He should have the B on his jersey taken away.

Trudeaustan

“Here’s the reason biblically why I believe Christians have got to be boycotting Target, Bud Light, and any other corporation that’s pushing the things they’re pushing. This is evil, this is demonic, we won’t stand for it, we’re not going to go to the stores anymore and we’re not going to give you our money.”

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

It’s funny that you think you sound reasonable.

playing in Trudeaustan?

Quick Googling finds a U of Chicago law professor saying something that American high school graduates are all supposed to nod and agree with: "Free speech means little if it only means protection for speech that we don’t think is objectionable or harmful."

What do you mean, 'we'?

the tolerance paradox is a solved problem. punch fascists. kill nazis. simple as.

So who gets to decide who the real fascists and nazis are? Ask a bunch of different people and you'll get a bunch of different answers.

Nobody decides anything, it's common consensus.

So who gets to decide who the real fascists and nazis are? Ask a bunch of different people and you'll get a bunch of different answers.

Um...no. There's very little "common consensus" about anything these days.

You’re not actually in favor of free speech unless you’re willing to protect speech you disagree with.

So this is the second time in a short period that Anthony Bass makes news for something completely unrelated to baseball (his behavior on the plane will probably end up making more news than these latest comments).

@jon_greenberg

I’m sorry if this sounds prejudiced against decent relievers, but Anthony Bass isn’t good enough to start two social media scandals in six weeks.

You’re not actually in favor of free speech unless you’re willing to protect speech you disagree with.

#33 Just so you're aware, I live a half-block from where those *&^%# set up and am a member of the lawsuit against the organizers. They're we're peaceful. They were extremely disruptive too.

#33 Just so you're aware, I live a half-block from where those *&^%# set up and am a member of the lawsuit against the organizers. They're weren't peaceful. They weren't law abiding. They were extremely disruptive too.

Sorry, Ron, but where the rest of us come from, what took place in Ottawa was indeed peaceful. In contrast, the "mostly peaceful" protests in this country in May-June 2020 resulted in at least 19 deaths and over a billion dollars in property damage.

So Bass gets booed in Toronto. That would be expected in Canada.

In how many other parks would he be booed? Would he be booed in Texas or Florida?

You’re not actually in favor of free speech unless you’re willing to protect speech you disagree with.

Riiiiiiight. I can see you at a Klan meeting right now, explaining to your brothers and sisters how important it is to tolerate BLM and Antifa rhetoric so that you folks can say the things you say without repercussion.

country in May-June 2020 resulted in at least 19 deaths and over a billion dollars in property damage.

Sorry, Ron, but where the rest of us come from, what took place in Ottawa was indeed peaceful. In contrast, the "mostly peaceful" protests in this country in May-June 2020 resulted in at least 19 deaths and over a billion dollars in property damage.

Then, of course, there was Jacob Blake and Gaige Grosskreutz, killed in Kenosha - whose murderer was acquitted.

The same thing, every single time, from the man who accuses others of no substance.

The same thing, every single time

JE is like someone you invite to a dinner party, who says “I’ll stop by but I can’t stay.” When everyone sits down to eat, JE walks around the table interrupting everyone’s conversations to say has to leave, farting as he goes, smirking at his immaturity and leaving a distasteful, lingering reminder to the guests that he made an appearance.

Not gonna comment on the overall point of this post, but look up those names again.

As expected, Pointless Bivens is unable to contribute anything but ad hominem silliness. Everyone’s rhetoric is protected by the 1st Amendment, as long as it stops short of incitement to violence. You know what isn’t protected? The nonsense in the post immediately before mine, where Brownshirt Stiggles advocates punching & killing those with views he (and probably mostly everyone else) disagrees with. That shouldn’t be controversial. Brandenberg v. Ohio was a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps one of the 1st amendment experts can explain why this is a "free speech" issue.

Everyone’s rhetoric is protected by the 1st Amendment, as long as it stops short of incitement to violence.

The problem with this is it just makes you define everything you don't like as incitement in order to ban it.

As expected, Pointless Bivens is unable to contribute anything but ad hominem silliness. Everyone’s rhetoric is protected by the 1st Amendment, as long as it stops short of incitement to violence. You know what isn’t protected? The nonsense in the post immediately before mine, where Brownshirt Stiggles advocates punching & killing those with views he (and probably mostly everyone else) disagrees with. That shouldn’t be controversial. Brandenberg v. Ohio was a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

The murderer of Garret Morgan who had been protesting in Texas, Daniel Perry, has been convicted of murder and sentenced to prison.

You mean the guy who will soon be pardoned by Greg Abbot?

I haven't kept completely current on that one, but I think that din has quieted down since unsealed evidence would appear to indicate that A)Perry was on the prowl for someone to kill, and B)appears to, shall we say, not like non-white people.

Brandenberg stands for the opposite position actually. General advocacy for violent acts is protected speech. What is not protected is advocating for "imminent lawless action," which obviously is not applicable here (unless someone has a Nazi in their clutches that we don't know about).

show me a free speech absolutist who isn't a nazi or a consumer of child pornography, and i'll show you the easter bunny

You’re misreading my post

You know what isn’t protected? The nonsense in the post immediately before mine, where Brownshirt Stiggles advocates punching & killing those with views he (and probably mostly everyone else) disagrees with.

You mean like Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William Douglas, John Harlan II, Williams Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White & Thurgood Marshall in Bradenburg?

Huh? You affirmatively said his speech was not protected, despite it clearly being of the kind Brandenberg addressed

It takes a special kind of special to describe the folks who pointed out the exceptions as being absolutist.

It takes a special kind of special to describe the folks who pointed out the exceptions as being absolutist.

Perhaps it’s a matter of interpretation, but Stiggles didn’t say there may come a time when people will have to punch or kill those he considers fascists/Nazis, but that it should be done now.

Nazi Punching has been something people have advocated for (seriously or not) for many years. Don't know of any cases where its be found to be imminent lawless action. It certainly isn't specific enough to qualify as such.

My reference was meant to be his to carrying out such Brownshirt thuggery

I'm sure you'd agree with me, Clapper.

there are really no good Nazis these days, if the term is used properly;

Inspired by the movie Purge, the US government announces National Punching Day and everyone gets 100 punches to use on one hundred different people without legal ramification. After punching all the people you know who disagree with you politically, socially or spiritually and punching Tom Cruise, you find you only have one punch left. You see Steve Garvey standing next to a Nazi- who do you punch?

You see Steve Garvey standing next to a Nazi- who do you punch?

OK, I'll bite: When were there?

the pendulum of power always swings.

But that’s par for the course for Bivens & Zonk, who seem to want to deflect attention from their willingness to disregard decades of 1st Amendment law, as long as their ideological compatriots are the ones deciding what speech is suppressed.

As expected, Pointless Bivens is unable to contribute anything but ad hominem silliness. Everyone’s rhetoric is protected by the 1st Amendment, as long as it stops short of incitement to violence. You know what isn’t protected? The nonsense in the post immediately before mine, where Brownshirt Stiggles advocates punching & killing those with views he (and probably mostly everyone else) disagrees with. That shouldn’t be controversial. Brandenberg v. Ohio was a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

Stiggles utterances wouldn’t be protected if the context indicated the individual or group that he was advocating violence against,

It's focused on something like giving a speech to an angry mob.

Criminals aren't entitled to freedom of speech.

That seems like a rather far-fetched hypothetical. Something so beyond the realm of practical possibilities today that it's almost meaningless.

Um, yes, they are.

The law permits a judge to maintain decorum in a courtroom.