re: #80 Obdicut

The first amendment rules hardcore. But it creates a responsibility in the populace to make sure our speech is reasoned, measured, truthful, and that when we reference and cite others, that we’re not citing people who say really horrible things and therefore grant them credibility by doing so.

You have an interesting and complex (and liberal) view of the First Amendment :-)

I’d note this is something that the media completely fucking fails at with their ‘report both sides’ bullshit.

I’ll join you there. But for different reasons. As the only industry named in the Constitution, I’d argue that they have an extraordinary responsibility to live up to that honor. They have failed it miserably, for the reason you note above and many more.

And it means that in any large gathering, the problem presents itself of how to actually demonstrate that certain speech by members of that group are not well-tolerated in the group at large. This is a significant challenge to any non-hierarchical group.

That is an optional response to the First Amendment. Perhaps I have trouble with your liberal use of the word “tolerate”. If something will not be tolerated, it sounds to me like it will not be allowed. I’ll have First Amendment issues with that sort of thinking.

But I’ll tolerate it.