Emory U. Students Feel Unsafe - Trump 2016 sidewalk chalk

[Forty Two]

I doubt they actually feel unsafe. It's probably just a tactic to shut down support for Trump.

Of course they don't feel unsafe. And, who gives a flying fuck if they did?

They are using "unsafe" in place of "offended" or "don't like that."

No, I'm saying they probably don't feel any of that. They see Trump as dangerous and they are taking a stand.

Taking a stand. LOL.

Lololol.

It would be a stand. I said nothing about its scale or effectiveness.

It's just stupid. "Trump 2016" on a sidewalk, and they throw a conniption fit. That's the "stand" they took. If it's real, they're fucking lame and should be ignored. If it's fake, they are fucking lame and should be ignored. The fact that the Emory University administration catered to their bullshit even for a minute is a crying shame.

The administration should say, "you are wasting our time. This is not hate speech. This is not even inappropriate speech. They are allowed to chalk the sidewalk, as are you. Have a nice day."

I mean, I don't know for sure. They could be little petals. I guess it's hard to understand how anyone could feel unsafe or offended by chalk on a footpath. I'm assuming they are making a political statement, not a personal statement.

Assuming that, then they are liars, who claim to be "unsafe" when they are not.

LOL. I doubt they give one fuck whether you think they are liars. If the goal is to suppress support of Trump, then success is judged by whether they get away with it, not whether they lied or not.

To a scumbag, that would be the measure of success, and it is the measure of success, it appears, of the regressive left. They very often engage in the same practices they claim are harassment if done by others, and in fact they claim that mere disagreement is harassment (see the recent Canadian Twitter shitstorm started by Stephanie Guthrie, lying piece of shit). Indeed, the regressive left fears contradictory speech, and they call it all "harassment" and "hate." If they can get away with even part of it, and silence some of their opposition with their bullshit, then they are happy and consider it a success. Thus, they are scumbags.

They are little fascists who want to foment administrative investigations and they hope prosecutions against students that support a candidate they don't like. And, these days, college students really don't think it's free speech to say what Donald Trump says, and by extension to say one supports Donald Trump.

That's the shit we're facing here in the US.

You seem resistant to believe it. And, maybe it's not an issue in Oz. But, it sure as shit is an issue here.

It depends on what you are talking about. If they are being delicate little petals, then yeah, we don't seem to have as much of that in Oz as there. But if we are talking about political action, then that is a different thing. I view Trump differently from you. You adhere to ideological free speech (Hitler deserves his free speech). I tend to adhere to the principle: Those who turn a blind eye to evil give it approval to happen (paraphrase).

No, that isn't an accurate description of my position. Hitler deserves his free speech, of course,

Um, that's what I mean by ideological adherence to free speech. There's no "of course" from where I sit.

On what basis do you determine which individuals have a right to free speech and which don't?

Please clarify what you mean by "there is no of course?" Is it that some people have a right to free speech, but others don't? Is it that some ideas are rightfully silenced by the State?

[pErvinalia]

Of course they don't feel unsafe. And, who gives a flying fuck if they did?

They are using "unsafe" in place of "offended" or "don't like that."

No, I'm saying they probably don't feel any of that. They see Trump as dangerous and they are taking a stand.

Taking a stand. LOL.

Lololol.

It would be a stand. I said nothing about its scale or effectiveness.

It's just stupid. "Trump 2016" on a sidewalk, and they throw a conniption fit. That's the "stand" they took. If it's real, they're fucking lame and should be ignored. If it's fake, they are fucking lame and should be ignored. The fact that the Emory University administration catered to their bullshit even for a minute is a crying shame.

The administration should say, "you are wasting our time. This is not hate speech. This is not even inappropriate speech. They are allowed to chalk the sidewalk, as are you. Have a nice day."

I mean, I don't know for sure. They could be little petals. I guess it's hard to understand how anyone could feel unsafe or offended by chalk on a footpath. I'm assuming they are making a political statement, not a personal statement.

Assuming that, then they are liars, who claim to be "unsafe" when they are not.

LOL. I doubt they give one fuck whether you think they are liars. If the goal is to suppress support of Trump, then success is judged by whether they get away with it, not whether they lied or not.

