Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

  1. #1
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    I'm sure that most, if not all of us, support freedom of expression. It is a fundamental element of human freedom. But freedom, of natural necessity, has limits. To what extent should people be able to express themselves? Should this freedom extend to repulsive, discriminatory, and even blatantly false opinions? If these are to be forbidden, who decides whether an opinion is legal or not, and how do they reach this decision?

    We have all seen the extremes. On the one hand history shows brutal police states, where dissent is forbidden and people must choose their words carefully. On the other hand, we also have seen those who abuse others with their rights, take the most extreme and unsupportable opinions, and provoke their fellow men.

    Where do we draw the line? Is there a line at all? That is the topic which AntiWarmanCake88 and myself have chosen to discuss. He is for the limiting of free speech, and I am for freedom from withstraint.

    The commentary thread for readers can be found here.

    AntiWarman can make the first statement. Take it away mate!
    Last edited by Ariovistus Maximus; April 04, 2010 at 07:54 PM.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  2. #2
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Kingdom of Swissland
    Posts
    4,264

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Thanks mate.




    Yes, there is a line. In history we saw leaders give their citizens freedom of speech and those who did not. Some of these leaders were evil, like Hitler and Stalin. But some just wanted to keep their people civil, like Napoleon.



    Freedom of Speech causes many problems. One of them is exactly that. Do you believe it is right to say you going to kill the head of state? Should you be allow to go to soldiers of fallen troops and call them the F word or say they serve to die? No. There is a line. I am for freedom of speech to a point. You should be allow to say things granted they are not racist, hurtful or demeaning. These acts are exactly the things that kill nations.




    Your turn.

  3. #3
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Good show mate. I was recently involved in a discussion on this topic. The introduction I used there is about the same as how I'd like to start out here.

    Here is the basis of my thinking. Indeed some forms of expression are repulsive to the "normal" person. However, I am ultimately committed to the 1st Amendment, which guarantees free speech. If you like, you could also apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Personally, I dislike the way that so many nations state in their governing documents that "all people have the right to hold opinions without state interference," and then they go on to say "EXCEPT this list of opinions which we will not allow.

    In my opinion, that simply undermines the whole principle. Isn't the very purpose of freedom of expression to protect those people who have unpopular opinions? You don't have to worry about persecution if you just tote the party line. Therefore, freedom of speech is meaningless when it simply protects mainstream opinions. It is necessary to the principle of free speech that people be free to maintain even incorrect ideas.

    Freedom is not "freedom to do what we tell you." And, although there are of necessity limits on freedom, in obvious issues such as murder or theft, those are quite clearly necessary. The issue of free speech/expression is not so clear as these.

    Finally, I would challenge you to think on this: most restrictions to freedom serve to ensure that we do not violate the freedoms of others. Murder is not wrong because most people say so; it is wrong because it violates another person's right to life.

    So tell me: what right of yours is being violated by the Neo-Nazi, the Stalinist, or the (X whatever opinion you find to be blatantly false)? You tell me that. Do you have a right to comfort? Do you have a right to pleasure? Do you have a right to see only opinions that agree with your own when you browse the TWC? Do you have a right to only receive accurate information?

    No you do not. The holocaust denier is not breaking a single right of yours; he is merely being an idiot and making you uncomfortable. On the other hand, you, out of your wish for convenience, are prepared to break his right to self-expression.

    That is the principle of the issue as I see it. I think that it is most important to stick with your principles when they are not convenient. Again, I challenge you to consider this carefully. What do you really believe about freedom?

    Finally, let me be clear. I am not free to "express" myself by punching you in the face. I am not free to steal copywrited products in order to "express" myself. That is, again, because I would be violating other people's rights.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  4. #4
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Yes, there is a line. In history we saw leaders give their citizens freedom of speech and those who did not. Some of these leaders were evil, like Hitler and Stalin. But some just wanted to keep their people civil, like Napoleon.
    Indeed. But I'd rather not have my freedoms depend on the figurehead in power. Seems like a risky bet to me.

    Freedom of Speech causes many problems. One of them is exactly that. Do you believe it is right to say you going to kill the head of state?
    I'd certainly say that the State would be justified in keeping tabs on someone who says things like that; I don't see that they are justified in slapping a fine on him and sending him to jail. And why is a threat to the President the only threat that is labeled as crime? What if I told you that I plan to break 100mph on the highway tomorrow? What if I jokingly told you that I was totally going to beat you up?

    Who decides which threats or crimes? What standards do they use?

    Now what about the historical roots of the 1st Amendment? Weren't the colonists threatening King George? They explicitly threatened many of his agents. As a result, one objective of the First Amendment, I think, is to guarantee people's ability to dissent with the government.

    In short I'd say that threats put a person under suspicion, and certainly make for evidence after the fact, but you cannot arrest anyone for pre-crime. What ever happened to "innocent before proven guilty?" A threat isn't a confession; it's a measly shred of evidence at best. Certainly nothing to build a case on.

    Now, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as the old scenario goes, is a different paradigm. Your speech is less of words, and more of an action. And action that will put people in danger, disturb the peace, and a host of other things.

    Freedom of speech/expression, as I see it, protects my ability to have an OPINION and to spread that opinion. Telling people that a building is on fire is certainly not a valid opinion, not even a false opinion. It is simply malicious deceit. So that scenario need not apply at all.

    Should you be allow to go to soldiers of fallen troops and call them the F word or say they serve to die? No. There is a line. I am for freedom of speech to a point. You should be allow to say things granted they are not racist, hurtful or demeaning. These acts are exactly the things that kill nations.
    Well, in the first place that's a pretty broad context, but okay. This scenario is much clearer. People must absolutely be able to express such opinions, heinous though they may be.

    No one has any right, Constitutional or otherwise, to be free from hurtful or demeaning words. Descriminating actions? You bet; 13th Amendment for example. But again, speech is an entirely different paradigm.

    Furthermore, is it the speech that kills nations? No. The radicals who curse fallen soldiers accomplish nothing other than showing people how twisted their movement really is. Those radicals MIGHT ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING if they weren't so horrible at expressing themselves.

    In short, these people do not shape society, they reflect it. A person's speech is not the root issue; the mind determines speech. Therefore, it is simply a matter of social decline that is expressed, not propagated, by speech.

    And, yet furthermore, what have you accomplished by shoving a cork up someone's mouth? Such tactics never changed anyone's mind. I remember on this forum that one member (hi JingleBombs ) said that Communism needs "a good banning." Nothing makes you realize how much you want something like loosing it. You want to polarize a radical movement? Ban them.

    You will not change my mind on anything by telling me to shut up. You might actually accomplish something if you let me have my say, and then tell my why I'm wrong.

    As I said in the previous post, that is a reason for free speech. Not only to protect what is right, but simply for the practical reality that bans are an extremely inefficient means of accomplishing anything.

    For instance, stormfront.org, the internet hideout for Neo-Nazis. You notice that those people like to band together in isolated communities? That's because the instant that they try to enter a forum like this one, they get tarred and feathered with a furious storm of logic and reason that they can't handle.

    Ban people, and that's what will happen. They will just congregate with likeminded people so that they need not fear repression, nor will they have to deal with inconvenient realities.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  5. #5
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Kingdom of Swissland
    Posts
    4,264

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Well, in the first place that's a pretty broad context, but okay. This scenario is much clearer. People must absolutely be able to express such opinions, heinous though they may be.
    No, they should not.



    No one has any right, Constitutional or otherwise, to be free from hurtful or demeaning words. Descriminating actions? You bet; 13th Amendment for example. But again, speech is an entirely different paradigm.

    No one has the right to have to be bullied in school, no right has the right to call a dead solider any particular set of names at his funeral. There is a line and when you cross it.....


