Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.
But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.
I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service  )
I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).
When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.
|
I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or
attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is
ATTACK ...
Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to