Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #7808 on Comments
Level 143 Comments: Faptastic
Send mail to klockwerk
Invite klockwerk to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 143 Comments: Faptastic → Level 144 Comments: Faptastic
Total Comments Made:
What people say about klockwerk
latest user's comments
- "- and click here now to read why this is also because of…
Merdasperm Taramor Evnoltye
- >Bastion Overwatch Costume Like I don't recognize an XV …
This kid's Bastion...
- The strange thing about this is that I can't imagine that he w…
that's just mean
- Yes. But, what you're talking about is only relevant in those …
Sexual Harassment Quiz
that's one of the big reasons i left, i trained to close with and destroy the enemy, not bend over and assume the position.
- Strange, how ODST soldiers' uniforms seem to EXACTLY resemble …
A Wholesome Comp for my...
- This is all speculative, but I find it hard to believe that th…
No man left behind
- Am Arizonan. Can confirm. Its funny how roadwork gets done in …
Pirnedus Xeysodotl Tagra
It's cause none of those poor fucks want to stand in the sun any longer than they have too
- Holy ****. Looks fun as ****, but also dangerous. Am a…
This guy gets it...
there are american light tanks that do this in training though.
- >do their best Obviously not, theres still blacks in america.
Always look on the bright...
- Wrong answer in my opinion . There is no line when…
The line is when speech actually may cause physical harm to a person. Such as yelling fire in a crowded building.
actually free speech has a measure of protected speech. Now I MAY be wrong, but if I remember correctly, free speech is what is called non-political. Free speech is not actually protected in civil suits. If for example, someone personally insults you or slanders you, you can sue in a civil court for that slander or libel. BUT protected speech normally is NOT considered free. Examples of this include the calls to action such as yelling fire in a crowded theater to purposely cause panic. Now if there really was a fire, then protected speech would prevent a criminal suit from being filed. Other examples of protected speech include terrorist threats such as bomb threats and threatening bodily harm to others. Those examples can result in criminal penalties. And that my friends is the difference between free and protected speech. Now applying the U.N. resolution damning the white power rally to the examples, as long as no one purposefully threaten violence, then the speech is free. IF however, there was that call to action, stating that the groups involved were going to cause harm to others, then the speech is protected. Now things get a bit murky when adding in the fact that there was violence from that driver running people over. Primarily because it is impossible to tell whether his actions were a result of just his own planning, or whether or not there was a call to action prior to him running people over. If the former, then the speech is free still, but if the latter, once again protected speech. If protected speech, the U.N. is technically right in calling for a censure of the U.S. because threats were made, then carried out. The issue is determining if threats were made, and then ensuring those who issued the threats are properly dealt with. I'm not saying the U.N. has a right to determine what is free versus protected speech, just pointing out the difference. Personally, the U.N. should move the fuck to Geneva in neutral Switzerland. Only because lets be real, without U.S. the U.N. is nothing.
Show Comments (0)