    Furthermore, is it the speech that kills nations? No. The radicals who curse fallen soldiers accomplish nothing other than showing people how twisted their movement really is. Those radicals MIGHT ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING if they weren't so horrible at expressing themselves.
    Yes. See the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1800's? How about Russian and Prussian Empires? OK. Now look at today? No? Did Speech kill them? Soley, no, but it sure in hell didn't help them.


    In short, these people do not shape society, they reflect it. A person's speech is not the root issue; the mind determines speech. Therefore, it is simply a matter of social decline that is expressed, not propagated, by speech.
    Like calling conservative radicals or calling liberals the N word?

    And, yet furthermore, what have you accomplished by shoving a cork up someone's mouth? Such tactics never changed anyone's mind. I remember on this forum that one member (hi JingleBombs ) said that Communism needs "a good banning." Nothing makes you realize how much you want something like loosing it. You want to polarize a radical movem
    ent? Ban them.



    Sure..... Then aren't you breaking civil rights then? And won't you infuriate them even more? I think so.



    In short I'd say that threats put a person under suspicion, and certainly make for evidence after the fact, but you cannot arrest anyone for pre-crime. What ever happened to "innocent before proven guilty?" A threat isn't a confession; it's a measly shred of evidence at best. Certainly nothing to build a case on.

    Now, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as the old scenario goes, is a different paradigm. Your speech is less of words, and more of an action. And action that will put people in danger, disturb the peace, and a host of other things.



    Calling a solider a Fa...... at his funeral might cause his family to attack the protesters. Should they not be arrested for instigating a fight?



    How about 9/11 conspiracy nuts.... I mean therosists () who go into a "hostile" crowd and start preaching their trash and get beat up by sane people like us?


    So tell me: what right of yours is being violated by the Neo-Nazi, the Stalinist, or the (X whatever opinion you find to be blatantly false)? You tell me that. Do you have a right to comfort? Do you have a right to pleasure? Do you have a right to see only opinions that agree with your own when you browse the TWC? Do you have a right to only receive accurate information?

    No you do not. The holocaust denier is not breaking a single right of yours; he is merely being an idiot and making you uncomfortable. On the other hand, you, out of your wish for convenience, are prepared to break his right to self-expression.


    Actually they could be. It's call breaking the rights of human respect.

  6. #6
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Before I begin, there is yet another reason for free speech. Allow me to give an example.

    I make a habit of discussing and researching firearms and gun politics. It is my belief that gun control advocates are incorrect in general, outright false in several areas, and downright misleading in others.

    Yet for all that, you know something? I am imperfect, right? Of course. And that means that I will, from time to time, fall into wrong ideas myself, right? Well, when I espouse an incorrect idea about gun rights, who do you think is the quickest to point it out to me? Gun control advocates, not gun rights' supporters. Though I believe them to be false, they still serve a CRUCIAL purpose to me!

    People naturally pick apart ideas that they disagree with, and tend to blindly accept ideas that they agree with. Notice that we often choose to agree with something before we actually understand it.

    Therefore, I will STRENUOUSLY defend the right of gun control advocates to speak out. I will even defend it with guns if necessary. Yes, you knew that was coming. I did it anyway. Anyways, that is because

    Dissenting opinions in and of themselves are necessary to the progression of society.

    They are the primary means by which we learn.

    No, they should not.
    Okay... why? Fewer definite statements, more rationale please.

    No one has the right to have to be bullied in school, no right has the right to call a dead solider any particular set of names at his funeral. There is a line and when you cross it.....
    That is reverse thinking. "No one has the right not to...", or "No one has the right to (X bad thing)" makes no sense.

    I don't know in what universe a person would have the right to be bullied, or how it would be relevant if they did. But, the fact is that no one has a right to freedom from bullying either, except of course for physical bullying which is an entirely different subject.

    And, rhetoric/emotions aside, the hard fact of the matter is that people DO have the right to call a dead soldier any particular set of names at his funeral.

