• 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!

Portland mayor calls for cancellation of free-speech rally

Are you kidding me? You think people should lose their right to be protected by LEOs if they happen to enrage other folks with their political speech? Nobody deserves a good beating for having different political views - not even you. ;)

Different political views do not equal hate speech. Why should anyone pay to protect that? Perhaps if they weren't being protected by our tax dollars at work, they might at least find a less inflammatory way of getting their message across. One can still speak their mind without flipping everyone the bird at the same time. And if they want to flip the bird, they shouldn't expect to be protected, IMO... Didn't the Right coin the term "Cry-Bully"?

And I acknowledge the fact that I probably deserve a beating at least twice a day...at least, that's what my wife tells me... lol... ;)
 
Contrary to popular perception, the ACLU is not some rabid liberal organization.

They do take up liberal causes often, sure, but they also oppose liberal causes more than most people realize.

BS...... Like the Anti Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, NAACP they are using specific social and civil rights issues to promote a Leftist agenda.
 
Different political views do not equal hate speech. Why should anyone pay to protect that? Perhaps if they weren't being protected by our tax dollars at work, they might at least find a less inflammatory way of getting their message across. One can still speak their mind without flipping everyone the bird at the same time. And if they want to flip the bird, they shouldn't expect to be protected, IMO... Didn't the Right coin the term "Cry-Bully"?

And I acknowledge the fact that I probably deserve a beating at least twice a day...at least, that's what my wife tells me... lol... ;)

You are right Tax Dollars should not pay, The Progressive Liberals initiate all the violence, they should be forced to pay.

At every major Trump/GOP rally Leftist crash them and try to cause violence. I have never heard of a case of Right Wingers disrupting a Leftist rally. I'm not even sure there has ever been a counter protest from the Right at a Leftist rally.
 
BS...... Like the Anti Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, NAACP they are using specific social and civil rights issues to promote a Leftist agenda.
Doh! Yeah, I should have said "Contrary to willfully ignorant popular perception..."
 
And hate speech never existed before Trump came on the scene? If you believe that your head has been buried for years. Can't you just address the OP?

Nope. Didn't exist at all. Trump invented hate speech! :lol:
 
You are right Tax Dollars should not pay, The Progressive Liberals initiate all the violence, they should be forced to pay.

At every major Trump/GOP rally Leftist crash them and try to cause violence. I have never heard of a case of Right Wingers disrupting a Leftist rally. I'm not even sure there has ever been a counter protest from the Right at a Leftist rally.

Ok, I'll bite...lol.... You got anything to back that rant up? *Every major Trump/GOP rally? *Never been a counter protest? lol... Come on, dude. We all have Google here, and chances are we have all read articles on the subject. I'm not trying to sit here trying to say the Left has been / is perfect on this front, and I would want hate speech from the Left to be treated exactly the same as hate speech from the Right, but an 8 year old with Google could destroy your post pretty much instantly. Wanna try again?
 
Different political views do not equal hate speech. Why should anyone pay to protect that? Perhaps if they weren't being protected by our tax dollars at work, they might at least find a less inflammatory way of getting their message across. One can still speak their mind without flipping everyone the bird at the same time. And if they want to flip the bird, they shouldn't expect to be protected, IMO... Didn't the Right coin the term "Cry-Bully"?

And I acknowledge the fact that I probably deserve a beating at least twice a day...at least, that's what my wife tells me... lol... ;)

The rest of us are lucky that the Supreme Court has shown far more respect for the fundamental freedom of speech than you seem to. Expression which many people might consider "hate speech" may be protected by the First Amendment. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, in which Justice Scalia analyzed the issue brilliantly.
 
The rest of us are lucky that the Supreme Court has shown far more respect for the fundamental freedom of speech than you seem to. Expression which many people might consider "hate speech" may be protected by the First Amendment. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, in which Justice Scalia analyzed the issue brilliantly.

lol...oh ya, you guys are real lucky. You have made being an asshole a right in your country. Congrats. A shining accomplishment. Hoo. Ray.

