MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Identity-stealing sockpuppet troll finally crosses line, gets just desserts

> *sigh*
>
> Of course there should be laws curtailing freedom of speech.

[citation needed]

> it's not the speech
> itself, but what it might incite.

Good thing, then, that there are already restrictions on speech that directly cause an imminent threat of violence. We don't need further laws.

> So you can go to a street corner and say you hate
> all white people and they should be killed without worrying, but if you then use that
> speech to recruit others into actually doing the act, then you've crossed the line.

Legally, actually, you really haven't.

> Same as shouting FIRE! in the middle of a grocery store. Not protected. Not because
> you shouted fire, but because it incited others into action which could endanger
> them.

See above. It incites an immediate lawless reaction.

> This is such a simple concept, I don't understand why people get confused about it.

Confused people like you, you mean?

> There are rules that limit what you can, and cannot post on Facebook, Amazon, any
> number of web sites. There are rules about you can and cannot write on this very
> forum.

As a matter of fact, there are, and also as a matter of fact, Facebook, Amazon, any number of websites, and MAMEWorld are private entities and thoroughly within their rights to limit speech. The federal government most assuredly is not. This is one of the basic freedoms conferred to us by the Bill of Rights.

> But there's no need to get all up in arms about freedom of speech.

There are plenty of reasons to get up in arms about freedom of speech. Thugs who wish to suppress others' freedom of speech under the auspices of law being a very big one of them.

> Would I ban holocaust deniers? No. Expose them.

I completely agree.

> Would I ban someone standing on the
> corner of a street handing out leaflets detailing how to build bombs and pointing out
> good locations to place them? Yes, I would.

That's unfortunate, because that act in and of itself is constitutionally-protected speech. You can find countless forms of speech on the Internet that you might find personally distasteful, even dangerous, but they remain specifically because there are some web providers that realize that if some people had their way, the only speech in which we could engage is happy, positive thoughts.

> If common sense was common, we'd not need the distinctions.

If common sense was common, you'd have it.

> Alas it isn't so. Not all
> speech is acceptable, though we should be careful what is deemed unacceptable.

Indeed, quite a lot of speech is deemed socially unacceptable. Ranting venomously about Muslims, for example. The fact that it is considered socially unacceptable has no bearing on the fact that you are well within your right to say it. Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism. Quite the contrary, in fact.

> We've
> lived with it as is for decades.

Indeed, and we ought to continue to live with it as it is: Where it's perfectly legal for me to disagree with you and call you an limey fuck who is woefully ignorant about American laws and engages in spineless appeals to authority. Much the same as it would be perfectly legal, even in the UK, to call me an imperialist American knobhead.

> The post that starts "Well thank fuck there aren't any jackbooted thugs like you in
> power gin the USA" is a perfect example of just why we must stay vigilant.

Vigilant about what? Vigilant about electing people like URherenow, who apparently wish to strip our constitutionally-protected rights that you unfortunately are not lucky enough to enjoy over in the UK?

> It's over
> the top, vile, and an overly extreme reaction.

You're well within your rights to say that. I'm well within my rights to disagree with you, but there we are.

> How strange and ironic it's used by
> someone claiming freedom of speech as being all important. Such vitriol does nothing
> but suppress freedom of speech by shouting the opponent down.

Bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit. You don't know a fucking thing about freedom of expression. Freedom of expression protects my constitutional right to shout even the most vile, hateful statements at URherenow, you, and anyone else that I choose. Freedom of expression, just as much, protects URherenow's right to claim that we should systematically strip people of their rights enshrined in the constitution. It protects your right to wrongly assert that expression itself suppresses other expression. Freedom of expression means that you are free to express yourself, it does not mean that you are free from the social consequences of said expression, and it does not mean that you are free from having your viewpoint questioned or criticized, whether civilly or not. It's people like you, in fact, who suppress freedom of expression, because you think that the founding fathers of the United States of America only wanted to protect expressions that we agree with, and not the expressions that we do not. This is factually incorrect.

> Clearly you're all for
> freedom of speech, as long as people agree with you, otherwise you'll explode in
> anger and turn everything up to 11.

And it is my right to do so. It is URherenow's right to respond in exactly the same way. In fact, it is you who seems to be under the impression that people like me should be banned for freely expressing ourselves. If someone explodes in anger and turns everything up to 11 because of something you said, then perhaps your expression is not popular, but it does not in any way impinge your right to engage in said expression.

> Shame on you.

Shame on you too, you ignorant, tea-sipping limey fuck. How dare you comport yourself as if you know a god damn thing about the legal system of the United States of America.