LOL

LOL

Other urls found in this thread:

murrlogic1.deviantart.com/gallery/
youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Its illegal to announce that you want to kill the President of the United States

It should be illegal to release webcomics of this low of quality.

>1st Amendment
>Bill of Rights
>Others infringing on your rights
?

murrlogic1.deviantart.com/gallery/ Like these?

but it's okay to make a movie where you assassinate Kim Jong Un or have Saddam Hussein gay for Satan

Not as satire, or fiction. Declaring your intent to assassinate a head of state is admissible evidence of conspiracy.

The Court of Appeals in the 9th Circuit in its ruling in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a 2nd Amendment case but one that used precedent applying to 1st Amendment cases, stated that, “where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well.”

Reminds me of this time I called my friend an asshole for being shy.

Was he called a cuck? Because man after seeing the same response over and over again after this is a little much.

I usually hate xkcd but this comic is 100% right. nothing more pathetic than watching dumbasses complain that their freedom of speech is being impeded by getting banned from some place on the fucking internet.

That was a fun thread.

...

lol

He's right you know.

Yes specific threats or incitement of criminal acts are not protected speech.

No one has a right to an audience

>le white knight meme
At least the three out of 1700+ strips Randall made about feminism are actually funny, unlike that tantrum.

I don't think that's not specific enough. If you said you were GOING to kill the president, that might be another matter, especially if you had even more detail like, "This thursday I'm going to hang out on a roof with a sniper rifle and try to assassinate the leader of the free world".

No. It is not illegal to say you want to kill the President. It's not even illegal to say that someone should kill the President.

It absolutely is illegal to say, "Let's kill the President now!" to a crowd with the actual intent of following through. Or "I plan on shooting the President," in a way which is clearly non-satirical, illustrative, or otherwise obviously conveying a message besides an actual intent to carry out an assassination attempt.

Look up the phrase "clear and present danger" for further clarification.

this is still his best joke(I am aware that this is an edit)

If legbeards force themselves to laugh at that retarded regressive hypocritical shire then I feel sorry for you

Literally big bang theory tier reddit-bait humor

Hey thick meaty vagina, if you actually read xkcd you would be aware that the feminist dude is a trolling creep. He is a satire of white knights here, people who believe they can pass judgement over others regarding non-issues that don't even concern them. Also notice that in this """"""feminist"""""" comic, the woman does not speak a word. She's literally part of the background

Neat. Has there ever been any precedents worth mentioning for what constitutes as fiction and what doesn't in the context of threats or similar?

Also
>>as someone who likes nerdy girls

Could the white knight satire be more obvious? Are you cunts actually as retarded as the alt-right says you are?

Even if the message of the comic is 100% correct, it could be condensed to the first, second and fifth panels, and be even funnier.

Yes, if someone say to you. Stop talking about Bon Jovi, you should.

Fuckin' Bolk, man.

Are you defending Saddam and Kim Jong Un?

youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY

it sounds like randall

He is legally right, but he's not defending anyone in a court of law. It's absolutely valid to criticize censorship, particularly in allegedly unbiased services, even if it's legal. Assuming you don't like censorship of course.

Making threats is considered an act of verbal violence. Congessing to crimes will get you arrested.

>Randall "my fedora tips itself" Monroe

FTFY

>thick meaty vagina

Dodoria?

Oh man, you guessed it

This. We used to laugh about arbitrary, cruel, or well-deserved bans on Sup Forums. And half the forums I was on in the 00s and every chat I was on in the late 90s would ban people for good reason (or no reason at all) anytime they wanted. I'm not sure when nerds decided they got to shit up whatever space they were in without the banhammer ever coming down, but it's fucking annoying and embarrassing.

That faggot Milo actually bitched about his fucking Twitter checkmark at the fucking White House. That's where we are now: a whiny faggot crying to the press secretary about a 140-character shitposting network taking his privileges away.

What would you say if someone cut your phone service for supporting wrong political ideas?

...

Setting aside the fact that faggot got de-checked and then banned for bending and breaking the rules in their TOS, I'd call it false equivalence, because that's what it fucking is.

Unless you decide Twitter is an essential communication service instead of a shitposting network, and thus give credence to every whiny faggot talking about cyberbullying on it, then no, there's no equivalence at all between having your phone service taken away and not being able to retweet Pepes.

I would go to another phone provider.

So why isn't hate speech illegal

Either way, twitter can keep banning people and people are free to call it shit for it, what's even the problem?

I want to kill the president of the United States.

>forcing privately owned bakeries to bake cakes for gay couples even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs is wrong! is duhgenerate librul gubmand tyranny!
>forcing privately owned websites to provide service to everyone, even if it conflicts with their political beliefs or terms of service is the right way to go! is freeze peaches!
el ehm ayy oh

People are free to call it shit for it, but if you try to take the moral high ground and say free speech is in danger because you, say...tweeted a pic of a cum-covered gorilla to the gorilla from Ghostbusters and got banned, you're a fucking faggot.

And yet Sup Forumsmblr is willing to report people who simply disagree with their views.
There's a difference between being banned for cp and being banned for trying to discuss perfectly valid issues that directly affect our pop culture ethos. You clearly despise nerds and despise our mentality that all things deserve discussion as long as they are interesting and thoughtful

One of the main problems regarding third-wave feminism is that it is no longer interesting or fun. It's all herd mentality and propaganda and cheap shots at people willing to argue with your views and discuss them. You have descended to the same level as Sup Forums

I don't believe public platforms should be criticized for having TOS, but I do think criticising them for bias is valid. Having conservative notions suppressed while #KillAllMen is trending on a platform that is not explicitly political (ie not HillaryClinton.org) is worthy of condemnation.

If someone says something is morally wrong, legalese is not a valid rebuttal, unless it's happening in the court of law.

>You clearly despise nerds and despise our mentality that all things deserve discussion as long as they are interesting and thoughtful

I keenly remember things getting thrown at me while I tried to read sci-fi from the library and secondhand comics under a tree in recess, user, so no, I don't despise nerds. I despise entitlement and self-importance. If someone was shitting up the lunch table of me and my only two friends, we told them to fuck off. It's like putting up with a sperg customer at your LCS who won't stop bitching about your taste in every single book you pick up and expects you to listen to him.

That's actually pretty deep

Now I don't know if Randall is feminist or anti-feminist

Because saying "I hate niggers" Is different to saying "I'm gonna kill you nigger!". Both would be considered hate speech but only one is a threat of bodily harm.

He doesn't care what real women want or think and stick up for them at slightest provocation.

It might be a satire but real feminists would see nothing wrong with it.

Because being isn't a conscious decision dumbass.

*Being gay

That's not the point
I'm sorry you had a shitty middle school but all I'm saying is that contemporary social media feminists have developed a knee-jerk reaction to all, even well-meaning criticism. It means we have viewpoints forced down our throats. Just because someone said the Thor gender flip was clickbait-bait, doesn't mean that person is bigoted misogynist scum. Maybe that person just *gasp* cares about Thor more than gender issues. People don't want to discuss only one set of issues their whole life, and they shouldn't.

Was hoping someone would post that.

HE ACTUALLY DID IT

>start LOL thread with the same strip every time
LOL

Neither
His only agenda is trying to appear nerdy and hip

That's alright, it won't matter in a couple of days.

I'd rather be an asshole than be afraid to speak my mind.

>Who needs Free Speech? We need to socially ostracize and punish anyone who says things we disagree with because it's 2016!

>is freeze peaches
I'm not arguing with you just curious about this strange peach comment

I mean...yeah? That's how society has been, since forever. If you say things, that I don't approve in a private website/area I could just kick you out. If you say something stupid outside, people have the right to call you out on your bullshit, or even just NOT talk to you.

>Freeze peach
>Free speech

It will never fail to amuse me how much this strip triggers Sup Forums.

TRIGGERED

>tweeted a pic of a cum-covered gorilla to the gorilla from Ghostbusters and got banned
Now who's using false equivalence, asshat?
You shouldn't be banned from speaking for an opinion on a forum. Otherwise it turns into a circlejerk. Why do you think we hate Reddit so much?
>inb4 Sup Forums's a circlejerk too
Yes, but it's because of our own volition, not because some assmad mods decided they didn't like other opinions.

Nobody bitches about the cake shit on 4 chan. Your strawman is wrong. Sup Forums was a fairly liberal until modern liberalism shifted into maximum over retard in the last couple of years.

This is terrible.

He's technically right yet still misses the point.

Which I think is Randall's problem with politics. He's clearly intelligent in a scientific, logical way, but he doesn't really appreciate nuance. So when he's talking on subjects that aren't in his area of expertise, he comes off like a condescending jackass.

...

yeah

Anyone who speaks out against free speech, even the most repellent, evil, sick and weird speech, is not a liberal.

You did not just compare the massacre of Charlie Hebdo to you being pissed at that someone deleted your comment on a website you don't own, asshole?

You actually did, didn't you?

No, sir. someone telling to can it when you are in their home is not the same as barging into a redaction and killing people.

This is the most awful attempt at comparison and you are a shit person.

by the way you post youre either a woman or a fucking faggot cuck either way opinion invalidated

>ARE YOU KIDDING ME

You are actually proud to make an Ad hominem fallacy, aren't you?

and no, I am a straight man. you have a clealry broken gaydar.

oof, cringey reply the buddy

I don't even know what you mean.

So, this cuck is defending sjw attacks on rallies and speeches?

I'm a pretty hard free speech supporter, but you're right. Comparing literal murder to someone booting you off a service is ridiculous.

That being said, I do think that those services can still be criticized for kicking people off for reasons that seem invalid. Not Milo, because he was trying actively to bait controversy, but a lot of moderate/secular/ex-Muslim voices (for example) get kicked off social media sites for very little reason beyond voicing their disagreement with conservative Islam and thus getting a lot of butthurt Saudi's complaining to Facebook/Twitter/etc about Islamophobia.

Ironically, a lot of neofascist pages that do genuinely promote anti-Muslim sentiment get to stay up.

Basically, Randall's argument is valid, but there's also the valid counterargument that complaint against unfair or unreasonable dismissal from a service is often very warranted.

Basically, it's the difference between soft and hard attacks on free speech.

Thanks god for your answer. I actually feel a bit better.

my god are you a fucking faggot holy shit

no.

If Carl the Cuck were a Sup Forums post, this is exactly what he would look like.

You don't know what cuck means, don't you?

Not really.

Carl seems like the kind of guy who would say that the Charlie Hebdo guys had it coming to them.

That post is just saying that people should have some perspective.

Cry some moar you dumb nigger
After all this bullshit about freedom of speech, you're gonna give us shit about it?

Man, all these posts that seem to, not only miss the point, and purposely try to strawman the shit out of everyone.

What? Are you retarded? Are you confused? Free speech dosesn't protect you from being called out on your retarded shit, and even the OP's image doesn't even imply that.

...

Why not? The muslims that killed him weren't a government, so their attack on freedom of speech isn't a problem.

>The muslims that killed him
There was more than one death at Charlie Hebdo.

>so their attack on freedom of speech isn't a problem.
Them killing people IS a fucking problem.

To silence speech they found offensive. It is an extreme example, but a very strong one when it comes to civilian attacks on unpopular speech.

I don't even know the point you are trying to make.

I don't even know at what you are saying "why not"

there was also a movie where the heroes killed Obama and no one complained. Well, I'm sure someone complained but it wasn't a big deal.

Philosophers don't belong there. Making shit up that you never have to prove isn't science.

>It is an extreme example, but a very strong one when it comes to civilian attacks on unpopular speech.
Oh, fuck I think I get your point and you are completly wrong.

NO, telling someone that are on your own personal place to shut up IS NOT the same as Someone going to someone else place to kill them.

There is a sense of property and how it is being used, there. It's understandable that one isn't allowed to use your own yard as a soap-box to express thoughts you disagree with. And it is not comparable with you going to someone else's house to kill him because you disagree with thought he expressed on the public place, with his own means.