Protest is fine. Impeding the speaker or his speech is not. Violence is *definitely* not OK.
-
-
BTW, are y'all not American? Why even concern yourself if you aren't.
-
No, I'm English. Christian is Irish. Why would our concern for liberalism be limited to our own countries?
-
I don't try and educate you about British government.
-
I have not once mentioned your government. I am talking abt the principle of free speech.
-
and I am talking about my government. I likely agree with you on free speech principles but that doesn't change constitution.
-
Why are you talking about your government? How is it relevant here? It wasn't the government that interfered with the speech.
-
I would have to sit down and discuss American history and it's intersection with free speech. Not saying you don't understand.
-
.@JoshuaBHayes1 Not relevant. Liberal principles of free speech are not culturally relative. I'm arguing for them as do many Americans.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
nope, protection of free speech is in the constitution.
-
Yes, your constitution protects some aspects of the principle in a very limited way.
-
It does not define free speech. Other countries also have the concept.
-
it's in the first amendment, lol.
-
Yes. Many countries have laws around free speech. That doesn't mean the laws *are* free speech.
-
I get what you're saying but taking away right to protest also violates free speech.
-
That would, yes. No-one should shout down protests either.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
it's both. However, to take someone's right to free speech is different than opposing their ideas.
-
Yes. Let ppl speak. Then oppose their ideas with your own speech.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.