Free Speech Absolutism is as inane as the Soveriegn Citizen argument

What say you? Discuss.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss, believers of both concepts are usually hypocrites.
I also think the post is a little too deep, for the majority of people who post in here. IMHO

Gentlemen a reminder

The following is not permitted on the site:

Insulting Others
Targeting other members for attacks
Harassing other members, groups of members, class of members, etc
Disrespecting other members on the site
General rudeness toward other members on the site

Gentlemen a reminder

The following is not permitted on the site:

Insulting Others
Targeting other members for attacks
Harassing other members, groups of members, class of members, etc
Disrespecting other members on the site
General rudeness toward other members on the site Originally Posted by Dr-epg

So you chastise jmichael for making a general comment, and give me 5 points for a very vague reason (race baiting) when I didn't personally insult any member, but don't say anything to berryberry when he directly insults forum member like this:

Yep. Exposed. You out yourself as a fraud

You lied and everyone can see it

You were scared to answer a couple simple questions

Par for the course with you

You can't handle the fact that your fellow crazy leftist propaganda pushers got banned for breaking the rules on doxxing. You can't handle the fact that disclosing non-public information on someone is dangerous

Pathetic Originally Posted by berryberry

Why do you favor him and a few other far right posters?

What say you? Discuss. Originally Posted by HDGristle

not sure you can equate the two. the so-called sovereign citizen claim is based on a completely baseless interpretation of commerce law where free speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right, with some notable exceptions. you can't threaten harm on someone. you can't libel/slander someone.


one is baseless. the other is a right, with some exceptions.

The exceptions are what make the absolutism part as much of a clownshow as the other.

This isn't about free speech, which we "guarantee" in a limited fashion. It's about free speech absolutism, which even the proponent justices that best exemplified the argument struggled trying to justify.

Effectively, shit that sounds good on paper to some folks until you bring up a single contrary example and the whole thing falls apart. Those exceptions. Those limitations.

There is no absolute right to free speech because there is no pure freedom just as there is no pure control. We exist on a plane where we're stuck between some level of both things, never able to fully shift toward one side or the other.

Which is what makes both the FSA and SC concepts utterly inane for any reasonable person to pretend they adhere to.