He sure didnt offer that right to Snowden. After he ordered the president of I think Bolivia to land and be inspected, I lost all respect for Obama and called him an arrogant, petulant brat of a person. I am still waiting to stick with my doctor after the obamacare debacle.

I want to hear the 'evil' arguments, at least once.

I like Maxine Waters in that she just tells it like she sees it- so I know where she stands. Same with Ocasio-Cortez, and Beto O'Rourke. I disagree totally with all of them.

I dont like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Obama, because they lie and one never quite knows where they are coming from.

People need to put up defenses against emotional manipulation arguments. I would be happier if people only discussed facts with the emotional baggage attached to them by the leftisits.

....and evil is only dangerous to those who do not recognize it as such under any deceptive language that it hides...

Amendment I ~
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.

Fake news is mentioned in there. Evil is free to speak and the modern version of "the press," aka the media, has been spewing their foul blather for a very long time.

Put forward those better ideas, even if they deny you.

Unfortunately most of the people with half a brain think that the people on this forum are evil.

What is evil to one is completely acceptable to others. Twisted minds and souls exist all around us. Many believe every word that comes out of Donald Trumps mouth are pure evil. So, NO! Let evil speak and allow me the freedom to not listen.
I refuse to ever watch CNN or SNL yet I have to endure the crap from both that gets replayed over and over on FOX. Something is evil there.

Anyone with half a brain can recognize evil, without trying too hard. If you don't hate evil, you are giving tacit consent to it. Evil can be defined as that which is harmful, destructive of good, menacing the innocent. Commies use psy-war to disarm and distract the opposition. The "guilt trip" is an old red trick, and they use both academe and church nowadays to destroy free society.

Evil should be allowed to speak as long as I have the right not to listen.
Think about the 13 years of public school indoctrination.

I do find it disturbing to hear people advocating socialism or other forms of collectivism, when the various attempts to actually implement them killed about 262 million people in the last century https://townhall.com/columnists/walte... .

Free speech protection is primarily aimed at insuring offensive speech is allowed. Those who advocated for parting from the UK Commonwealth were exercising their right to speak in a way that offended the Crown. The Founders wanted free speech to be recognized as inviolate.

There are penalties for some forms of speech: slander, telling untruths about someone that could harm them; inciting to riot, using inflammatory speech that leads to violence. Unlike some of our European friends, we do not criminalize "hate speech." Even groups that advocate criminal activity aren't punished for their speech. The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which advocates for pedophelia is a prime example of such an organization, which I consider evil.

Probably that it has existed for years, more that we can count. hate speech is just another term for what preceded it.

Correct. Those who know they are on the side of right ask others to investigate and prove out their claims because they know that their positions can only be vindicated. As soon as someone starts questioning the need for further investigation, you can bet that they aren't nearly as sure of their position as they posture.

History shows that those who feel they are [Morally] superior tend to want to silence those they believe are their inferiors.

Evil does a Lot of speaking these days and yet, many are unaware; they have no truth, no history, no philosophy nor are aware of time tested principles, inwhich to judge evil or good.

A proper answer is yes, evil AND good should be free to speak...it's just a shame that many cannot tell the difference.
One should not judge or follow anything based solely on emotion.

I consider Obama to be about as evil as they come, but I would shout from the rooftops his right to speak, even to speak his evil.

I do not believe that he would extend me the same courtesy and right. He seems to be one that likes to silence what he sees as evil. It seems to me that most collectivist of all flavors would like to remove this right from those that are not their flavor of collectivist.

You only have to consider the fact that many on the left consider Rand's ideas as 'evil' to have your answer.

Anyone have a guess what Rand would say about “hate speech?”