Trump v Zelenskyy

Europe Getting its act together

Hmmm

Doubt poo tin is nervous tbh ??
May be not atm but if pressure is maintained he wont have time to regroup and rearm and the economy will start to collapse. His own oligarchs and hangers on will start to turn on him.
 
would that free speech by the one that starmer called for and succeeded in UK citizens being jailed for and in some cases longer than violent offenders just for putting up tweets ?
Freedom to voice your opinion is not freedom to incite hatred and violence.
One is about making a better society, the other is about being a ****.
 
Freedom of speech is the right of someone to shout fire in a crowded theatre
 
Freedom of speech is the right of someone to shout fire in a crowded theatre
That's not true. The statement "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a famous analogy used to illustrate the limits of free speech.

Here's why:

  • The Harm Principle: Freedom of speech is not absolute. It's generally accepted that speech that causes direct harm to others can be restricted.
  • Creating a Clear and Present Danger: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire would likely cause a panic, leading to potential injuries or even deaths. This creates a "clear and present danger" that overrides the right to free speech in that specific situation.
The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that freedom of speech is not a license to say anything, at any time, regardless of the consequences.

It's important to note that the "shouting fire" example is a simplification. Determining the limits of free speech is a complex issue with many nuances and ongoing debates.


Answer provide by AI cos I CBA
 
That's not true. The statement "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a famous analogy used to illustrate the limits of free speech.

Here's why:

  • The Harm Principle: Freedom of speech is not absolute. It's generally accepted that speech that causes direct harm to others can be restricted.
  • Creating a Clear and Present Danger: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire would likely cause a panic, leading to potential injuries or even deaths. This creates a "clear and present danger" that overrides the right to free speech in that specific situation.
The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that freedom of speech is not a license to say anything, at any time, regardless of the consequences.

It's important to note that the "shouting fire" example is a simplification. Determining the limits of free speech is a complex issue with many nuances and ongoing debates.


Answer provide by AI cos I CBA
I was being ironic. The cry of fire"" in a theatre is a classic example of how freedom of speech has its limits.

Answer not provided by AI
 
293391_1536_rgb-1.jpg
 
What are you suggesting here exactly, because it sounds as though you are cheering on assassinations of 5 people. This isn't OK.
Not for you perhaps, I respect that. But I believe the world would be better off without these people, as long as they weren't replaced with worse.

Trump's plans do have the potential to make things better for the people. But carrying that through would take administration more able than we're seeing. It sure as hell won't be Musk. There would be pains too, you can't do it all at once.
I suspect that one way or another, T will be ousted despite considerable oppositon from him and his cronies. The damage from the whole exercise may be considerable.
 
Has any one watched that Trump White House press conference with the Irish Pm

Jeez us wept Trump is an embarrassment :giggle:
 
Back
Top