Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 143 of 143

Thread: Hate speech

  1. #141

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    12-10-18 @ 12:39 PM

    Re: Hate speech

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRightSide View Post
    The first amendment of the USA protects all forms of speech. Period. Hate speech is a term derived from liberals who cannot handle the truth. Leftists often complain that being offensive is abusing the freedom of speech. To quote the constitution directly, "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." The end.
    Actually it doesn't. it doesn't protect you from inciting a riot or would cause a mass hysteria such as yelling fire in a building.

  2. #142
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Blog Entries

    Re: Hate speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Apparently, you believe that an employer can use his position to punish an employee for words the employee has used outside of the work place. Pray tell the readers, HOW is such an action to be seen as promoting "free speech"? Or the fact that a person may suffer economic consequences because of their words is not seen by you as a restriction on "free speech", amirite?
    The right to free speech refers to government and laws. That's all.
    What you describe might be a wrongful dismissal issue, but employers limit your rights in ways the government can't all the time.
    He who knows the least obeys the best.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Seen
    05-27-17 @ 05:02 PM
    Libertarian - Right

    Re: Hate speech

    I wrote a paper in college about this topic. My artifact was "The Turner Diaries", a white-power novel written by some lunatic whose name escapes me at the moment.

    Although I'm a huge advocate for the first amendment and bill of rights in general, my argument in the paper was that this artifact doesn't deserve protection. The reason is rather simple, let me be as concise as possible.

    1) Inciting violence is one of the very few exceptions to protected speech. If you provoke people into deliberate violence they otherwise might not have committed, you can be held liable. Of course there's a big grey area, and most examples are still protected. But sometimes it's so obvious that the original intent is to incite violence, like with The Turner Diaries.

    First, the book is basically a race war manifesto disguised as a novel. Most chapters read like an instruction manual on how to make bombs and weapons caches. The entire plot revolves around a protagonist who ends his life via suicide bombing the pentagon, under the guise of "protecting the white race".

    There are some other examples of this kind of stuff being censored, such as "The Anarchist's Cookbook". It details how to make bombs and weapons from household items. It is illegal even in America.

    So even though 99% of speech ought to be allowed, now and then an exception does arise. And as for employers limiting expression, that's another issue entirely. Employers can pretty much do as they please, as long as it's not considered discrimination based on gender/race. - Freedom of speech, freedom of press, economic news, and more.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts