• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Hate" Speech

Patrickt said:
Nonsense. You could not arrest them for posting that on Craiglist. It's not a crime. The police would need to buy heroin from you. Then it's a crime.
Click to expand...

I am not sure. If a person posts heroin for sale on Craigslist as a joke, can they arrest him/her.
 
NoJewsNoMuslims said:
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution clearly says that citizens have the ABSOLUTE freedom to say what they choose. This includes "hate" speech. When someone says x is offensive or bigoted and says "you can't say that!", that person would be incorrect. The Constitution of this beautiful Nation says otherwise. " Hate" speech is an expression of how an individual feels. I'm for all people saying what they want. Period.
Click to expand...

unless ther jews or muslims?
 
FieldTheorist said:
It's nice to know that people who don't like what I have to say can articulate themselves as strongly as they can reason about issues.
Click to expand...
Maybe it sounds more intelligible when spoken. Written grammar can suck if nobody buys one a comma now and then.;)
 
calm said:
~---------------------Hate crime legislation is all about bankrupting folks, not obtaining a guilty verdict. Calm
Click to expand...
Hate speech prosecution is actually about shutting the bigoted fools up that engage in it. By showing that they're accountable for the vomit they contaminate everything with.

Be it by racist, anti-semitic, ethnic, religious or any other kind of slur.

That those same bigots screech and whine about it most, comes as no surprise. Neither here and now nor anywhere else.
 
Chagos said:
Hate speech prosecution is actually about shutting the bigoted fools up that engage in it. By showing that they're accountable for the vomit they contaminate everything with.

Be it by racist, anti-semitic, ethnic, religious or any other kind of slur.

That those same bigots screech and whine about it most, comes as no surprise. Neither here and now nor anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Considering that people are becoming more thinned skinned every year, we could have 2/3 of the population facing a judge.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Considering that people are becoming more thinned skinned every year, we could have 2/3 of the population facing a judge.
Click to expand...
Naw.

Churchill once said (I believe) that every country has 20 % of idjits. Where one can argue the percentage, I doubt it would exceed 33.3333 %.

Doesn't even do that (in my perception) on DP. :mrgreen:
 
FieldTheorist said:
It's nice to know that people who don't like what I have to say can articulate themselves as strongly as they can reason about issues.
Click to expand...

let me tell you something hull,i respect your views that was how i was raised,to respect other peoples untell they give me a reason not to.
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today".ts

run don run
 
SCitizen said:
Given the practice of blacklisting that does not help much.
Click to expand...

Blacklisting has nothing to do with our Constitutional right to not have laws restricting free speech. If a reporter says outrageous things and no newspaper wants him working for them, that has nothing to do with the Constitutional right to free speech. If you run your mouth and your wife locks you out of the bedroom, you might suffer but it's not unconstitutional.
 
Patrickt said:
Blacklisting has nothing to do with our Constitutional right to not have laws restricting free speech. If a reporter says outrageous things and no newspaper wants him working for them, that has nothing to do with the Constitutional right to free speech.
Click to expand...

It is not unconstitutional, but it is a threat to Free Speech.

I do not think there is a legal remedy for it. The only thing that can help is independent media.
 
NoJewsNoMuslims said:
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution clearly says that citizens have the ABSOLUTE freedom to say what they choose. This includes "hate" speech. When someone says x is offensive or bigoted and says "you can't say that!", that person would be incorrect. The Constitution of this beautiful Nation says otherwise. " Hate" speech is an expression of how an individual feels. I'm for all people saying what they want. Period.
Click to expand...

Just close. Congress shall pass no laws is the wording. That should protect what some call hate speech from legal sanction. That does not protect you from your boss, your neighbors, your wife, your children, your minister, or your dog.

It also does not say you have the right to express yourself wherever you want or whenever you want. If you marched onto the floor of the Senate, or even into your local courtroom, to expound on your latest fantasy, you could be tossed in the pokey. If you decided to "speak" with the assistance of eighteen six-foot speakers at 3 a.m., you would probably get tossed in the pokey. When and where is not totally open. You cannot come into my business and start preaching.
 
