Why do Drumpftards only support freedom of speech when it's

You can say it, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

>>131176279
he has the right to say it, but he doesnt have the right to only be praised for it.
Consequences cant be negated.

>>131176279
whats inherently wrong with using liberal tactics against liberals?

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

>>131176279
Sure it's free speech but lets not pretend it wasn't a threat because he weaselly phrased it as a question.

>>131176279
There's a different between political free speech and saying you want to assassinate a president. >>131176505

>>131176279
Daily reminder that under Obama any criticism of the president was racism.

There was international condemnation when a rodeo clown wore an Obama mask.

Criticism of the president was shut down. Comedians refused to touch it. There was no banter directed at the president because everyone was absolutely terrified of being called a racist, even if their criticism had absolutely nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his policies.

But now it's ok perform plays where Trump gets assassinated, to joke around about him being killed, etc.

This is the definition of the shit deal white people get in the modern age.

Any criticism of Obama, any criticism of Obamacare, any criticism of his policies, all stems from the fact he's black. No other reason. It cannot be tolerated in this enlightened future we live in.

But Trump? Let's behead him in the park and talk about how he fucks his daughter on late night television.

>>131176505
This, Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

>>131176279
Threatening the life of or calling for the death of a US president is specifically not protected by freedom of speech.

File: 9c2.jpg (14KB, 295x295px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 295x295px

>>131176279
Freedom of speech is just fine
Just don't expect people to like what you say, dumbass

>>131176279

Words have consequences.

Learn some manners, depp.

Freedom of speech cucks are still trapped in their spergy libertarian phase. There is no benefit to letting people with certain beliefs speak.

>>131176279
Depends on how you interpret what he said. Explicit threats are not protected by freedom of speech. However, what he said was rather vague; "when was the last time an actor killed a president?". I doubt a court would convict him.

Doesn't mean I can't disagree with him (or call him a wife beating drunkard).

>>131176279
Leftists have no right to free speech left.

Why do lefties assume that if others don't like something that they want to take away their rights?

>>131176279

someone que up the whitest kids you know skit on this

>>131176279
Remember when a decorated Marine vet posted rap lyrics on his fb that criticized Obama. For this was arrested and declared mentally unfit along with being kicked out off the military.

File: 1468601451789.gif (920KB, 446x374px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 446x374px

>>131177717
gotcha
https://youtu.be/-XkBfJeUkzc

>>131178224

that... that wasn't the one I was thinking of

>>131178495
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY

>>131178495
I know, but it's hilarious.

>>131178700

there we go! why was this shit so fucking funny? like a non gay kids in the hall

>>131176279
I have the right to call Johnny Depp an asshole and then not watch his constant stream of movie flops.

>>131176505
>you can threaten the president

You actually can't do that. Threats and incitement to violence are not protect by the first amendment.

Why is this so hard for so many people? There is literally 1 rule you have to follow. One. Get your shit together already.

File: Screenshot_20170624-120345.jpg (199KB, 1080x672px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1080x672px

>>131176279
stop replying to this bullshit

>>131176279
Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.

Its been around for a long time. And Obama used it to arrest the Republicans that had lynched Obama dolls.

>>131176279
>Protected Speech
Would that even apply he said it at Glastonbury.

>>131176279
We can be fake outraged too.
Why should we take the moral high ground on free speech?
It's a shitty game, but you invented it.

>>131176568
Spbp

ERMAHGERD

JEHRNY DERP

>>131176279
Because the left have perverted the idea of free speech.

It applies to all or it applies to none.

>>131176279

Why do liberals only support jailing those who make death threats against the president when the president is a Democrat

File: image_1.jpg (46KB, 780x455px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 780x455px

>>131176703
Actually it's more (((subversive))) than that. More threats are made against Republican presidents than Democrat presidents.

>>131179486
You can incite violence. If it does result in violence you can be liable though. However threats direct ones anyway are illegal.

