Can somebody tell me why people are so mad at the ACLU over this tweet?

[Saucexorzski]

It's like 1000 retweets, hard to say that it constitutes ''the left''.

Oh its enough these days in which individual actions speak for entire groups.

[turboether]

What would you expect from people bred to see racism in everything.

[Stormdash]

All they are saying is that they want a future where free speech is protected, but people have lost their minds over this one.

Because adulthood has fled from all political discussion.

[Xar226]

How is this considered controversy ...104 retweet. Im a nobody and have more facebook comments on some of my posts lol. Does the word controversy even means anything anymore?

People like to stir shit up, and ironically "LOOK AT THOSE OTHER PEOPLE STIRRING SHIT UP!" tends to work.

[Garnier Fructis]

So to sum this thread up: OP claims people are upset about a tweet, others quickly point out that it barely received any attention at all, OP responds to being called out by turning to pure shitposting.

I wonder if I'll ever be woke as this.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

I get how it can come off as offense but whatever.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be express tbh. Since the shirt does have crying/frantic baby below the free speech part this could mean literally anything and nothing. Add to it that it's some blond white kid, I guess it could offend the proffessionally offended masses on the tanned side as well. I'm outraged because companies and organisations actually empoy retards to waste their time on twitter these days. Fuck humanity.

[schwarzkopf]

With Trump in office it is very easy to focus on the right wing nut jobs that follow him.

However - there are also left wing nut jobs trying to enforce labels on groups of people so we can all not discriminate.

So - a young white male kid, should have been a young black female lesbian latino Jew trans old unemployed married kid with 1 gay adult child.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"HEY GUYS WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE UPSET OVER THIS POST WITH 104 RETWEETS?"

They are? I figured the OP was FULLY aware of the current racial tensions in this country, and why some people might potentially be upset by an aryan looking baby with "free speech" on its shirt, considering the deplorables are defending people's rights to speak their car through crowds of people.

But I seriously doubt anyone is truly upset by this tweet. Although I am eternally amused by the "LOL THE LEFT IS EATING ITSELF ALIVE" while the right has already cannibalized most of its body and is moving on to dessert.

[Aphrel]

The only thing i can think of that is somewhat disturbing is the american flag xD

[yetgdhfgh]

Not adding a picture of a black, Asian, LGBT, Crippled, autistic, left handed, right handed, Blonde hair, black hair, no hair child is so not PC and you know what twitter thinks is what the rest of the world thinks!

[Lahis]

All I can think is that the kid is white. He/she aren't wearing any gender coded clothes so that can't be the issue.

[Astalnar]

Take your pick: little blonde white girl, free speech, american flag. It's like the holy trifecta of everything the leftists despise.

Now if the picture showed a black trans-girl wearing a T-shirt saying "black lives matter" and waving around the new and improved rainbow flag they'd approve.


[Infracted]

[Blamblam41]

The USA constitution does not even guarantee Free Speech without punishment. It only says that the government can not 'stop' free speech, it doesn't say anything about not being able to punish for what was said.

In fact up until the 1960s that is exactly what the US government did, especially during the world wars and even today it takes people to Guantanamo Bay for their opinions, to be imprisoned and tortured.

So a whole lot of bullshit basically.

Also OP is a bit of a [bad word], pretending some tweet with 100 RT's is somehow newsworthy or should have it's own thread.

Here let me do the same thing:



GUYS WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO MAD AT THIS PICTURE??!

Because it's depicting their lord and savior in his true form.

- - - Updated - - -

Take your pick: little blonde white girl, free speech, american flag. It's like the holy trifecta of everything the leftists despise.

Now if the picture showed a black trans-girl wearing a T-shirt saying "black lives matter" and waving around the new and improved rainbow flag they'd approve.

But clearly it could appeal to a wider audience if it was a fat white guy with a t-shirt saying "MURICA" and a pistol waving around in hand.

You guys should really stop with the whataboutisms. Sort of deflates your point.

[PC2]

No, you misunderstand me.

The 1A says that the government can not 'prevent freedom of speech', but it doesn't say that the government can't punish for whatever speech or opinions have been expressed. I'll reiterate, that it wasn't until the 1960s that the interpretation of this law changed or was challenged in court and for the first time the interpretation was assumed that it also included the government not being allowed to punish for free speech. The US government was extremely fascist before that time, during the world wars you could get tossed in prison (and many people were) just for saying anything pro-german, anti-american, for criticizing the government, etc. And even after the civil rights movements there have been periods of time when the 1A was completely ignored or interpreted differently again in court (such as when the government took a very heavy-handed stance against communism and Russia).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Government punishment based only on speech inherently is a freedom of speech abridgment. Imprisoning those people 50 years ago is a good example. Putting them in jail for speech then claiming their freedom of speech has not been abridged was mental gymnastics based on the hysteria of the time period. Merely being able to utter speech in a jail cell is not free speech.

[Deleted]

Well I can understand that people are mad. Babies can't even speak, those fuckers don't even use their right to free speech, all they do is eat ice cream and wave tiny American flags (which I might add should be treason, only great flags should be waved, or you undermine the greatness of the USA!). They are nothing but leeches on our society and don't deserve free speech!

[Trollhammer]

I'm amazed at people at their obsession with Trump.. Here this thread about the thing.. NOW THREAD IS ABOUT TRUMP!

I dont see anything wrong with picture.. I have two blonde hair, blue eyed children myself..

[PC2]

Thus, as pointed out, it purely depends on how people are willing to interpret the 1A. There is nothing concrete that says the government punishing people for their views or opinions would be against Free Speech or against the constitution.

Punishing people for speech is not even a 1A interpretation. It's just you wanting to go back to the old days before the judicial system matured.

[Flarelaine]

I.. don't know? It's hard to tell at that age and the angle makes it hard.

Are you two just assuming their gender?

ps. Yeah, I see I'm late to the party.

[cparle87]

So - a young white male kid, should have been a young black female lesbian latino Jew trans old unemployed married kid with 1 gay adult child.

Reading that hurt my brain as much as it made me laugh. Who's that guy around here with the sig that says he's a gay pakistani british american something or other, and then invites you to ask him how that works, but he's already said not too well? =-)