When Blm incited against cops (“pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon!”) in the rally, was that legal? What are the boundaries of freedom of speech in the US?
 
NoJewsNoMuslims said:
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution clearly says that citizens have the ABSOLUTE freedom to say what they choose. This includes "hate" speech. When someone says x is offensive or bigoted and says "you can't say that!", that person would be incorrect. The Constitution of this beautiful Nation says otherwise. " Hate" speech is an expression of how an individual feels. I'm for all people saying what they want. Period.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment covers speech, but many people do not have the decency to use it maturely.
 
NoJewsNoMuslims said:
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution clearly says that citizens have the ABSOLUTE freedom to say what they choose. This includes "hate" speech. When someone says x is offensive or bigoted and says "you can't say that!", that person would be incorrect. The Constitution of this beautiful Nation says otherwise. " Hate" speech is an expression of how an individual feels. I'm for all people saying what they want. Period.
Click to expand...

Try reading the 1st Amendment. It does not say you have the right to say whatever you want. It says: "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.
First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." It says Congress shall make no law abridging your freedom of speech.

Making what liberals deem hate speech illegal is a clear violation of Congress shall make no law abridging your freedom of speech. But, it's a necessary introduction, perhaps, to the equally stupid hate laws. Should Gov. Dean have been arrested when he said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
I hate Republicans and everything they stand for. - Howard Dean at BrainyQuote

I understand his feelings. For liberals the Constitution, individual freedom, equal opportunity, Republicans, Israel, conservatives, and lots of other things are to be hated but should he have been arrested for "hate speech"? I don't think so.

I suspect some bright liberal is already typing, "If you shout fire..." Wrong. There is no law restricting shouting fire in a crowded theater. If I go on stage and said, "Listen to this. Fire!Fire!Fire!" That's not illegal. If I attempt to incite a riot or incite a panic that will result in injury or death now that's illegal. But if I stand up and shout fire, flood, famine, and pestilence, no, no problem other then being hauled to the psych ward.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
Unlimited freedom of speech is a bad idea. For instance, back when there were still Christian countries, publicly speaking against the faith was illegal. It's just that now, liberalism is the official ideology, so insulting its sacred cows is illegal/firable.

This is of course an awful situation, but the solution isn't to insist on more freedom, it's to make people realize that absolute freedom is an illusion.
Click to expand...

A. I prefer no limits on speech than government limits to speech. And, fireable? The Constitution does not protect you from being fired when you call your boss and idiot. It doesn't protect you from have the bedroom door locked when you tell your wife her butts too big. It doesn't stop the neighbors from not inviting you to the block party when you put either a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump sign in your front yard. Either one would mean you aren't safe at a block party.

The Constitution protects you from the government passing laws abridging your freedom of speech as the Democrats want to do and as Donald Trump wants to do. Of course, that's redundant.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The 1st Amendment covers speech, but many people do not have the decency to use it maturely.
Click to expand...

And they don't have to, RetiredUSN. The maturity police are prohibited by the Constitution for arresting you for immature speech. If that weren't the case, Donald Trump would have been shut down months ago and Hillary Clinton would not be an anointed Democrat nominee.
 
SCitizen said:
It is not unconstitutional, but it is a threat to Free Speech.

I do not think there is a legal remedy for it. The only thing that can help is independent media.
Click to expand...

And you think independent media would keep a loose cannon employed? And, Free Speech, capitalized, is a Constitutional issue. Free speech, not capitalized, doesn't exist. Your speech is restricted by your spouse, your boss, your friends, your neighbors, your minister, your children.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The 1st Amendment covers speech, but many people do not have the decency to use it maturely.
Click to expand...

And that is something that should accepted as part of that right. Hate speech laws can silence the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom