没有什么政治意图 - Certainly and clearly not, and that's why I just didn't understand how my comment was interpreted that way.
但不幸被当成阶级敌人围殴- I didn't feel that way at all. It wasn't that bad. One unfriendly ID didn't make 围殴. I did feel being disrespected, hence I returned in whatever language style used at me. I think it's fair.
It didn't really bother me that much. I don't think your friend is that bad an ID either, I won't judge an ID just by a few unpleasant comments from it.
找上门来“殴斗” No, I didn't do that. I just left a comment
that I considered and still consider clear, harmless and meaningful.
Then your unfreindly comment followed and started the exchange of later unfriedly comments. The "dog" was only a return of the image that you had created - 叼盘 - I thought it suggested "dog". If I were wrong about this, you have my apology now. If I wasn't wrong, your comment deserved such a reply.
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”
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).
我个人看小谢的帖子真没有什么政治意图。但不幸被当成阶级敌人围殴，
茶坛是民主自由人士的聚集地。请大家尊重言论自由。思想自由。谢谢.
很多人希望美国衰败一样。有国家和民族，就有这些问题。
然后短路，好像思维不运作了。只是简单的二选一。conversation become defensive & attack. real communication lost.
我自己观察自己是这样。因此回避政治话题...
当小谢和发工资大打出手时，其实社会是在前进的。所以，尼斯其实根本
不用担心。
者的朋友，更何况这楼还是传人兄起的。
虽如此，没有人否认过干预者的朋友有到任何地方 --- 包括到鱼王兄贴子的跟帖下面 ---“殴斗”的自由。
不用回帖。
好像民主的意义是：我可以不同意你的话，但尊重和捍卫你说话的权力。
叫“舌战群敌”
没有什么政治意图 - Certainly and clearly not, and that's why I just didn't understand how my comment was interpreted that way.
但不幸被当成阶级敌人围殴- I didn't feel that way at all. It wasn't that bad. One unfriendly ID didn't make 围殴. I did feel being disrespected, hence I returned in whatever language style used at me. I think it's fair.
It didn't really bother me that much. I don't think your friend is that bad an ID either, I won't judge an ID just by a few unpleasant comments from it.
that I considered and still consider clear, harmless and meaningful.
Then your unfreindly comment followed and started the exchange of later unfriedly comments. The "dog" was only a return of the image that you had created - 叼盘 - I thought it suggested "dog". If I were wrong about this, you have my apology now. If I wasn't wrong, your comment deserved such a reply.
前者可以，后者不可以。
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
What Does Free Speech Mean?Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”
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).