CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions to it. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and there is none yet people get hurt in a panic, you are responsible for that action. Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it. Just like any action, there are repercussions for freedom of speech.
The argument isn't about intent, the argument is that you yelled something that caused a cascade effect. Whether you meant to or not, malicious or not, is up to the courts. The fact that you yelled fire caused a reaction.
Okay as we should keep this a freedom of speech context. Fire is no different than yelling attention by its written self-value. It is only describing a detail to be sought in the public. LOOK FOR THIS! Is what is being screamed out by an unrestricted grammar context not held by public grading. It is only the appointed cost which is not consistent and is being manipulated to a united state of blame from all who gather in a location, to one person.
I agree the dispute is not about intent, it is about the united state created by the word title with the crowd. The person who screams “FIRE “carries equal blame? Yes, equal blame. Greater blame? No, the person does not carry greater blame then all others people in the theater.
The state of legal debate is being changes, now it becomes if a civil court action is being used to dictate emergency drills must come with advanced notification or from one authority.The United States Constitutional warning comes in the way of a civil court uses a jury as its Grand Jury without the benefit of experience and protection of Miranda right
The person who screams “FIRE “carries equal blame? Yes, equal blame. Greater blame? No, the person does not carry greater blame then all others people in the theater.
Again though, one must consider intent. If there were no fire and someone screamed it knowing full well that there would be mass hysteria under false pretenses, one could easily argue that they are absolutely responsible and have greater blame. If there was a fire or that person really thought there was one, one could argue that blame could be shared equally.
Is what is being screamed out by an unrestricted grammar context held by public grading. It is only the appointed cost which is not consistent and is being manipulated to a united a state of blame from all who gather in a location, to one person.
This is, if I'm understanding you correctly, true. But intent is still there. Screaming "FIRE" in a crowded location with intent to cause hysteria under false pretenses can not be equated to yelling "OH WHAT A CUTE PUPPY" in a public setting. The gathering of people, either in flight or attention, will depend entirely on the situation and reasoning.
The state of legal debate is being changes, now it is becomes over if a civil action is being used to dictate emergency drills must come with advanced notification of test.
Forgive me, I'm trying to understand your thought on this. Can you possibly rephrase?
Are you saying that legalities are changing when emergency drills are practiced?
The state of legal debate is being changed, now it is over if a civilians action can be used to perform a public service test, or should it always be dictated by authority, tests like emergency drill. Our question is now intellectual hidden and directs the public opinion away from must all emergency drills come from authority with a proper notice? Do all school fire drills undertake this protocol? We are no longer talking about the First Amendment right by this example, it is officially a United States Constitutional Right alone, holding no amendment to change over it. A right to share access to public test.
The action was provided by civil proceedings and this means the civil court jury was acting as the grand jury, while legal counsel forget their protection of Miranda right. The mistake of the general welfare is that the Miranda right is only for the accused directly and not their associates in legal matters.
Special Note Doing something like pulling a fire alarm is not the same as yelling FIRE. Yelling fire is a public test that the public can fail. The person yelling fire is not setting the building on fire as a condition of test. There is blame yes, there is guilt yes, there is no more guilt then what everyone else at the theater now hold.
I am going to write this as a disclaimer as well as common defense to the United States Constitution, while on the topic. It will most certainly come up at some point. A student has/may take a Constitutional right, a liberty to pull a fire-Alarm in a school, or other buildings. Howeverpublic commitment to all concerned the student must seek written consent by not only the Principle of the school/manager, the district school board/shares holder, partners, insurer and the local fire Marshal which includes all appropriate concerns of authority in this regard/owner. These establishments for many reason have right to negate a request for spontaneous test without full explanation. No more detail by united State constitution need be explained then that the Fire Department has lives that are held beyond reasonable cost for this public test by the action taken. Simple detailed information on response times is considered to be equal in every way to test by constitutional principles and legal precedent.
Saying that is like saying "If you shoot a gun in a gun-free zone and people get hurt because they panicked, it isn't your fault and you aren't responsible." You are responsible, because you caused the panic.
I’m not sure who you are addressing Themadgadfly. I will take a liberty.
No; it is like saying the person who causes a panic can be no more responsible than irresponsible people already present at a accident. Allowing people to blame their actions knowingly on another is wrong, it is not a right. This is not only by constitutional definition it is in line with many crimes. Here again we are moving away from the freedom of speech to address a different united State.
