to the class how exactly you think the concept of "free speech" applies to the leader of a foreign country looking to butter up our elected officials. He can go on Fox "news" if he wants a willing audience.
The US Congress is inviting someone to speak before them. An active effort to undermine and subvert that is unquestionably stifling free speech.
The speaker*
Yeah, they won't let me give a speech to Congress either. They're stifling MY free speech too.
What's that? That's not what free speech means?
Yes, putting together a campaign to stop someone who has been invited to speak before Congress from doing so is absolutely stifling of free speech.
THAT'S NOT WHAT FREE SPEECH IS!!!
It only means literally only one thing: the government isn't allowed to punish you for saying something.
That's literally it. No one is being punished. Bibi can say whatever depraved shit he wants to anyone who will listen, it just turns out that it's not Congress.
You "free speech" literally don't even understand the very basic thing you build your lives around. Less brain cells than an orange tabby.
You're showing your lack of comprehension here. I never said said they're violating the Constitution. If that's how you're interpreting this, that's just ridiculous..
I said they're stifling. Free speech which is exactly what they're trying to do.
Sure, if you change the definition of words then you'll never be wrong. Of course when YOU said "free speech" you didn't mean the commonly understood, legally defined term that people use when the government oppresses its citizens by restricting their ability to speak out against it. You meant some arbitrary broader concept that includes Bibi coming over and explaining why opposing genocide is anti-Semitism directly to Congress. As if any foreign agent has, or should have the right to address the government anytime they want.
I wonder what word you'll redefine next to not be wrong.
If I were him, I'd try to redefine "redefine".
Hah, checkmate atheist.
Ooh....ooh..."'moving the goalposts' means giving your opponent another shot at a field goal".
No one needs to change the definition when you're working overtime to twist what I'm saying. I never said you needed to be arrested for violating the Constitution. I'm pointing out the clear and obvious fact that Free speech before they make hunger so it is being stifled..
That you're supporting this just shows how fascist the claimed progressives have become in America.. if you're afraid of someone speaking then challenge them with ideas. Don't shut them down. I get that's what you're taught to do on campus now, but that's not an effective way to deal with someone or something you disagree with.
Absolutely not! You may have a right to speak but you have no right to an audience. Just because someone wants to talk it doesn't mean I have to "challenge their ideas". I can just not listen. And if they want to come speak in my house I can trespass them. That's what the Democrats are doing.
You can speak, but no one needs to listen. Some ideas don't deserve the respect of a challenge. Anything Bibi wants to say right now is easily in that range.
Yes you can. Just not listen. That's a very good point. Not listening is very different from scuttling the invitation provided by the speaker of the house.
Not really. Either way you're not listening. In one case you're not listening as a group.
You ever get tired of shilling for genocide?
"Freedom of Speech" is not "Freedom to get a free soapbox anywhere you feel like whenever you feel like".
In your version, anybody in the World has a right to address Congress whenever they feel like, in which case it should be first come first served and Netanyahu can join the line just everybody else (as giving priority to some would interfere in everybody else's "Freedom").
No one is saying free speech is giving the entire world a soapbox wherever they want .
We're talking about someone who has been invited by the speaker of the House to speak in front of Congress. This isn't any random person on a soapbox. This is the speaker of the House of Representatives making an official US government invitation to an ally. Undermining that is absolutely stifling Free speech.
I'm sorry but Free Speech is exactly about anybody, a.k.a. random, persons having a freedom, and there is no mention about "allies" or any other special groups having any more right to it than anybody else exactly because you can't have one Freedom for some and a different Freedom for others: Free it's for everybody, otherwise it's not Free, it's Controlled.
You claim this is a Free Speech matter and then your entire argument is about speech for some people controlled by an invitation of a specifica person, the very opposite of Free.
As I said, if Congress should be treated as a Free Speech space then ANYBODY has a right to go there and speak (and Netanyahu can join the queue), if only some people are allowed to go there, controlled by an invitation by a specific person, then it's not Free Speech, it's about a space with access limited by rules, be it to speak or something else, so it's about Congressional Rules and your entire "argument" is total bollocks.
You can't try and bypass the rules by claiming it's all about Free Speech at the very same time you want it for just this one person just this one time - that's just complete total hypocrisy.
Sure, you've convinced me, anyone that the speaker of the house thinks deserves that platform should have it then, ally or not.
That you think limiting the ability of people to speak before Congress, isn't stifling free speech is beyond absurd.
