freediver wrote on Jan 16
th, 2026 at 3:10pm:
Quote:More errors , as expected: freedom of speech includes freedom to speak nonsense like Freidman
Hence, she is a hypocrite for whining about her own freedom of speech after calling for him to be silenced the exact same way.
No, it's not "the exact same way" : she is saying Friedman was rejected because of the racist content of his writing; while she objects to the SA Premier seeking her disinvitation on grounds of 'cultural sensitivity' after Bondi, for which she is not responsible.
Get it into your (descriptor omitted) head: Islamic - and Hamas - terrorism is caused by the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
Quote:Whether she is right, whether she is racist, whether he is right, whether he is racist, and whether giving historical justification for your racism makes you no longer racist, are all irrelevant to whether she is a hypocrite.
Why? Surely factual accuracy is an important factor in a debate between opposing views?
Quote:Again, the little pink CCP stooge can parrot what freedom of speech means, but still gets everything backwards, because she doesn't actually care what freedom of speech means.
More errors:
(google)
Freedom of speech .... becomes punishable when it creates a "clear and present danger" or incites "imminent lawless action," as established in Schenck v. U.S. (1919) and refined by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The speech is unprotected if it's false and intended to cause panic or harm, leading to potential charges like disorderly conduct or even manslaughter if death occurs, but protected if it's a truthful warning or part of a play. Backwards?