Re: OT: "Free speech" becomes a verb & noun...

On 2/1/2025 4:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 1, 2025 at 12:49:59 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 2/1/2025 12:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Feb 1, 2025 at 9:04:13 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 1/31/2025 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Jan 31, 2025 at 3:25:01 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
      So, the ends justify the means?

      And what "means" are you talking about? Police finding the criminals like
they would any other fugitive, arresting them, and putting them on a
plane back
to their country of origin? Those "means"? Yes, they are most certainly
justified.

>
    The "means" are the abrogation of our free-speech principle

        Says the guy who has no problem with censorship if government decides the
    speech involved isn't worthy enough.

>
  That sounds misinformed.  Perhaps you can be more specific...

    You've repeatedly said that censorship of speech is acceptable if that
speech
  is trolling rather than promoting an idea.

>
If "trolling" means 'spoken only to injure' (e.g., "hate speech"), then,
yes,I contend that's assault masquerading as speech.

 And yet for 200+ years, hate speech has been specifically ruled to be
protected speech, so if there's someone who's going against "American
principles of freedom" here, it ain't me.

Yes, the courts deem it practical (I suppose) to allow some degree of materially harmful public protest.  Imo, that's about something other than actual 'free speech', i.e., the freedom to voice ideas.

The use of language does not confer a halo (...or so I would have it). And
note
that 'censorship' per se does indeed target *ideas*, not actions.

 So as I said, you're the guy who has no problem with censorship if government
decides the speech involved isn't worthy enough.
 

    >>>   I'm asking about the ICE round-ups of violent illegal alien
criminals--

    something you objected to-- and exactly how that somehow violates "basic
    American principles".

>
  If you "round up" only those who voice ideas you don't like, then yeah,
  that's contrary to the principle of free speech ...no matter how glad
  you are to be rid of those folks.

    Except that's not what's happening. The resident aliens who are looking at
  deportation committed a specific offense under the U.S. Code. They didn't
just
  say something I don't like. They could be advocating for gun confiscation
  (which I don't like) and they'd nevertheless be perfectly fine. However, in
  this instance, they're advocating for a designated terrorist organization,
  which is a no-no if you're here on a student visa. And this isn't a surprise
  to them, either. It's something that is thoroughly explained to them ahead
of
  time during the student visa process, so there's no "I didn't know" excuse
for
  them.

>
First, 'Palestinian' isn't a 'designated terrorist organization'.

 But Hamas is.

So, you object to Trump's deporting purely pro-Palestinian students?

Second, giving only certain groups freedom of expression is un-American.

 That works out, then, since they're not American.

Moreover, the silly bastards thought *we* were.

  And the others who are being rounded up are criminal shitbags who are not
only
  illegals but are also committing a whole host of other violent crimes
against
  American citizens.
    Oh, and I'm *still* waiting for you to describe what basic American
principles
  require us to tolerate the presence of illegal aliens at all, let alone
  illegal aliens that commit depraved violent crimes against our citizens?

>
"Illegal aliens" is a separate topic, irrelevant to my objection here

 Kinda like election fraud is a separate topic, irrelevant to *my* objection
here?
 

  except as the offense you'd compromise principles in order to prosecute.

 What principles require me to tolerate the presence of illegal aliens at all,
let alone illegal aliens that commit depraved violent crimes against our
citizens?

Again, 'illegal aliens' aren't the topic. I have little to say on them.