In all seriousness, though...I'm all for free speech. Where did I say they shouldn't be able to say what they want? All I want to see is some skin in the game. If you're going to go out of your way to be an asshole, you shouldn't expect to be protected from the consequences. Yes, it is your right to be an asshole, per your constitution. But if you're looking to get into a fight, and calling that free speech, I say to the cops "Let them get in a fight, then".

This would be why I like the Canadian version of Free Speech, which sets the limit at hate speech. It's a common sense limitation that your Founding Fathers, in all their optimism, probably didn't think they needed back in the day. So much for common sense.......
 
I'm all for free speech. Where did I say they shouldn't be able to say what they want?

Maybe I have the wrong poster. Wasn't that you saying on these forums that a demonstration should be cancelled, because it might get disorderly and you didn't want to help pay for the security required?
 
Maybe I have the wrong poster. Wasn't that you saying on these forums that a demonstration should be cancelled, because it might get disorderly and you didn't want to help pay for the security required?

MMmm...almost right, but not quite. No, I don't want to pay for security for people to be assholes to one another with courage garnered from knowing the cops will protect them, no matter what offensive, insulting garbage comes out of their mouth. Yes, I do think that if a demonstration built around hate speech is going to cause a riot, it should not be permitted. But if it *is* permitted, the only thing I want the cops protecting is the property it's going down in, and the people *not* involved with inciting it.
 
Wheeler said he appreciated Trump’s words but stressed the need for action.
Since the murderer was a far left liberal I agree. It may be time that the federal government start taking action against liberals.
 
MMmm...almost right, but not quite. No, I don't want to pay for security for people to be assholes to one another with courage garnered from knowing the cops will protect them, no matter what offensive, insulting garbage comes out of their mouth. Yes, I do think that if a demonstration built around hate speech is going to cause a riot, it should not be permitted. But if it *is* permitted, the only thing I want the cops protecting is the property it's going down in, and the people *not* involved with inciting it.

I don't know what a "demonstration built around hate speech" is, or how anyone could know beforehand that it was "going to cause a riot." It seems to me you are pretending to support the freedom of speech, while at the same time advocating measures which would infringe that freedom. It does not surprise me to see someone from your country do that, because the freedom of speech is not as strongly protected there as the Constitution of the U.S. protects it.
 
Ok, I'll bite...lol.... You got anything to back that rant up? *Every major Trump/GOP rally? *Never been a counter protest? lol... Come on, dude. We all have Google here, and chances are we have all read articles on the subject. I'm not trying to sit here trying to say the Left has been / is perfect on this front, and I would want hate speech from the Left to be treated exactly the same as hate speech from the Right, but an 8 year old with Google could destroy your post pretty much instantly. Wanna try again?

Well if you got Goggle use it, post some examples.

I just Googled "American Right Wing counter protests" and all but a few were actually articles about Leftist disrupting Trump/GOP rallies. In the few cases where it was an actual Right Wing counter protest they were so peaceful that they barely made the news.

Today, it's only the American Left who organize with specific intent to violently disrupt their opponents political rallies.

For the Left the definition of Hate Speech is any opinion they disagree with. They are so desperate to prove real hate speech that they have to lie and throw up false flags. This guy Christianson is the perfect example: A leftist Bernie supporter who crashed Trump rallies and in front of TV cameras acted like a stereotype neo-nazi.
 
I don't know what a "demonstration built around hate speech" is, or how anyone could know beforehand that it was "going to cause a riot." It seems to me you are pretending to support the freedom of speech, while at the same time advocating measures which would infringe that freedom. It does not surprise me to see someone from your country do that, because the freedom of speech is not as strongly protected there as the Constitution of the U.S. protects it.

No, you're right, we have a bar beneath which we refuse to sink, and yes, I'm happy about that. And I would suggest that it should be fairly easy to assess the risk of giving a bunch of white supremacists the opportunity to flaunt their message of hate.

One thing to point out...preventing a group from inciting a riot through holding demonstrations to put forward their hate doesn't actually remove their freedom of speech. They still have their little meetings, and of course the Internet gives a voice to everyone. Putting a limit on where they can spread that messaging only serves to limit the rest of us from paying for the consequences of that messaging.
 