    Again, it breaks no rights. Tell me where people have a right that specifies that no person can call their relative names at a funeral.

    Furthermore, would you call a war criminal names at his funeral? Is something like that fair in some cases, but not all? How do you decide whether it is fair or not.

    See, I'm trying to show you that it's virtually impossible to create a standard set in stone to decide whether something can be said or not. That is why restriction of speech makes no sense. How do you decide what people can say and what they cant? WHO decides?

    Ethics and human rights are two different things here.

    Yes. See the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1800's? How about Russian and Prussian Empires? OK. Now look at today? No? Did Speech kill them? Soley, no, but it sure in hell didn't help them.
    Demonstrate to me how free speech directly factored into the fall of those empires.

    Even better, why don't you tell me how many nations have FALLEN because of censorship?

    Like calling conservative radicals or calling liberals the N word?
    Sure.

    Sure..... Then aren't you breaking civil rights then? And won't you infuriate them even more? I think so.
    EXACTLY MY POINT. You have just taken the words right out of my mouth.

    Ban people from saying certain things, you will break your rights and you will infuriate them. Rather than bringing about the desired effect of suppressing them, you will just give them a greater will to fight. You will not have accomplished anything.

    Well, I see that you agree with one of my main points. Censorship convinces no one.

    Calling a solider a Fa...... at his funeral might cause his family to attack the protesters. Should they not be arrested for instigating a fight?
    That is all highly circumstantial. And obviously they can only be arrested for instigating a fight if a fight occurs.

    That's another point (most of which you have not responded to by the way); people are not guilty of anything (such as instigating a fight) until AFTER the fact. You cannot arrest them for pre-crime; it violates the very foundational principles of law and justice.

    How about 9/11 conspiracy nuts.... I mean therosists () who go into a "hostile" crowd and start preaching their trash and get beat up by sane people like us?
    If you beat some one up for preaching what you think is trash, then you are at fault. That is yet ANOTHER reason for freedom of speech. Just because you (or even the majority of people) think that something is wrong does not make it so. Nor, necessarily, does the information with which you have arrived at that conclusion make it so.

    Now, I think that the 9/11 conspiracy is pretty bonkers. However, I still must insist that they be permitted to speak. Why?You wanted to discuss historical lessons earlier.

    Imagine, if you will, what our world today might be like if not for the religious oppression of the Dark Ages.

    Can you imagine what it would be like if, in that day, the Catholic Church had not decided to keep people from becoming educated to make sure that they would not dissent with the Church?

    We could be CENTURIES ahead of where we are now. But, because most people thought that the others were wrong (of course they're wrong!), mankind was robbed of great potential for hundreds of years.

    Imagine computers in the year 1900. Just imagine that for a moment.

    Actually they could be. It's call breaking the rights of human respect.
    That is pure rhetoric. No one on this planet has a right to respect.

    If we do, I demand this instant that you respect my right to an opinion.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  7. #7
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    I came across an interesting story that covers this very topic.

    YORK, Pa. – Some nights Albert Snyder wakes up at 3 a.m. Other nights he doesn't sleep at all, tormented by thoughts of the hateful signs carried by a fundamentalist church outside his Marine son's funeral.

    "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

    "You're Going to Hell."

    "Semper Fi Fags."

    Hundreds of grieving families have been targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which believes military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality.

    Most mourners try to ignore the taunts. But Snyder couldn't let it go. He became the first to sue the church to halt the demonstrations, and he's pursued the group farther than anyone else. Now, more than four years after his son died in a Humvee accident in Iraq, Snyder's legal battle is headed to the Supreme Court.
    Full story here.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  8. #8
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Kingdom of Swissland
    Posts
    4,264

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus View Post
    I came across an interesting story that covers this very topic.



    Full story here.


    Free speech does not give you the right to do this. This is uncivilized. 1st amendment does not protect uncivilized people.




