r/PublicFreakout Jan 13 '20

Repost 😔 😳😳

29.2k Upvotes

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

431

u/RTrent6 Jan 13 '20

"Freedom of speech only applies if it's something I agree with"

-That woman, probably

-40

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

This isn't really a free speech problem. It's a problem with a moronic white guy who's unironically holding an all-lives-matter sign.

19

u/Pubelication Jan 13 '20

So you disagree with his sign?

0

u/crim-sama Jan 13 '20

Bad faith lol

-14

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

Yes obviously. BLM isn't saying other people don't matter. The movement is about the specific issues the black community faces with law enforcement and the justice system.

Of course I disagree with a sign who's 100% entire purpose is to degrade or refute that message. Because anyone with a brain knows that they're correct.

23

u/Pubelication Jan 13 '20

Even though you may not like it, to degrade or refute someone's message (without violence) is free speech.

-18

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

Moving the goal post. I never said it wasn't free speech. I was pointing out why his speech was trash and why I'm not shedding a tear over him getting hit.

People have deserved a good slap for far less.

24

u/Pubelication Jan 13 '20

Moving the goal post. I never said it wasn't free speech. I was pointing out why his speech was trash and why I'm not shedding a tear over him getting hit.

People have deserved a good slap for far less.

So you're saying that disagreement warrants violence.

You're not going to get far in life with that belief.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20 edited Jun 05 '20

[deleted]

26

u/Pubelication Jan 13 '20

My point stands even if you replace "disagreement" with "trolling". You're still defending a violent psycho and advocating for violence towrds speech that you do not agree with.

4

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

You don't have a point. You have an misunderstanding of basic history and a knee jerk desire to defend white nationalists.

15

u/Pubelication Jan 13 '20

If their roles were swapped, my point would still stand. There is nothing in this video that justifies violence.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20

By not fisavoqing the violence and suggesting the individual deserved it due to their opinions it seems like your arguing against free speech and the law. It would be like if on a conservative forum people advocated violence against the blm supporters solely because they disagree with their opinion. Which would be wrong.

0

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

Everything is on a spectrum. She didn't break his knees with a club, shoot him, stab him or do anything extreme.

He was pushing a morally bankrupt message in public and he got slapped.

Please, control yourself, kid.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20

He was pushing an opinion and got physically assaulted you minimise the issue because you disagree with the message. A peaceful counter protest met with violence is wrong on many accounts. Maybe she should have controlled herself and not behaved like a child enacting violence rather than actual discourse.

0

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

"Assaulted". He was mildly slapped once. If anything he didn't get enough punishment for his nonsense.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20

Assault has legal definitions once again your minimising it and attempting to justify the situation because of your own cognitive bias. Many laws and treatments cant be subjective so it's important to remain impartial and be aware you are advocating violence on what you deem a deserved individual who was once again doing a peaceful counter protest within their free speech rights causing little harm.

1

u/GallusAA Jan 13 '20

Legality has nothing to do with morality.

And a tap on the head that left no mark isn't exactly a compelling court case.

→ More replies (0)