They are little fascists who want to foment administrative investigations and they hope prosecutions against students that support a candidate they don't like. And, these days, college students really don't think it's free speech to say what Donald Trump says, and by extension to say one supports Donald Trump.

That's the shit we're facing here in the US.

You seem resistant to believe it. And, maybe it's not an issue in Oz. But, it sure as shit is an issue here.

It depends on what you are talking about. If they are being delicate little petals, then yeah, we don't seem to have as much of that in Oz as there. But if we are talking about political action, then that is a different thing. I view Trump differently from you. You adhere to ideological free speech (Hitler deserves his free speech). I tend to adhere to the principle: Those who turn a blind eye to evil give it approval to happen (paraphrase).

No, that isn't an accurate description of my position. Hitler deserves his free speech, of course,

Um, that's what I mean by ideological adherence to free speech. There's no "of course" from where I sit.

On what basis do you determine which individuals have a right to free speech and which don't?

Genocidal maniacs (and fascists and large scale authoritarians) don't get to have free speech.

Please clarify what you mean by "there is no of course?" Is it that some people have a right to free speech, but others don't? Is it that some ideas are rightfully silenced by the State?

Of course. I generally believe in more rather than less free speech, but there is a limit. For ideologues like you there is no limit (or your limit is naive).

And keep in mind I'm talking about the state limiting Trump's speech. I'm saying it's an ideological and naive position to think that individuals should just let Trump speak uninhibited because "free speech".

[laklak]

Pussies. No other way to put it, they're a bunch of whining little pussies. Marine Corps would sort them out in short order, we need National Service.

[rachelbean]

Snopes says it's not true: http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

[piscator]

Right Wing Echo Chamber bullshit. There's still a lot of mostly old BabyBoomers too thick to distinguish between it and real news.
I'd guess Infowars is all over this "Millennials Are Weak" narrative too. Probably started it..."Chemtrails & shit!!"

[JimC]

piscator wrote:

Emory is very well endowed indeed.

I've heard that about the legendary Dick Emory...

[Hermit]

Snopes says it's not true: http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

You're spoiling Coito's righteous fury.

I shouldn't lau

[pErvinalia]

Poor Coit. He's going to have to Google for new minor incidents to get all righteously outraged at..

[Forty Two]

Genocidal maniacs (and fascists and large scale authoritarians) don't get to have free speech.

Certainly, if someone undertakes a predicate act or steps in furtherance of genocide (or even just mere murder, assault, battery, mayhem, kidnapping, etc.) then that makes sense. But until then, how do you determine - or how does the State determine -- who is a genocidal maniac, or a fascist or a large scale authoritarian?

I think the regressive left are fascistic, and certainly authoritarian, like the douchebags who are looking for administrative power to silence their opposition. Yet, I recognize their right to be fascistic, intolerant and authoritarian. Don't you?

How about Melissa Click - does she get free speech? She assaulted a member of the press in a public place and sought "muscle" to evict a student reporter from a public place, and she was acting under color of law. No free speech for her?

Please clarify what you mean by "there is no of course?" Is it that some people have a right to free speech, but others don't? Is it that some ideas are rightfully silenced by the State?

Of course. I generally believe in more rather than less free speech, but there is a limit. For ideologues like you there is no limit (or your limit is naive).

Certainly, there is a limit, and at least I can articulate the limit in a rational and sensible way. Your way of saying "fascists don't get free speech" is childish and stupid. The limits of free speech include: (a) false and defamatory statements against a person that are injurious, and false advertising, (b) fighting words, which tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace by immediately provoking a fight, so long as the utterances are personally abusive which are inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction. Such speech must be directed to the person of the hearer and is thus likely to be seen as a direct personal attack (c) intellectual property rights -- like the right to exclude someone from copying or using your songs and stuff, (d) advocacy of the use of force is also unprotected when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. Imminent lawless action means words to the effect of : "go get him! Beat that guy up!" The advocacy of violence in general, like Communists saying that a violent revolution is inevitable or necessary is not "incitement." (e) child porn.