Why don't you just give Bibi a nice reach-around, and leave the rest of us out of it?
I'm hardly concerned with who's the one giving the speech and entirely concerned with the fact the Democratic party is working overtime to stifle Free speech before the American Congress.
That's still not free speech tho.
But in any case, why does it matter?
Is Bibi a US citizen?
It's absolutely free speech. I'm not saying someone needs to be arrested for violating a Constitution, but the fact that you're supporting the subversion of free speech in Congress is absolutely ridiculous.
It doesn't matter whether the invited party is a citizen or not. They are invited by the speaker of the House once that platform is extended, It's what matters..
You have not explained your reasoning at all on how saying they're against Netanyahu speaking in front of the House is subversion of free speech and not just those representatives exercising their own freedom of speech. That is exactly what freedom of speech is, the right for everyone in the US to voice their opinions.
In contrast, there is no right to speak in front of the House, especially not for a foreign politician. The Speaker can invite someone to speak, and if anyone physically interferes with the invitee's speaking or shouts over them, that would be a violation of House procedures, not any infringement on their freedom of speech. They would not have been silenced or punished. They would not have been gagged (physically or otherwise). They would still be able voice their opinions.
Actual examples of speech suppression would be searching and questioning pro-Palestinian journalists at the border, and arrests of peaceful non trespassing protestors.
The reasoning is abundantly clear. The speaker of the House quite literally by definition is in charge of who speaks before the house. Undermining and subverting the invitation of someone to speak before Congress is absolutely limiting free speech before the American public.
That you're trying to make this a legal argument, proves to me that you understand the problem here. I'm not claiming this is a legal issue. This is a moral issue and the Democrats who constantly claim moral superiority have lost credibility with this action. If they have a problem with what a foreign leader has to say then they should take to the floor with a rebuttal. Well, over half of Americans support this particular Ally. American people have jobs that are entirely independent on the support of this. Ally. Throwing a hissy fit and refusing to allow someone of that stature to speak before Congress is a very sad demonstration of weakness.
Holding people at the border and arresting peaceful protesters are also examples of stifling Free speech. Both can be true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It's wild to me watching liberals turning into the scaredy cats that they claim. The conservatives are with actions like this. Hardly progressive.
You're literally claiming things that are not true. Voicing your opinion against a prospective (as in it hasn't even happened) action by the Speaker of the House is a right afforded to everyone, including representatives. Speaking against something is not perversely somehow suppressing speech. Saying someone is not allowed to speak against something is suppressing of speech.
I'm literally claiming reality. Scuttling an invitation from the speaker of the House is absolutely stifling free speech. I've never made the claim. It's a constitutional violation you'd have to be in absolute moron to interpret my comment that way.
There are many ways to stifle Free speech. I see people making that claim regarding the chance for intifada college campuses. Being an expression of free speech. I'm amused and fascinated by the people claiming that shutting down an encampment that's calling for in intifada which is unquestionably. A violent action is stifling Free speech. Well they have issues with a politician being invited to speak before Congress.
Got it, giving an opinion that someone should not be invited to speak at a specific location is apparently not an expression of free speech, it's suppression of free speech. Just like how if someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face, it'd be suppression of speech for you to ask them to do that somewhere else.
Free speech means that the government can't punish you for saying things. That's it.
That's the legal definition. It's insane that you're trying to argue that THAT is what's needed to consider the limiting of speech to be unacceptable. Your bias has clouded your ability to reason. I'm quite sure you're not making those claims about the campus protests being shut down by the schools.
Campus protests being shut down by schools is absolutely a completely different situation than someone being invited to give a speech. Saying no to someone giving a speech isn't punishing them.
As you've been told multiple times, free speech doesn't guarantee you a platform wherever or whenever you want. In fact, by your definition of free speech, the entire parliamentary procedure is a violation of free speech. Which is a ridiculous take.
You're right, it is very different. The campus encampments are calling for intifada. Calling for violence should not be accepted. That is starkly different from an invitation to a foreign Ally being scuttled by people too afraid to hear what someone has to say.
Yes, calling for the Palestinian people to rise up against the invading country that is actively genociding them is definitely a bad thing.
I'm being sarcastic, so hopefully that was obvious.
Not wanting people to speak before Congress is STIFLING FREE SPEECH but banning books, drag shows, certain religions in school, protests, pronouns, tribal modifiers and minority hairstyles is NOT!
Of course they are. Where do you find me saying otherwise?