Jon Fournier:
Thanks to our colleges, high schools, Hollywood, and the news media; very few Americans truly understand the concept of freedom of speech in its entirety.  I see, on such a regular basis, so many misconceptions about one of our most important God-given Natural rights. When it comes to freedom of speech, the behavior of a certain segment of the political spectrum has become most appalling. Silencing those with differing political and religious beliefs has become a natural reaction to a great many on the political left. If you don’t agree with that statement, please explain to me recent events such as: tens of thousands showing up in Boston to silence a small group standing up for free speech, riots at Berkeley because one individual was scheduled to speak, Antifa beating people who dare to share opinions they don’t agree with, safe spaces on college campuses, and so much more.
Freedom of speech is not granted to us by the First Amendment. Each one of us is granted that right, along with all of our rights, directly by God.  The First Amendment preserves that right by preventing the federal government from interfering with that right in any way. State Constitutions contain a Bill of Rights which protects free speech, along with other Natural Rights, of those living in that state against violations by the state and local governments. If the First Amendment granted us the right of freedom of speech then deleting or changing that amendment would take it away.  The federal government, mostly through the efforts of an out of control Supreme Court, has distorted the meaning of the First Amendment so much that it is now used as a weapon to silence individuals and groups.   That violates the God-given Natural Right of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is far more important than people’s feelings. There is no right to live your life free from being offended. Everyone has a right to be offended by whatever offends them however no one has a right to silence anyone for any reason. Not listening or saying something back is the only valid responses. Political correctness is fundamentally wrong because its adherents seek to silence anyone and anything that offends them. Political correctness is nothing but censorship by mob rule. This does not violate the First Amendment because that amendment only restricts the federal government. PC censorship does violate the God-given Natural Right of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech applies to everyone. This includes the vilest, most hate filled individuals and groups. This view was shared by those that wrote and ratified the First Amendment. Even though I completely detest the Ku Klux Klan, along with everything they stand for, I fully support their right to spew their hate filled garbage.
Freedom of speech protects hate speech. Far too often hate speech is nothing more than speech that offends someone. It is all too common today for members of the political left to label speech, ideas, and philosophies of those on the political right as hate speech and attempt to ban those ideas. This behavior is rampant on American colleges and universities. Even truly hateful speech is protected. As stated before, even the garbage spewed by the Ku Klux Klan is protected by freedom of speech.
No one has a right to use their speech to silence anyone. Mobs or individuals shouting down or drowning out other speakers is not an exercise in free speech. It is a violation of the free speech of the original group or individuals that are trying to speak. It is also a violation of the right of an audience to listen to what they want to hear. Everyone has a right to speak and be heard no matter how vile and disgusting they are. Everyone has a right to listen to whatever they want to listen to. With the mob approach, free speech is only reserved for the largest and angriest mobs. This approach will only lead to violence, which has happened all too often recently. The events in Boston last month were a disgusting display of misguided individuals silencing others. The media falsely labeled the original rally as hate speech by white supremacists and tens of thousands showed up to silence them, drown them out, or force the cancelation of the event.  Even if the rally was organized by white supremacists, no one had a right to silence them in any way. Silently protesting them; while carrying signs, or peacefully and respectfully trying to engage in debate, would have been proper techniques to protest such an event.
Freedom of speech is a two way street. Everyone has a right to criticize speech and behavior they do not agree with. Criticism is in no way a violation of the original speaker’s right of free speech. I am regularly critical of speech I do not like along with individuals and groups who engage in speech and behavior I don’t like. Often I use harsh or angry language when I criticize what I don’t like. Everyone is free to do the same. I never call for anyone to be silenced no matter how vehemently I disagree with what they have to say.
To liberals Free Speech is only for them and their privlaged kind since most liberals hate the U.S. Constitution and wants to have it replaced with Useless Nations Treaties
Note that there is no conservative “political correctness”. All politically correct restrictions force compliance with left wing ideology.
Perhaps Freedom of Speech actually guarantees a freedom to lie and a freedom to deceive. Well, then, we shall also require enough transparency to figure out who is doing it, and what their motives are. Otherwise, freedom becomes license—which was never what the writers of our Constitution intended.
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will release the Russia-linked ads to investigators
That $100,000-worth of Russian-bought Facebook ads are thought to have reached as many as 70 million Americans. Facebook’s targeted advertising algorithms could have focused them in a manner equivalent to firing for effect. That, after all, is what they’re designed to do, in order to make them effective selling tools that people are willing to pay for.
So, a social media advertising tool becomes one possible means of changing the outcome of an election, and is for sale to anyone. Such strategies could be used for other things, not just politics. Sowing discord between societal elements as a means of attack on another nation state would be one possibility. Others might be currency or stock market manipulation, or a means of attacking a national economy. All of these things rise or fall based on what people believe about them.
@Greg: Wow. $100,000! All of it? Tell me, is that more or less than the BILLION dollars Hillary spent on her campaign?
I am very interested to see which ads they are. Did they show how Hillary deleted, after being told to preserve them, 33,000 email? Did they falsely claim Hillary declared a video caused the Benghazi debacle? Did the Russians trick us into believing Hillary lied, on video, under oath, before Congress? Did the Russians smash Hillary’s phones and laptops, then claim Hillary did it?
Did the Russians set up roadblocks and prevent Hillary from entering Wisconsin or Michigan? BAD Russians! BAD!!
I wonder if any of those ads were similar to the Obama ads that accused Romney of murdering a woman? Perhaps the Russians put Obama up to accusing Romney of misogyny for having binders with women’s resume’s in them for future hiring.
Cry on, losers. Cry on.
I think maybe we’ll just take down Trump by dragging the truth out into the full light of day—or better yet, damage him severely and leave him limping along for 3 years, so Pence—who had an approval rating of 45 percent-and-falling before he bugged out of Indiana—doesn’t get an opportunity to to take the wheel and turn the country into a theocratic idiocracy before the entire pack of opportunistic, regressive nitwits are shown to the door in 2020. How does that sound?
It doesn’t seem to bother you in the least that a hostile foreign government set up troll farms and hundreds of phony social media accounts to subvert our nation’s democratic process, and may have succeeded in doing so. Are you on the payroll or something?
You don’t seem to grasp that the pittance they spent could have had enormously disproportional consequences, given total disregard for the ethics of how they used it. How much is spent on a terrorist bomb? You can destroy a priceless object with a $5 hammer. An irreplaceable life can be taken with a 10-cent bullet. The cost of the tool is not the relevant factor.
@Greg:
First, we have yet to see these ads so we can evaluate what they were and what their effect was. We don’t even know which side they took, especially since siding with Hillary, the more easily bribed and blackmailed candidate, would make far more sense than supporting the probable sure loser, Trump.
Next, the left hasn’t addressed why Obama, who knew the Russians were going to interfere in some way, didn’t take steps to prevent it. The most likely scenario was that Hillary was going to win, so don’t muddy the waters by admitting that there was foreign interference (of the kind Hillary and Obama utilized overseas numerous times).
Again, did the Russians invent Hillary’s incompetence, lying and corruption? No, Hillary did that. You seem to believe just because it might have been there, it turned the tide. You are grasping at straws, begging for a reason that is not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sorry; that’s exactly what it was. 100%.
I am also concerned with voter fraud, something you liberals cannot deny strenuously enough. Voter fraud and illegal immigrants voting, all motivated by the left, is a far graver danger to our elections that phantom Russians floating around influencing voters.
But, let’s see these ads. Let’s evaluate their effectiveness and who they were aimed at influencing. You assume far too much… out of pure desperation.