And keep in mind I'm talking about the state limiting Trump's speech. I'm saying it's an ideological and naive position to think that individuals should just let Trump speak uninhibited because "free speech".

I never said they should let Trump speak uninhibited because "free speech." I said that Trump has the right to free speech. The people who hate him can also speak, and they can do so at his rallies. If they assault, push, shove, or pick fights (fighting words) with others while doing so, however, then they should be prosecuted.

So you can fuck right off with your constant bullshit refrain, which you know is a complete lie, that I have no acknowledged limit or that my limit is naive, relative to free speech.

Your idiotic argument is that "fascists and large scale authoritarians" don't have free speech, and you dare to call anyone else's limit naive? Your stated "limit" is not a limit. It's an arbitrary, ill-defined declaration that some people don't get free speech. It's silly and ignorant, and not even approaching rational or logical.

[Forty Two]

Snopes says it's not true: http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

http://emorywheel.com/emory-students-ex ... chalkings/

Students protested yesterday at the Emory Administration Building following a series of overnight, apparent pro-Donald Trump for president chalkings throughout campus.

Snopes says that it's not true that students were offered counseling and were "traumatized." Snopes does not stay it's untrue that students complained to the administration and that the administration has opened an investigation, and that the students called the chalking of "Trump 2016" racist and hate speech, arguing that it should be prohibited.

an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad.

http://emorywheel.com/emory-students-ex ... chalkings/

So, the chanting students, if they were not "traumatized" were certainly claiming to be "in pain." LOL.

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” she added.

That's a quote from a protester. She claims to be "afraid" and that she is supposed to feel "comfortable" and "safe" (but doesn't). so, how is the report on this false? This is the attitude of the protesters. They think that they have a right to feel "comfortable" and to "feel" safe, and that if someone writes Trump 2016 in chalk and the adminstration doesn't do something about it then they support it.

“What are we feeling?” Peraza asked those assembled. Responses of “frustration” and “fear” came from around the room, but individual students soon began to offer more detailed, personal reactions to feelings of racial tension that Trump and his ideology bring to the fore.

“How can you not [disavow Trump] when Trump’s platform and his values undermine Emory’s values that I believe are diversity and inclusivity when they are obviously not [something that Trump supports]” one student said tearfully.

So, they are frustrated, and fearful, feel unsafe, and are afraid, and they demand that the administration do something about the chalkings, because if they don't then the University supports hate, racism and such, and is supporting an uncomfortable and unsafe environment.

The following day, University President James W. Wagner, as well as representatives from College Council (CC) and Student Government Association (SGA) sent emails to the Emory community to address student concerns and responses. In his University-wide email, Wagner wrote that he intends to implement “immediate refinements to certain policy and procedural deficiencies, regular and structured opportunities for difficult dialogues, a formal process to institutionalize identification, review and [the] addressing of social justice opportunities and issues and a commitment to an annual retreat to renew our efforts.” Wagner added in his email that the previous day’s chalkings represented “values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory’s own.”

http://emorywheel.com/emory-students-ex ... chalkings/

The University President said that chalking "Trump 2016" represents values regarding diversity clashing with Emory's values. LOL. Really?

The University went on to say they will "stand in solidarity with any Emory students who have encountered a lack of safety and support." So, if Snopes is ruling it false that students felt "unsafe" then why is the University referencing students who encountered a lack of safety and support?

They go on to say "To provide Emory students an opportunity to discuss such support and inclusivity on Emory’s campus, SGA will hold office hours on Thursday, March 24 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. and CC will hold office hours on Thursday from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m." If this is not specifically "counseling" then it's not too far off. It's still ridiculous. Maybe on Friday they can have office hours to discuss support for students who witness chalking that say "Black Sabbath" with devil horns drawn next to them.

[pErvinalia]

Genocidal maniacs (and fascists and large scale authoritarians) don't get to have free speech.

Certainly, if someone undertakes a predicate act or steps in furtherance of genocide (or even just mere murder, assault, battery, mayhem, kidnapping, etc.) then that makes sense. But until then, how do you determine - or how does the State determine -- who is a genocidal maniac, or a fascist or a large scale authoritarian?

