LiberatedUSA
LiberatedUSA's JournalWhat is everyone's position on...
…the legality of phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range? Should civilians even be allowed to use that high of wattage for their plasma rifles? Do the deer have force fields? What about licensing and registration? Perhaps NFA?
Dear Russia, Ghost of Billy Mays here to tell you about a spectacular offer.
Do you want your economy back? Are you having troubles finding food? Is the man upstairs threatening to arrest you for not liking your field reports?
For just one easy payment of privately delete your Putin problem and 95 cents, you can have sanctions eased on you and the bakery back in business!
But I’m not through!
We’ll throw in a mega yacht or two!
You got to act fast, cause this offer won’t last forever. Let me tell you though, you’ll be getting bang for your buck on this one!
Got a Ruble problem? This’ll take care of it. I’m telling you, you won’t get this kind of deal anywhere else! But ya gotta act now, supplies are limited.
Does free speech come with a side of irony?
This is NOT a thread about “we need to change our free speech laws now”. This isn’t going to happen. Forget it.
This is a thought experiment.
Many other countries have limits on free speech; hate speech laws. Of course the fear on hate speech laws, is that it becomes an open-ended definition (those in charge know it when they see it and add it to the list for their own purposes).
Does free speech have an ironic dark twist that allows the seeds to be sown, many many decades in advance, that will always or likely ultimately lead to a country’s collapse? In other words, does free speech ultimately guarantee eventually a segment of society will be able to snowball problems because they can say what they want?
Or is it a combination of free speech and technology? In other words, half of the disaster recipe is free speech and the other is instant communication. Combine the two and over time it always snowballs?
For instance, Canada has hate speech laws, as well as many European counties. Can they avoid having a Fox News similar rightwing takeover based solely on limiting what can be said publicly?
Again, I am not advocating anything here, I happen to like our Constitution and our 1st Amendment. This is simply a discussion on how the United States became so politically damaged and if our shining star of the 1st Amendment might have ironically played a part in it. And if so, does that mean a civilization’s best chances, when they reach wide spread instant communication, is to put limits on what can be said publicly to stop things, such as The Big Lie, from gaining ground and causing disfunction in government?
"Civilian arms won't help you against a tyrannical government."
That message didn’t age well, did it? The New York Times had to admit it:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/25/world/russia-ukraine-war?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur#armed-with-assault-rifles-civilian-volunteers-prepare-to-defend-kyiv
I know, I know. Only the cops we protest for killing us should have these guns so as to assure we are at their mercy.
I just wanted to point out civilians are killing Russians with small arms they own or aquired.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 8, 2021, 11:50 AMNumber of posts: 1,666