>>131180636
is there a way to spin hating the president as hate speech?

I know that the supreme court recently said there's no such thing as hatespeech, but that doesnt stop libs from shouting it all the time

>>131176686
No, there are not.

Free speech is free speech.

If I want to say everybody must be nuked but me, I have the right to say.

>>131176279

Because we like to hold leftists to their own retarded standard, in order to reveal them as the hypocrites they constantly are.

>>131176279
>Why do Drumpftards only support freedom of speech when it's convenient?

He made the comment in the UK, there is no freedom of speech here: he therefore is guilty of inciting terrorism and should be arrested.

>>131176505
This

I should be able to rails against niggers and kikes all day and people wouldnt listen but this is where we are now.

>>131181325

/thread

File: academic freedom.png (75KB, 1691x798px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1691x798px

>>131176279
>Why do Liberals only support freedom of speech when it's convenient?

ftfy

>>131180947
>You can incite violence.

No, that's illegal. If you do it, you will be arrested and charged with inciting violence, which is a crime.

How fucking dumb are you? Do you think just saying that something isn't a crime magically makes it so?

>>131181581
Fucking wow, that pic.

>>131176279
Lets see what happens if we start making threats on Johnny in this thread.
Spoiler: the thread gets deleted

Seriously hope nothing unfortunate happens to Johnny's kids. That would be terrible.

>>131176279
What would happen if Ted Nugent made the same threat towards Barry Sortero?

Who cares if he made a joke about killing Trump?
I just want him to make the same joke about the Mayor of London so he can share a jail cell with notorious hate criminals like the granny who liked the wrong joke on Facebook and the bonganon who said nigger and forgot to use a proxy.

>>131182212
Are liberals going to bring up Ted Nugent every time a democrat does it?

Ted Nugent was one person, almost everyone in Hollywood is doing it on a constant basis.

>>131180947
>You can incite violence, but if it results to violence you can be liable.

First of, you WILL be liable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose
Sample greentext:
>If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable, regardless of who actually inflicted the fatal injury.

Secondly, what kind of dumb statement is that?
>You can wildly throw punches in the subway but if you hit someone you are liable.
You don't say? You are already breaking the law by inciting violence even if nothing happens. When half the cucked countries have laws on HATE SPEECH how can you fucking believe that actually suggesting people to kill the president is ok?

Never mind, I know. Because the president is 'white male'.

>>131181021
>Brazil nigger thinks he understands US laws and freedoms

kek

>>131176279
Its not protected - any threats against the president must be investigated by the FBI under law.

>>131182305
Not to mention, much of the right disavows him for being an idiot.

>>131183080
Apparently (((CNN)))'s legal analyst disagrees with you!

>>131176279
There's a difference between "I think x should die" and "I'm going to kill x"

>>131183080
It is protected. Go beat up some first Nation's people and campaign to get someone sensible as your next prime minister

>>131176279
call to assassinate someone isn't free speech, faggot.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-23-20-25-05-1.png (355KB, 540x617px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 540x617px

>>131176279
You're Gerbils

>>131181021
Its against the law to publicly say you want to assassinate the president even if its a joke.

>>131176279
Still seems like inciting violence and it's not ironic.

>>131176279
fighting words are not freedom of speech under the current US law.

many scotus cases on this

>>131176279
We've supported free speech since the beginning, you've been the ones trying to take that away by limiting the conversation with new pronouns and self made etiquettes that no one else but you knows and have the right to be offended if you look like a scrub with a beard In a dress if that's what someone says you look like, only princess is acceptable.
-I changed my stance on abortion, post birth up to 25 years should be law.

>>131176279
If Kid Rock had said it about King Nigger Obama and his shit family the media would've lost their shit.

I literally had no problem with the joke he made.

>>131179486
You can actually. This isnt saudi arabia. Saying you hate the POTUS and that he should die is legal under first ammendment. Trump threatened Obama constantly. In 2012 Trump called for a coup on DC when obama won.