Why is this controversial?

>>510617039 (OP)
the umbrella can change hands

>>510617039 (OP)
>Why is this controversial?
Because it is rooted in liberal egalitarian enlightenment nonsense. It is not really controversial, just stupid because it says that all people have an equal "right" to an opinion, implying that all people are equal which is false, for one.

unless you criticise israel

>>510617759
Equal rights doesn't imply we are equal.

That would be like implying we're the same as cats just because animal cruelty is prohibited.

>>510618237
>Equal rights doesn't imply we are equal.
It does because it is applied in such a way that everyone equally deserves it. Why would a peasant/low IQ individual have an equal amount of free speech power as a King/hig IQ individual? Answer: because liberals see everyone as equal and thus equally deserving of free speech and then push for a system that makes this come true.

>animal cruelty
Poor example since cats don't have the same rights as humans (voting, free speech) and are often seen as property/objects. Reason: because they are not equal.

>>510618237

>>510617039 (OP)
I don’t like Indian accents and they smell like shit

>>510617325
but then there is bloodshed :(

>>510617039 (OP)
>So it doesn’t cover them
The comic should depict a Nazi and a Jew pointing at one another.

>>510618237
Animal rights activist has entered the chat.

>>510617039 (OP)
Remember. We had free speech until gamergate. The left destroyed it because they wanted to play dirty.

>>510617039 (OP)

It's controversial because truth is antisemitic.

>>510618824
>Why would a peasant/low IQ individual have an equal amount of free speech power as a King/hig IQ individual
Both have the right to say whatever they want because saying things is an inherent part of being a human being. However, they dont have the same political power because holding office successfully isnt just something anybody can do. So the low iq person can say whatever he wants but whatever he says matters much less than what the high iq person says.

>>510620678
>We had free speech until gamergate
Never heard of the red scare? Not that I care about the "rights" of communists but what you just said is false.

>>510617325
lol no
government doesn't hold it.
armed citizenry does.

>>510621322
>Both have the right to say whatever they want because saying things is an inherent part of being a human being
Extremely faulty logic which reeks of unconscious liberalism. Let's break it down:
>Both have the right to say whatever they want
They "have" it under a liberal system. It has been given to them by liberals. In older days they did not have this right
>saying things is an inherent part of being a human being
Wrong. You don't "have" liberal rights because of some inherent humanity which you imply is important or moral. Just because you are able to talk this does not give you the right to freely express yourself. Other people can supress you, and feel like that is their right. In fact I could make an argument that supressing free speech is a "right" because dominating other people is "an inherent part of being a human being". Are you going to restrict my freedom to dominate and supress others? I would also say that it is an inherent part of being a human being to (want to) rape and murder (it is, social conditioning by religion and other moralsystems have supressed these deeply human desires/instincts) and therefore everyone should have the right to rape and murder. Your definition of "inherent humanity" is rooted in liberal egalitarianism. Or possibly even its older brother called humanism, which has similar core values. We are not equal. And not everyone deserves rights.
>they dont have the same political power
>the low iq person can say whatever he wants but whatever he says matters much less than what the high iq person says.
In the context of voting they do have the same political power and it matters equally even though are not really equal. A high IQ persons vote counts as one, just as much as a low IQ person.

government is the rain

>>510622113
>armed citizenry does.
Never heard of the Supreme Court?
Armed citizenry is just a part, but not everything

>>510622842
scotus is a decision making apparatus and does not enforce anything.

>>510618824
>Why would a peasant/low IQ individual have an equal amount of free speech power as a king/high IQ individual?
The peasant should have more free speech and the King needs less, because the king is a child raping pedophile. criminal scum with nothing inherently extraordinary or even above average about his character that justifies him being king

>peasant/low IQ
>king/high IQ
These are not synonymous at all.

>>510623043
>enforcing
We weren't talking about enforcing, but who was holding the umbrella. And the decisions the Supreme Court makes has an effect on what gets enforced and what does not. Also, did the "armed citizenry" create the Constitution? Nope. Imagine thinking that it is just about enforcement. Enforcement is very important, I agree with you there but how are you going to enforce a law if there is no law? Again, you are not looking at the entire picture. Law without enforcement is useless but so is enforcement without law.

Free speech is not that complicated, it just means you can shit on the government without being thrown in jail.
Thats it

>>510623462
>did the "armed citizenry" create the Constitution?
they did actually.

>>510623501
>you can shit on the government without being thrown in jail.
it means you can say whatever you want and not be thrown in jail.
>fire in a theater
is legal despite what trannies want you to believe.

>>510617039 (OP)
That’s cool and all, but did you hear that Trump is a pedophile protecting other pedophiles by not releasing Epsteins files?

>>510623501
What about the Israeli government?

>>510623220
>The peasant should
>should
Utopianism. Let me know where your morals spring from.
Inb4 communist/Christian/egalitarian ideology
> the king is a child raping pedophile
Who is this King you are talking about?
>nothing inherently extraordinary
Power/connections, wealth, intelligence, genetics are a few things to consider
>justifies
What is justice to you?
>These are not synonymous at all.
Very significant overlap.
>>510623501
>it just means you can shit on the government without being thrown in jail.
Ah, so an utopia since it has never been applied.

>>510623717
Founding Fathers were not citizenry... Lying scum like you should be murdered for spreading misinformation.

>>510619410
A literal shitstain on this planet is gonna try to post anything relating to another race being subhuman. Don't you have a train to get killed by ranjeet?

>>510617039 (OP)
Unless you dare to speak against protected classes that is.
Go on, speak out against the jews or israel in the presence of government officials, I dare you. See how far that "free speech" goes.

>>510623968
what were they?

>>510624781
Aristocracy/Elites/Landowners. Only after they created their liberal egalitarian document were all people considered citizens. Look into (your own) history, the masses never really change society they are always being led and financed by higher people. French/American/Communist Revolutions all spring from slave morality yet they are being led/financed by "corrupt" masters. Let's not even get into the freemasonry or WASP elitist aspects. You are not equal to George Washington, if you do think so then you are brainwashed by egalitarian ideology.

>>510626315
I'm actually brainwashed by Plato.
>Aristocracy/Elites/Landowners/freemasonry/WASP
those don't exist
and I'm not equal to him, he's dead.