There's no reason that reasonable definitions can't be agreed to by a collective of people. And I'm not talking about the state limiting this (outside of hate speech laws), despite my error in my post edit (i forgot the "not").

I think the regressive left are fascistic, and certainly authoritarian, like the douchebags who are looking for administrative power to silence their opposition. Yet, I recognize their right to be fascistic, intolerant and authoritarian. Don't you?

Rights aren't universal. They are relative and subjective. So your recognition of a right for them to be fascistic and authoritarian is a personal assessment. I personally disagree. I don't think there are any rights at all, other than what people are willing to collectively grant and enforce.

How about Melissa Click - does she get free speech? She assaulted a member of the press in a public place and sought "muscle" to evict a student reporter from a public place, and she was acting under color of law. No free speech for her?

I don't know anything about her. Funny name, though.

Please clarify what you mean by "there is no of course?" Is it that some people have a right to free speech, but others don't? Is it that some ideas are rightfully silenced by the State?

Of course. I generally believe in more rather than less free speech, but there is a limit. For ideologues like you there is no limit (or your limit is naive).

Certainly, there is a limit, and at least I can articulate the limit in a rational and sensible way. Your way of saying "fascists don't get free speech" is childish and stupid. The limits of free speech include: (a) false and defamatory statements against a person that are injurious, and false advertising, (b) fighting words, which tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace by immediately provoking a fight, so long as the utterances are personally abusive which are inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction. Such speech must be directed to the person of the hearer and is thus likely to be seen as a direct personal attack (c) intellectual property rights -- like the right to exclude someone from copying or using your songs and stuff, (d) advocacy of the use of force is also unprotected when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. Imminent lawless action means words to the effect of : "go get him! Beat that guy up!" The advocacy of violence in general, like Communists saying that a violent revolution is inevitable or necessary is not "incitement." (e) child porn.

These are all arbitrary, and your assertion that someone like Hitler deserves his free speech makes them even more arbitrary.

And keep in mind I'm talking about the state limiting Trump's speech. I'm saying it's an ideological and naive position to think that individuals should just let Trump speak uninhibited because "free speech".

I never said they should let Trump speak uninhibited because "free speech." I said that Trump has the right to free speech. The people who hate him can also speak, and they can do so at his rallies. If they assault, push, shove, or pick fights (fighting words) with others while doing so, however, then they should be prosecuted.

That's what i meant by uninhibited - that is, he should be free to speak without being physically shut down (or his supporters should be able to legally chalk something without it being targeted for erasure).

Just a note, I meant in my quote above: "I'm not talking about the state limiting Trump's speech.

So you can fuck right off with your constant bullshit refrain, which you know is a complete lie, that I have no acknowledged limit or that my limit is naive, relative to free speech.

It's naive of the real world to say that person X should be able to speak freely because free speech is inherently good. It's not inherently good. It can be rationally assessed to be essentially advocating evil. And if it is, then it is the duty of the people who find it wrong to step up and do something about that.

Your idiotic argument is that "fascists and large scale authoritarians" don't have free speech, and you dare to call anyone else's limit naive? Your stated "limit" is not a limit. It's an arbitrary, ill-defined declaration that some people don't get free speech. It's silly and ignorant, and not even approaching rational or logical.

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about a set of rules defined by the State to limit free speech (other than the one's we've got now, more or less). I'm talking about what an individual lets pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil or inherently wrong. That's up to each individual (and their collective alliances).

[Forty Two]

Dude - "what an individual let's pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil..." has nothing to do with "free speech." You and everyone else, including fascists and authoritarians, have the right to stand up and try to stop what they consider to be evil (as long as they don't assault, batter, push, shove, rush stages to attack, pick fights, spit on people, etc, which is criminal behavior).

Of course that is up to each individual. I've never argued otherwise.

And, I never argued that person X should be able to stand up and say whatever because free speech is inherently good. Obviously, people can say bad things - things which in my opinion, or your opinion,are bad. But, our fucking opinions don't impact the right of the other person to ALSO express their opinion.

Why is this so hard? What is it that you aren't getting?