It's not your fault for panicking if someone else caused you to panic. If I here gunshots in the cafeteria at school, I'm probably going to panic. Would you not? And, I would say it's their fault for me panicking because if they hadn't shot a gun in school, I wouldn't have panicked. Also, (unrelated) as far as shouting fire in a crowded theater goes, wouldn't you be arrested for disturbing the peace?
Okay thermadgadfly two things first you are using the word if a lot. You are also using the word if, and placing me inside of a theoretic state as well. This is like playing pretend not to cause an increase in any insecurity to what is already a personal issue for you. This fact is okay and is human. I am going to take some constitutional liberties here while speaking truthfully. It is our fault when we panic, so in the event, not if, when you are being laughed at while alone hide under the table, because someone dropped their tray that made a loud bang! There are many of us right there with you under that table.
Since us, meaning both you, and I, have come to an impasse with the fascination with gum fire-arm issue as a freedom of speech somehow. I am going to give some United State direction. The argument by American constitution, or for others United State Constitution is based on a student’s not being pro-active in asking/ seeking for drills, a state of readiness which now include assaults by armed militia, and or single person. Welcome to the freedom of speech Fire does not just mean flames and objects burning.
The precedent here for a person my age, in connection to stress and panic while in institutionalized education is instruction given along the lines of seeking shelter under a desk. Seek this comfort in event of notifications of chemical nuclear attack. So with a point to maintain a sense of humor I would have to tell you if you has seen my grades you would understand the lack of fear to be shot on my part. So again the stress of the overall pressure of the burden of education place a unique quality to a united state, this meaning some state of fact that is shared as close to equal in all concerns to the people in general.
When the absence of Maranda right takes place in a civil law it effects the idea a lawyer can take part in a public crime. A lawyer is taking advantage that the person who has attacked a people, hurt them in that process cannot be found. So the person who can be found must be to blame.
Your argument is not considering that the person who yelled fire was simply mistaken. Either in a conduct of humor, or in identifying a real threat of flame. A civil lawsuit for money as vengeance does not institute justice.
A person yelling fire when holding an incendiary device is a completely different story as they are clearly without interpretations a direct threat themselves.
Also all Council is not equal in their discriminations to Constitutional principle. Meaning there are exceptional lawyers and they should not all be blamed as a united state.
Well now Jewel guess a Hollyweird Weirdo named Madonna has more Freedom of Speech than others do because what she said was a direct threat !!!!
Here is the problem with you fools and you are a great example of this as is Madonna-If it were not for Double Standards Progressives would have no Standards at all
So Jewel where are the repercussions that affected Madonna ???????? Speak up and show some legal actions taken against Madonna !!!!!
I'm not aware of what Madonna did as I don't follow her career. Again though, if you READ what I wrote you may actually understand. You can say what you want, that doesn't mean there aren't repercussions for it. Let me know where you get confused on that.
I honestly don't give a flip about what Madonna said, she's a celebrity and if she said something stupid then she will deal with the repercussion. So again, what part of that are you either arguing with or do you not understand?
You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions to it. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and there is none yet people get hurt in a panic, you are responsible for that action. Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it. Just like any action, there are repercussions for freedom of speech.
Wait, are you complaining that there weren't repercussions to your satisfaction against her? Is THAT what you're going on about? People blasted her over what she said, I vaguely remember that now that you mentioned it, but I just sincerely don't care enough about her to give a damn or even remember what she actually said. So if you don't like that she didn't, I don't know, go to jail (if that's the only repercussions you can think of) then oh well. I didn't say what the repercussions would be, just that you are are free to say what you want but.....wait let me copy/paste:
You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions to it.
You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions to it. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and there is none yet people get hurt in a panic, you are responsible for that action. Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it. Just like any action, there are repercussions for freedom of speech.
In Jewel's world celebrity's have more freedom of speech than others. The hypocrisy of you Lefty's is rich with stupidity !!!!!!!!!
Yet again your ability to completely miss the point is astounding. Truly, bravo sir. When you're done whining about Madonna and have something worthwhile to add, then I'll join you down the rabbit hole.
Inability not to see there is 2 issues here when it comes to Freedom of Speech is worthwhile to showing you Lefty's are null and void to the repercussions of your loved Hollyweird elite !!!!!!!!!!
Dummy who is whining about Madonna i am calling out the hypocrisy shown by you that there are limitations to Freedom of Speech which on it's face is just laughable !!!!!!!!
Gets better for the 2 tier Freedom of Speech thang there Jewel !!!!!!!!
LONDON — Johnny Depp has been no fan of President Donald Trump, but the Hollywood star took his rhetoric up a level when he raised the prospect of the president being killed.
“When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” he asked a cheering crowd at the Glastonbury music festival in the U.K. on Thursday night. “Now I want to clarify, I am not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it’s been awhile and maybe it’s time.”The Secret Service said it was aware of Depp's comment. Threats against the president are considered a crime under U.S. law and punishable by fine or time in prison.
“For security reasons, we cannot discuss specifically nor in general terms the means and methods of how we perform our protective responsibilities,” the Secret Service said in a statement.
A White House official said Friday: "President Trump has condemned violence in all forms and it's sad that others like Johnny Depp have not followed his lead. I hope that some of Mr. Depp’s colleagues will speak out against this type of rhetoric as strongly as they would if his comments were directed to a Democrat elected official."
Depp seemed to be referring to John Wilkes Booth, the actor who murdered President Abraham Lincoln.
Jewel was the Leftist arrested ??????
Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it.
One week after baseball-field shooter James Hodgkinson tried to kill as many Republicans “as possible,” Johhny Depp joked Thursday at the Gladstonbury Festival in Somerset, England, about assassinating President Trump. He has since apologized, but should his apology matter?
Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it
An Apology should clear it right up when it comes to Freedom of Speech for the Hollyweird elite there Jewel !!!!!!!!!!
Of course, Depp’s lowbrow remarks delivered in what appeared to be a drug- or drink- (or both) induced state of suspended brain activity, were eight days after a deranged leftist opened fire on a baseball practice of Republican congressmen and staffers, critically wounding Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.). They also came in the wake of other leftist entertainers making similar remarks, most notably Madonna saying she’s “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House” and Kathy Griffin’s video showing what appeared to be President Trump’s severed head.
Drugs and Alcohol must give the elite a pass on what Jewel wrote - Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it.
Absolutely destroying the Lefty mindset on Freedom of Speech is just to easy Jewel because you people have no idea what in the hell you are talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Free Speech - Defined as "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" should have no limits.
This doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want, Like "Kill that man!" or "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This simply means your opinions won't be censored.
Free Speech - Defined as "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" should have no limits.
This doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want, Like "Kill that man!" or "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This simply means your opinions won't be censored.
Cute, but of course it isn't that simple. What if you express your opinion to a crowded theatre that: "This man needs to die!"?
I included even an example of that using "Kill that man!" in my first post.
But, if for example a man was in court for murder and one of the options was the Death Penalty, then in context you probably could say "This man needs to die for his crimes." or something like that.
Language is complex, there is no perfect answer, so you should almost ALWAYS side with freedom over Security. You should avoid persecuting people for their speech as much as possible except in the most dire circumstances.
If there are limits on free speech, how is it still free speech?
Because the very concept of freedom contradicts itself. You can never be completely free in any society with more than one person in it, because you must interact with others who have rights too. This is what people like you have massive difficulty understanding: you are not the only person with rights.
with more than one person in it, because you must interact with others who have rights too
How do people affect the freedom of speech in any way, other than the people who fight against it? If I say nigger, it's your call to be offended by 6 letters or not. Personally, I choose to not give words power. And, even if you are offended, does it matter? In my opinion, no, it does not matter because I have not directly, physically harmed you in any way.
with rights
No one thinks that they're the only person with rights. We want to protect freedom of speech because it makes sense. They're just words; why does it matter if you say something that someone else doesn't like?
How do people affect the freedom of speech in any way
Only people speak, you idiot.
If I say nigger, it's your call to be offended by 6 letters or not.
Are you literally retarded? If I burn your entire family and rape their dead bodies it's your call whether to be offended or not. Good one idiot.
Personally, I choose to not give words power.
Oh shut up you pretentious cunt.
No one thinks that they're the only person with rights.
Yes you clearly do, or you wouldn't be trying to argue that calling a black person a nigger doesn't breach their rights. You're a fucking idiot. Shut up you damned imbecile.
not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
--
Where in that definition does it state that free things must have limits? Also, speech is a concept. How can you put limits on a concept? And even if that were to be accomplished, why would you do that? What purpose does limiting speech serve in today's society, in America? Censorship?
Free speech cannot have cost or assigned value, all things called free should have no cost, or assigned value fixed to them, that simple. The problem is somehow people believe that a basic principle is negotiable in its definition and speech is not either free or grievance as choice.
Adding additional confusion is the United States Constitution was written to perform judicial separation without its own written laws. As it may assume law of state, or grievance alone to perform separations of dispute.
We are not free to voice hate by United States Constitution the people assume the powers of liberty not freedom. We are at liberty to voice a grievance of hate by way that can be seen as filed.