Yzermandius19

No, but if it did, unlike you, I wouldn't be calling to ban that speech, freedom hater.

I mean, if you project my views on the rest of Hamilton, you are going to get a really mistaken impression of the views of most Hamiltonian's. Most of them would agree with you on the anti-free speech tip.

Not really, since I vehemently disagree with the political leanings of the vast majority of Hamiltonian's.

Like I say, talk to me when the woke twitter mob takes down a coach that isn't on the chopping block and about to be fired for a myriad of other reasons.

Can't run for POTUS, being born in Canada. I am dealing with it, behind enemy lines, in Loonie Left Hamilton.

Libel and Slander being exceptions is cool with me. Hate speech laws are not. America has real free speech, no other nation on this earth follows suit. America can lead a horse to water, but it can't make them drink.

In America I don't need luck, that is constitutionally protected free speech, secured by 5-4 Republican SCOTUS majority that is soon to be a 6-3 Republican SCOTUS majority. Free speech might not fly in Canada, because Canadians hate freedom and think freedom from freedom is real freedom, but it does fly south of the border. Ain't no bullshit hate speech laws in America, and if they try to pass such laws, the SCOTUS will shoot that shit down, and there will be no Notwithstanding Clause to stop them.

It's both. When the players suck, coaches get thrown under the bus, woke twitter mob or no woke twitter mob.

I'm not denying it, I am simply pointing out that if woke twitter mob didn't come along, it would have saved no one's job.

Yes.

That's what I've been saying. First Canadians pretend they have free speech and it's a conspiracy theory to suggest otherwise, then when that is shown to be incorrect, they move the goalposts to "yeah, but it's a good thing we don't have free speech". Canadians simply hate freedom, and think freedom from freedom is real freedom.

Because someone might not like what you say, and then demand your free speech be taken away. If you don't stand up for them, they won't stand up for you.

Whether they are justly offended or not is irrelevant. It being unnecessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected free speech. You don't have to like what people say, to defend their right to say it. People who defend only the speech they like or find to be necessary are not pro-free speech. If you support hate speech laws, you are not pro-free speech.

You don't like free speech, you only like free speech that doesn't offend anyone, that's not being pro-free speech. Looking like an ignorant savage doofus does not mean you shouldn't have free speech, that's just stupid.

No it shouldn't be. You just hate free speech and are glad you don't have it, because you are beyond reason and feel safe if people just can't say mean words.

The Republican base supports Trump because he nominated judges that will prevent activist democrat judges from interpreting away their freedoms.

That ain't free speech. Hate speech is free speech.

You don't even support free speech, and think freedom from freedom, is real freedom. Quelle surprise. When brainwashed Canadians actually find out they don't have real free speech, they simply move the goalposts to "yeah, but that's a good thing". American Freedom Derangement Syndrome is a helluva drug.

Yeah, and them being challenged doesn't mean they will be overturned. It is perfectly constitution to restrict your right to free speech under the Notwithstanding Clause, the Supreme Court will side against free speech. Hate speech laws haven't been struck down, and they aren't going to be, you don't have free speech unless the government finds your use of that right to be reasonable. This is not a conspiracy, it's how Canada actually works. Y'all are just ignorant of how Canada actually works and when you find out how it works, you decry it as a conspiracy theory so you can feel better about the shotgun marriage you love so much.

Section 33 overrides that. Ain't no Notwithstanding Clause in the American constitution.

Reality is that in Canada there are no constitutional protections, and all your privileges are determined what the government deems to be reasonable. That is not the case in America, that is reality, you are simply putting your head in the sand.

In America the second amendment helps secure the first, and they aren't privileges granted by the government when they view those privileges to be reasonable.

Privileges are not rights. Constitutional protection matters, pretending otherwise is asinine.

America is more free than any other nation, sorry to burst your bubble. You can stick with Canada all you want, that doesn't change facts. When the Notwithstanding Clause exists, your right to free speech does not exist, as long as hate speech laws exist, your right to free speech does not exist. Having the right to say things that aren't offensive is not free speech, you wouldn't any free speech rights whatsoever if that was all free speech was about, because no one would ever call to censor you or fine you if you kept you limited your speech to those parameters, free speech privileges are not free speech rights. When you have no property rights constitutionally guaranteed, and the Crown literally owns all the land, that isn't real property rights, that is property privileges. The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two, and trust the government to administer your privileges in way that makes you feel free, does not make you free.

I'm talking about a conspiracy theory at all. You simply are unaware that Canada has no free speech, has no property rights, and has no right to bear arms to protect the first two. You want to cling to Canada being the greatest nation in the world, and will not listen to people pointing out it's obvious flaws. There is no conspiracy, Canada is simply not as free as America, and you refuse to believe it out of ignorance and misguided sense of nationalism for a Fugazi Nation. Confederation is holding you back by trying to keep out American freedom, and you simply want to believe that freedom from freedom is more freedom than actual freedom.