[pErvinalia]

Dude - "what an individual let's pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil..." has nothing to do with "free speech." You and everyone else, including fascists and authoritarians, have the right to stand up and try to stop what they consider to be evil (as long as they don't assault, batter, push, shove, rush stages to attack, pick fights, spit on people, etc, which is criminal behavior).

Dude, you are missing the point. "Standing up to stop.." includes assault, batter, push, shove etc etc. I'd love to see you naively protesting people assaulting Hitler because 'But but free speech, dudes!'

And, I never argued that person X should be able to stand up and say whatever because free speech is inherently good. Obviously, people can say bad things - things which in my opinion, or your opinion,are bad. But, our fucking opinions don't impact the right of the other person to ALSO express their opinion.

Why is this so hard? What is it that you aren't getting?

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

[Forty Two]

Dude - "what an individual let's pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil..." has nothing to do with "free speech." You and everyone else, including fascists and authoritarians, have the right to stand up and try to stop what they consider to be evil (as long as they don't assault, batter, push, shove, rush stages to attack, pick fights, spit on people, etc, which is criminal behavior).

Dude, you are missing the point. "Standing up to stop.." includes assault, batter, push, shove etc etc. I'd love to see you naively protesting people assaulting Hitler because 'But but free speech, dudes!'

It's easy to refer to Hitler, because we see him as the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in genocide. That's when he's the government, and when he's assaulting, battering, murdering, kidnapping, etc. - if all he ever did was spout hateful comments about Jews, then, indeed, he has free speech, just like Louis Farrakhan and various Muslim Imams. Hitler, as in, someone espousing antisemitic ideas, advocating racist or fascistic viewpoints, that person does have free speech, and is just as entitled as you or me to be free from assault and battery.

And, I never argued that person X should be able to stand up and say whatever because free speech is inherently good. Obviously, people can say bad things - things which in my opinion, or your opinion,are bad. But, our fucking opinions don't impact the right of the other person to ALSO express their opinion.

Why is this so hard? What is it that you aren't getting?

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.

The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law. To have a different assumption allows you or me to be the ones who are afforded less of an allowance than others. You assume that it will be the ones you consider nasty, but that is not in the least guaranteed, and history suggests that it s not even the norm that the nice guys are the ones allowed to speak, and only the mean guys are limited. It may start out that way, but the results down the line are never good.

So, don't go telling me what to argue. I never said anything about "inherently good," and that's your straw man. Suggesting that a fascist "of course" has as much a right to speak as a communist or a monarchist is not a suggestion that there is inherent goodness in allowing them to speak. The reason it's "of course" is that whether you think an idea is bad and should be prohibited is just another opinion of yours, and across the population there will be varied viewpoints on what should and should not be prohibited. The political winds may be that Trump should not have free speech today, and Revolutionist tomorrow. However, the concept of free speech is to remove it from the vicissitudes of public opinion -- truth is not determined by popular vote, and even if 99% of people think something is false or evil today, it may not be tomorrow. Look at sodomy -- ask someone in the 19th century if sodomy was good, and you'd likely get a negative answer. it was a crime punishable by death. Should it have been "free speech" to advocate in favor of criminal behavior then? Those protesters would be advocating in favor of breaking the law! What about marijuana and cocaine? Is it free speech to say that doing these drugs can be good, and that they should be legal, and that people should do them?

It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. As John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important–in fact, it would become even more important–that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. Rosa Luxemburg said the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

Check out Milton's Aeropagitica -- http://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

As Thomas Paine wrote in his introduction to the seminal work "Age of Reason,"

TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm

And, check out John Stuart Mill's On Liberty - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34 ... 4901-h.htm

But, do go on to justify why someone who is a fascist or large scale whatevers should not be permitted to speak their mind as much as you, or "small scale" whatevers. LOL. I love love love, that weasel term you stuck in there. You wanted to make sure the social justice regressive left keeps their right to free speech, because they're just small scale.... those are the good intolerants - they're intolerant of the stuff you think is good to be intolerant about.

