I know many of you believe deeply

[mmonk]

that hate speech by politicians and media posing as news is what the spirit of free speech is about rather than a public redress of grievances. Something inside me disagrees as I look about the landscape of America today and remember the rise of Hitler or what happened in Rwanda. Discuss how a democracy might protect itself.

[randys1]

1. Well, speech must be protected, the problem is the bought and paid for media that

wont call them out.

For instance, the NEWS of the day should NOT be the shooter in CO or what he has to say, he has said enough, it should be that not ONE repub candidate for prez has come out and strongly denounced it.

Or have they?

I heard that vile fuck Trump call him a mad man or something, no you vile fuck, he is one of YOUR supporters.

[mmonk]

2. When the concept was conceived,

did it mean the speech of those with power or means?

[cheapdate]

3. When the concept was conceived,

it absolutely meant anyone's speech, regardless of means or power.

The men who helped spark the revolution (Dr. Thomas Young, The Boston Committee of Correspondence, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, etc.) were "radicals" and implacable non-conformists. Their ideas came from a variety of sources, including from Spinoza and Locke. The "Great Awakening" (a religious revival movement in the mid-1700s) also helped to push many toward embracing the idea of freedom of belief and expression.

[mmonk]

4. That is how I read it