GP condemned the channers' game by calling it "an intimidation campaign to shutdown free speech" and "shutting down political speech they disagreed with." You are allowed to fly a nazi flag in the US. Are you actually saying you're OK with the suppression of completely legal, non-violence inciting speech you disagree with? That is the entire crux of GP's point.
That's only trivially (in the formal meaning) true, because "free speech" has no unambiguous literal meaning. The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.
The reasoning is pretty straight-forward. Tomorrow (or apparently literally today given the craziness of the current socio-political discourse), you and I will be considered the Nazis.
Stop dodging, actually respond to what you're replying to. Do you consider capturing the hypothetical Nazi flag differently than the HSNDU flag?
>The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.
This is still very ambiguous. There are MANY situations where the above statement is not true.
>you and I will be considered the Nazis.
That's absurd. If you look back 100 years ago there are many people I would not consider a "nazi" so why would it hold true 100 years from now? Your rhetoric has very little substance. It's Godwin all the way down.
>Stop dodging, actually respond to what you're replying to. Do you consider capturing the hypothetical Nazi flag differently than the HSNDU flag?
I'm not dodging anything, I'm sick of people throwing around the freedom of speech like it justifies everything anyone wants to say.
To answer your question: As an individual I view it very differently.
BUT I don't think the government should snatch either flag, and if you're on someone else's private property doing so it should definitely be considered theft.
">The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.
This is still very ambiguous. There are MANY situations where the above statement is not true."
Perhaps the point you're trying to make is that explicitly illegal activity is not free speech? I thought that was obvious, but maybe not. Also, your third point isn't about private citizens.
Though yes, one of my posts was wrong - "incitement to violence" should have been "incitement to illegal activity."