    Before I begin, there is yet another reason for free speech. Allow me to give an example.

    I make a habit of discussing and researching firearms and gun politics. It is my belief that gun control advocates are incorrect in general, outright false in several areas, and downright misleading in others.

    Yet for all that, you know something? I am imperfect, right? Of course. And that means that I will, from time to time, fall into wrong ideas myself, right? Well, when I espouse an incorrect idea about gun rights, who do you think is the quickest to point it out to me? Gun control advocates, not gun rights' supporters. Though I believe them to be false, they still serve a CRUCIAL purpose to me!

    People naturally pick apart ideas that they disagree with, and tend to blindly accept ideas that they agree with. Notice that we often choose to agree with something before we actually understand it.

    Therefore, I will STRENUOUSLY defend the right of gun control advocates to speak out. I will even defend it with guns if necessary. Yes, you knew that was coming. I did it anyway. Anyways, that is because

    Dissenting opinions in and of themselves are necessary to the progression of society.

    They are the primary means by which we learn.


    I am not debating that people should not have a right to a opinion. But it is how far they go to voice that opinion. If gun control advocates write editorials and to their respective, fine! I wrote editorials to. All OK by me. But if they go firebombing houses and protest at the funnels and shout slurs, then they lose that right.



    Look at it this way. I wrote a editorial on December 11,2009 it was published. I am a fierce supporter of the war in Afghanistan. A day after my grandfather's funeral, on December 17, 2009, I got a nasty letter in the mail from a "vietnam vet" and told me to go join the military and then proceed to call me nasty stuff without leaving a return address.


    You have the right to a opinion. You do not have a right to intermediate people.




    Furthermore, would you call a war criminal names at his funeral? Is something like that fair in some cases, but not all? How do you decide whether it is fair or not.

    See, I'm trying to show you that it's virtually impossible to create a standard set in stone to decide whether something can be said or not. That is why restriction of speech makes no sense. How do you decide what people can say and what they cant? WHO decides?

    Ethics and human rights are two different things here.


    And our opinions are two different things.


    Actually no, I would not waste my time going to one and doing so. You decide on it by logic.


    Ariovistus, the "if they do it at this funeral.... they can do it at every funeral" is not a good argument. If someone runs a red light and doesn't get a traffic ticket, doesn't mean I should. But he didn't get punish you might say. But still.





    Freedom of speech.... we got to much of today. Way to many rights, and the Freedom of Speech is one of them. I'm all for saying your piece, but when you start insulting people to get your point across, well then, it's time to stop and think.

  9. #9
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Free speech does not give you the right to do this. This is uncivilized. 1st amendment does not protect uncivilized people.
    The constitution doesn't single out every little thing that we are allowed to do. That's impractical. For example, by your logic I could argue that no one has a right to put marshmellows in their coco. The constitution doesn't expressly permit you to be crude. It doesn't explicitly permit you to help little old ladies across the street either. That doesn't mean those things aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.

    The constitution says a) that you can say what you want [no restrictions of any kind are given; it's a totally blanket statement], b) that all people have XYZ rights. As long as you don't break other people's X, Y, and Z, you're fine.

    No one has a right to comfort or ease of mind. And for your argument to have any sort of logical or legal foundation, that's how it would have to be.

    So yes, it does give you the right to do that. It makes no provision whatsoever for what words are spoken; only that we can speak. It makes no discrimination against "uncivilized" people either.

    Again, that argument is entirely rhetorical/emotional and really has nothing to do with the legality or moral/ethical reasoning behind the 1st Amendment.

    But if they go firebombing houses...
    Violence has nothing to do with free speech/expression, so the example is invalid.

    protest at the funnels and shout slurs, then they lose that right.
    But they can and do with no legal ramifications. But I suppose you're suggesting that they shouldn't.

    Give me some rationale for this opinion instead of making definite judgments. You're acting like it's already law, but it's not. Therefore, the burden of proof (or, in this case, rationale) lies entirely upon you.

    Look at it this way. I wrote a editorial on December 11,2009 it was published. I am a fierce supporter of the war in Afghanistan. A day after my grandfather's funeral, on December 17, 2009, I got a nasty letter in the mail from a "vietnam vet" and told me to go join the military and then proceed to call me nasty stuff without leaving a return address.
    Yes I recall reading that letter. But you have to realize that it's a two-way street. The only reason that he was so negative was that you, one way or another, offended him. I'm not saying it was intentional, but perhaps innuendos, misconceptions, or incorrect information in your writing provoked him.

    That's the real root of the issue; he may have been coarse in his response but it's not as if he just wrote hate mail to a random address. You both offended each other. If you are to be consistent in your restriction of free speech, then you should take that into account. His mode may have been wrong, but maybe he was right about things. That's why I say, when it comes to free speech, you should take the bad with the good.

    If you cut off all the people like that guy who want to correct some misunderstanding of yours (whether kindly or less so), then you'll never learn anything.

    See, what it comes down to is that everyone has something to say. The nugget of value is more hidden and buried under trash in some ideas more than others, but basically everyone has a point to make.

    You have the right to a opinion. You do not have a right to intermediate people.
    You don't have any right to freedom from intimidation either.

    What if I'm "intimidated" by your passion for the topic as evidenced by bolded text? What if you're made uncomfortable by my reasoning?

    No one has a freedom from discomfort because it is literally impossible to guarantee. On the contrary, discomfort in life is quite guaranteed. So, indirectly, I am entirely within my rights to intimidate people. What do you think politics is? What do you think the entire concept of a voting population is? It's intimidation, in a way.

    Actually no, I would not waste my time going to one and doing so. You decide on it by logic.
    First of all, you have provided none here. Saying "X should not be allowed to do Y" is not logic; that is simply preference. And that's my whole point. Logic has nothing to do with it because your entire argument is based on your comfort zone. Offense is an entirely subjective issue.

    Naziism might offend you; Zionism might offend a Nazi. Logic has nothing to do with it, there is no way to make a consistent code of law short of arbitrarily banning specific topics, and that is why it is both ineffective and inappropriate.

    This manner of expression offends me. That ideology makes me uncomfortable. There's no well-defined standard and that is a slippery slope.

    Ariovistus, the "if they do it at this funeral.... they can do it at every funeral" is not a good argument. If someone runs a red light and doesn't get a traffic ticket, doesn't mean I should. But he didn't get punish you might say. But still.
    Not quite what I meant. I mean, what if you felt the need to picket a funeral? Perhaps you would do it as a protest against a war or draft, or some other statement. There are multiple sides to everything, and in a different context you might be the one who is seen as crude.

    In short, the notion of making or accepting a law just because it won't hurt your rights is entirely unjustifiable, and that's why I can't support your proposition.

    Freedom of speech.... we got to much of today. Way to many rights, and the Freedom of Speech is one of them. I'm all for saying your piece, but when you start insulting people to get your point across, well then, it's time to stop and think.
    So you think that by making a law you can magically turn people into polite, thoughtful, responsible citizens?

    You cannot legislate morals. It has never worked, nor will it ever work. The effect of legislating morals is entirely superficial, and it actually hurts you in the long run because you have camoflaged a social problem instead of letting it out into the open and dealing with it.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  10. #10
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Kingdom of Swissland
    Posts
    4,264

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Hmmmm..... I'm going to forfeit this match to you. I can't keep up with all the tetchantiles and all the little details. Besides, we ain't going to change each other's opinion, so Congrats .

  11. #11
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Waat? Aw comon mate we just got started.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  12. #12
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Kingdom of Swissland
    Posts
    4,264

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Hey man, I'm old and crippled and I can't debate as well as I use to .

  13. #13
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    Bummer. Well, sorry man. It was fun while it lasted.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  14. #14
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

    A new debate with Thermal has commenced in this thread.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •