
Originally Posted by
Hughinn
The problem is that it's unclear as to who makes such determinations. Ultimately the courts decide.
Liberal celebrities and politicians have often advocated violence and hostility toward other american citizens they happen to disagree with. Often openly.
It's either free speech or it's not. It shouldn't be selectively applied and called fair. Because it's not.
I'm not pretending to know why the law was applied to this baker guy but not others. I have no idea. I'm one of those people who thinks the law ought to apply evenly to everyone, regardless of personal belief, political affiliation,bbank accounts or skin color.
Because the point of this thread, as stated in the title is the biden administration supressing political dissent. I don't care what he titled it. He could call it pigs fucking sheep for all that matters. He presented a article that complains about the FBI arresting a man who threatened violence.
And that's not deflection. I see nothing stated above as being unique from this baker or many other anifa or BLM activist speech as far as recruiting or anything else. Perhaps Biden is tougher on crime than the "Law and Order" President.
It's the selective application of what the current administration considers free speech that's in question. Not, the justification of the FBI for arresting him. Because they take their orders from the administration. see below
As far as the debate you can think you "won" or whatever all you want. I'm not trying to win anything, and I'm not looking to personally insult or demean anyone. Just asking questions and pointing out discrepancy.
I'll let those reading the thread decide.
It's only my opinion, that when you allow a political party to decide what is free speech and what is hostile criminal language in line with what helps them and what doesn't, then you've effectively cancelled true freedom of speech