Dealing with people like Ann Coulter

The expression of hatred is an icitement to violence. That is how mob violence (something else she falsely claims to be the victem of), begins.

One fucked up moron like her shouts it from a hill top and the morons gather like locusts and start saying the same thing until they work themselves up to enough balls to do something with all that massed hatred.

 

I Fucked Ann Coulter in the Ass, Hard

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=234590&highlight=Ann+Coulter&f=36

 

Disagree.

And if they infringe on anyone's rights because of it, they lose some of theirs. I don't think it's necessary to moderate and water-down provocative speech.

 

Now I'm confused. What do you disagree with? That hatred doesn't start mob violence? You think perhaps its started with love? They love people to death? They wrap strings of love around people's necks and 'accidently' kill them? They try to warm people's hearts by burning down homes?

Or is it that she didn't claim to be a victim of it, or that it wasn't a false claim?

Or is it you have just heard and been repeating your whole concious life that people should have free speech and regardless of anything else, you are going to defend that?

Should we allow people to walk up to little children and say, I want to fuck your ass, and just wait til they actually do it before we take action?

 

Lol, I disagree with the idea that Ann Coulter's speech is going to be the sole and direct cause of an Arab genocide in the States.

I come from a Presbyterian family that shits their pants when they hear anything close to blaspheme, so no. I definitely haven't been brainwashed into believing in free speech haha. Few people really believe in it anyways, nowadays.

Pleasant example, haha. No, I don't think children should be threatened or that it's OK. But I do defend the rights of NAMBLA and co.

 

So if it only causes a couple of beatings it's okay?

It wasn't meant to be pleasant, it was a successful demonstration that beyond a doubt, that you do not believe in free speech.

 

We don't allow that, there are exceptions to Free Speech,
speech that incites imminent danger "especially when it targets a child" is taken very serious.


If that was an example of speech you think is protected by our 1st amendment you're mistaken.

 

If there are exceptions, then free speech does not exist.

To claim otherwise is ignoring reality.

 

If you say so

We Americans enjoy "our definition" of Free Speech.

Did you really think your "successful demonstration" was tolerated here ?

 

As for;

Actually, if you are going by just the 1st amendment of the US, then yes it is.

If you take into account the various 'clarifications' of it over the years, then no it isn't.

If you went by the 1st amendment, you WOULD have free speech.

Taking into account the clarifications, then no you do not.

The first amendment says;

Do you see any exceptions in there? Is there a secret american code that I don't know included in that, which says, "unless you want to"?

Just because the US government chose to try to redefine the meaning of freedom of speech to fit in with it's own ideals does not change what freedom of speech means.

Either you have the FREEDOM to SPEAK as you see fit, or you do not.

We (including everyone on the planet, that means those in the US as well), do not.

 

Where did I say I thought that?

I asked Deisceabal that because he said;

My question fits within that criteria of not inciting violence against a person or people and therefore WOULD be allowed.

The successful demonstration was that he would not allow it in spite of his previous statment.

 

But, In reality "we" don't go just by the 1st amendment,so No it isn't.

 

Good to see you agree.

 

The beatings aren't OK, but blaming it on her words is a cop-out. The thugs who did the beatings are responsible, not Coulter.

Not at all, dude. Like I said, if there is a line to be drawn is to prevent people from having their rights of physical security infringed on. But I haven't heard anything of Coulter asking a child to spread, so...

 

Taking my words out of context, whats next?

 

Those who do the beating hold responsibility for the beatings yes. But she is responsible for inciting them.

That is not what you said the first time, but that's fine, I'll leave my other post covering what you had said and offer this.

If there is a line to be drawn between what is allowed in speech and what is not allowed, then you do not have free speech. No matter how many people try to say it exists, it does not.

Just because a government (and their fanatical supporters) tells you that you have the freedom of speech does not make it true.

They can try to change the definition of 'freedom of speech' to anything they wish, it doesn't change reality.

 

I quoted every single word you said in your post. How am I taking them out of context?

 

I'm really not in the mood to play your game.........


"good to see you agree" what did i agree too/with?

 

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Perhaps you should find someone to talk to about it.

I said;

You said;

In case the colors don't help you out, I'll put them together;

Me:If you take into account the various 'clarifications' of it over the years, then no it isn't.

You: But, In reality "we" don't go just by the 1st amendment,so No it isn't.



Then I said;
Good to see you agree.

So where is your problem?

 

Yes, the colored fonts helped, more people should use them.........

If i had a nickel..


Looks like the crowd in Calgary might actually listen to her, which imho would be the best thing to do.With the pre-warning they might not get to hear the "real" Ann,then again she might turn it up a notch and test the Canadian laws.