[Byue]

Do you know about Slothful induction fallacy?
Because we have evidence of actual nazis.

And because we have proof of actual nazis in 2021, and before, under different militia names such as ATOMWAFFEN, to name just one, the burden of proof of saying there is NO actual nazis in 2021 fall upon you. (know your fallacies) I'll be waiting and neo-nazis and nazis is pretty much still nazism.

What about strawman? Nazis aren't the only thing I talked about and was arguably the least important thing I said.

I mean, racists don't wear their KKK dress anymore so if you were waiting for that sign, you're going to wait a while to spot them and just the same, german nazis in uniform are pretty much either dead or living in Argentina about to die.

If you claim there are no nazis, the burden of proof is upon you because everyone can see there are some nazis.

This is turning into a nazi discussion when it was never about nazis and I did nazi that coming.

Read again, and address the issues at hand before talking about a fallacy you do not quite understand.

So, if you want to discuss the points I brought here, I'm willing to talk but stop trying to sound smart, just engage in the discussion.

Freedom of speech is a super narrow concept that only means the government won't arrest you for having an opinion, which it used to do.... all of the time.
If you own a business, and I come in, and start making it uncomfortable for everyone else, I still have the right to free speech but I will still get escorted out because your business is a private property that you own and you can do as you please with.
Facebook is not a physical space but it is still a real business and so is twitter and banning you from their platform is totally legal, just like some states used to have to right to refuse baking a cake for a gay wedding you know.


Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).