[pErvinalia]

Dude - "what an individual let's pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil..." has nothing to do with "free speech." You and everyone else, including fascists and authoritarians, have the right to stand up and try to stop what they consider to be evil (as long as they don't assault, batter, push, shove, rush stages to attack, pick fights, spit on people, etc, which is criminal behavior).

Dude, you are missing the point. "Standing up to stop.." includes assault, batter, push, shove etc etc. I'd love to see you naively protesting people assaulting Hitler because 'But but free speech, dudes!'

It's easy to refer to Hitler, because we see him as the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in genocide. That's when he's the government, and when he's assaulting, battering, murdering, kidnapping, etc. - if all he ever did was spout hateful comments about Jews, then, indeed, he has free speech, just like Louis Farrakhan and various Muslim Imams. Hitler, as in, someone espousing antisemitic ideas, advocating racist or fascistic viewpoints, that person does have free speech, and is just as entitled as you or me to be free from assault and battery.

See this is what I mean by ideological and naive. It's HITLER, ffs. In the real world, bad people exist, and politely debating with them is patently idiotic. Sometime it requires more than just a counter-argument.

And, I never argued that person X should be able to stand up and say whatever because free speech is inherently good. Obviously, people can say bad things - things which in my opinion, or your opinion,are bad. But, our fucking opinions don't impact the right of the other person to ALSO express their opinion.

Why is this so hard? What is it that you aren't getting?

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.

The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law.

This is a non-sequitur. I never said people shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

And besides, why should people be treated equally under the law? Because you believe that is an inherent good.

To have a different assumption allows you or me to be the ones who are afforded less of an allowance than others. You assume that it will be the ones you consider nasty, but that is not in the least guaranteed, and history suggests that it s not even the norm that the nice guys are the ones allowed to speak, and only the mean guys are limited. It may start out that way, but the results down the line are never good.

Strawman. I never made that assumption, and I don't now. You need to concentrate harder on the points in this debate.

So, don't go telling me what to argue. I never said anything about "inherently good," and that's your straw man. Suggesting that a fascist "of course" has as much a right to speak as a communist or a monarchist is not a suggestion that there is inherent goodness in allowing them to speak. The reason it's "of course" is that whether you think an idea is bad and should be prohibited is just another opinion of yours, and across the population there will be varied viewpoints on what should and should not be prohibited.

That paragraph contains is a non-sequitur with itself. What does "varied viewpoints" have to do with whether everyone should be afforded free speech? The two are unrelated. Unless, of course, you believe that equality of the right to speech (like you do with the law) is inherently good, as I explained above.

The political winds may be that Trump should not have free speech today, and Revolutionist tomorrow. However, the concept of free speech is to remove it from the vicissitudes of public opinion -- truth is not determined by popular vote, and even if 99% of people think something is false or evil today, it may not be tomorrow. Look at sodomy -- ask someone in the 19th century if sodomy was good, and you'd likely get a negative answer. it was a crime punishable by death. Should it have been "free speech" to advocate in favor of criminal behavior then? Those protesters would be advocating in favor of breaking the law! What about marijuana and cocaine? Is it free speech to say that doing these drugs can be good, and that they should be legal, and that people should do them?

This is all straw. It has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not arguing for the State to ad hoc limit free speech.

It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. As John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important–in fact, it would become even more important–that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. Rosa Luxemburg said the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

Check out Milton's Aeropagitica -- http://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

As Thomas Paine wrote in his introduction to the seminal work "Age of Reason,"

TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm

And, check out John Stuart Mill's On Liberty - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34 ... 4901-h.htm

This is all just ideology. You aren't doing your argument any good by referring to subjective ideology in an objective way. You are making my point for me.

But, do go on to justify why someone who is a fascist or large scale whatevers should not be permitted to speak their mind as much as you, or "small scale" whatevers. LOL. I love love love, that weasel term you stuck in there. You wanted to make sure the social justice regressive left keeps their right to free speech, because they're just small scale.... those are the good intolerants - they're intolerant of the stuff you think is good to be intolerant about.

You really need to start paying attention. I haven't said anything about the left or right in general. My only point has been concerning fascists and authoritarians (the latter of which can exist on the left), and hate speech in general.

A good start would be to stop LOLing.