I suggest they take their Rally down MLK Drive on the South Side of Chicago. ;)

Now that would be impressive.
 
Well if you got Goggle use it, post some examples.

I just Googled "American Right Wing counter protests" and all but a few were actually articles about Leftist disrupting Trump/GOP rallies. In the few cases where it was an actual Right Wing counter protest they were so peaceful that they barely made the news.

Today, it's only the American Left who organize with specific intent to violently disrupt their opponents political rallies.

For the Left the definition of Hate Speech is any opinion they disagree with. They are so desperate to prove real hate speech that they have to lie and throw up false flags. This guy Christianson is the perfect example: A leftist Bernie supporter who crashed Trump rallies and in front of TV cameras acted like a stereotype neo-nazi.

For examples, all I need to do is say "Pro Life"...I mean, talk about low hanging fruit.

As for the definition of hate speech, I used Google to get you that as well...and then I'm done doing your research for ya. Here it is:

noun

1. Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

I think that's pretty straight forward, and yes, the Left usually tend to disagree with that kind of behavior. I think a lot of the Right do as well... It kinda trumps partisanship, and goes directly to the "basic human decency" category.
 
Answer to the OP. No, it should not be cancelled. If anyone breaks a law at the event, they can be dealt with. If the organizers let the event get out of hand, it can be dealt with at that time.

This is a piece on the whole Trump, white backlash, free speech, anti-PC thing that I thought was interesting:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-dorf-does-trump-mean-231002970.html

This article first appeared on the Dorf on Law site.
Among the many apparent mysteries concerning the election of Donald Trump to the presidency is the matter of timing.
That people experiencing economic hardship would turn to a racist demagogue is not entirely surprising. The surprise is that it happened in late 2016, when the U.S. economy had mostly recovered from the worst of the Great Recession, rather than in 2008 or 2012, when the economic picture was worse.
Trending: All-Male Senate Healthcare Group Criticized by Democrats
The mystery is mostly solved when we take account of the unevenness of the economic recovery and the dislocations caused by long-running structural changes in the economy.
Mostly but not entirely solved because on top of Trump's seemingly odd economic timing we have Trump's odd rhetorical timing.
Trump campaigned against "political correctness," a phenomenon that—judged by the following n-gram and my own subjective impression having lived through the relevant periods—began to decline in significance after peaking in the mid-1990s, roughly two decades before Trump launched his presidential campaign. (Google n-grams cut off in 2008 but the trend is evident.)

His complaints about political correctness were always code for resentment of the groups—racial, ethnic, sexual and other minorities—that political correctness, not to mention simple decency, aims to protect.

Coupling his denunciation of political correctness with acting out the bigotries that political correctness and common decency condemn, Trump's seemingly decades-off timing enabled him to marry his economic nationalism to an ugly ethnocentric nationalism.

Yet even as Trump's cynical denunciation of political correctness serves chiefly to foment hatred and distract attention from the genuine threat that he and his administration pose to free speech, free press and much else, real examples of political correctness appear to have made a comeback.

In this column, I'll discuss three arguable instances based on recent news stories:
***
 
No, you're right, we have a bar beneath which we refuse to sink, and yes, I'm happy about that. And I would suggest that it should be fairly easy to assess the risk of giving a bunch of white supremacists the opportunity to flaunt their message of hate.

One thing to point out...preventing a group from inciting a riot through holding demonstrations to put forward their hate doesn't actually remove their freedom of speech. They still have their little meetings, and of course the Internet gives a voice to everyone. Putting a limit on where they can spread that messaging only serves to limit the rest of us from paying for the consequences of that messaging.

Your views about the freedom of speech are much different from the Supreme Court's. Fortunately, it is the Court's views which determine what government here may and may not do to restrict speech. The sort of restriction you are advocating would not even come close to being permissible here. Forty-odd years ago, a group of mainly Jewish lawyers fought all the way to the Supreme Court to protect the right of some Nazi goofballs to parade, in full regalia, through a town they had chosen precisely because many of its residents were survivors of Nazi concentration camps.
 
For examples, all I need to do is say "Pro Life"...I mean, talk about low hanging fruit.

As for the definition of hate speech, I used Google to get you that as well...and then I'm done doing your research for ya. Here it is:

noun

1. Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

I think that's pretty straight forward, and yes, the Left usually tend to disagree with that kind of behavior. I think a lot of the Right do as well... It kinda trumps partisanship, and goes directly to the "basic human decency" category.

The question is not whether people are free to condemn that kind of speech on moral grounds, or to refuse to associate with people who engage in it. It is whether government has authority to abridge the speech, however repulsive most people may find it.
 
If you are a Democrat and the ACLU slaps you down, you know you screwed up.



Here is an article that give some more info, such as statements from the organizer of the event. Portland Mayor Moves to Suspend First Amendment for Trump Supporters in Wake of Killings

Be aware that this article has a right wing slant, though in my opinion it is not excessive.

Yep. The ACLU also told Ann Coulter they would defend her against Berkley. More proof that the liberal left is just way out of control.
 
really? are you kidding ............... "ban Muslims," "get them out," "lock her up," "Mexican rapist" .............. just for starters

I guess some folks haven't been paying attention to the fact that Don Cheeto is Hell bent on dividing America with his vitriol & his BS attitude rhetoric of hate

Ban Muslim terrorists.

Get out people who are here illegally.

Lock up Hillary for violating the law.

There are white rapists, black rapists, male rapists, female rapists, and yes, even Mexican rapists.
 
The question is not whether people are free to condemn that kind of speech on moral grounds, or to refuse to associate with people who engage in it. It is whether government has authority to abridge the speech, however repulsive most people may find it.

Ok...I hear you...but if America can support censorship and abridgement of free speech when it comes to something as harmless as profanity, why not the more harmful hate speech? A person can write the word **** (<--- look, I'm being censored) in a novel or on a website, or they can say it on an album (so long as a parental advisory is on the cover), but they can't say it on the majority of TV channels, they can't say it on the radio (airwaves)... Same goes for pornography. And I agree with those censorships, by the way.

If you guys can have good sense about that sort of thing, why can't you apply the same logic to the much more damaging issue of hate speech? Rant and rave and write all the manifestos you want, but keep it out of the public so that people can have the option to be consume that messaging or not? If I want to read white supremacist garbage, I could fill the next year of my life with it from just Googling. Those folks are definitely having their freedom of speech respected, and they are definitely getting their message across...but I don't have to turn the corner and walk into it, nor do I have to worry about it starting a riot.

Interested to understand why America can provide this level of protection against profanity and pornography, but not hate speech.
 
Ok...I hear you...but if America can support censorship and abridgement of free speech when it comes to something as harmless as profanity, why not the more harmful hate speech? A person can write the word **** (<--- look, I'm being censored) in a novel or on a website, or they can say it on an album (so long as a parental advisory is on the cover), but they can't say it on the majority of TV channels, they can't say it on the radio (airwaves)... Same goes for pornography. And I agree with those censorships, by the way.

If you guys can have good sense about that sort of thing, why can't you apply the same logic to the much more damaging issue of hate speech? Rant and rave and write all the manifestos you want, but keep it out of the public so that people can have the option to be consume that messaging or not? If I want to read white supremacist garbage, I could fill the next year of my life with it from just Googling. Those folks are definitely having their freedom of speech respected, and they are definitely getting their message across...but I don't have to turn the corner and walk into it, nor do I have to worry about it starting a riot.

Interested to understand why America can provide this level of protection against profanity and pornography, but not hate speech.

If America were all leftists, who tend to make the Constitution mean whatever suits their fancy, I suppose they could do that. Constitutional conservatives like me, though, observe that the Constitution incorporates an entire Article--Article V--that is dedicated to the amendment process. We believe that fact, by itself, shows that the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution meant amendment to be the only legitimate means of changing it to adapt to changed conditions.

To find out what the freedom of speech protects today, then, we look to what it was generally thought to protect when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791. And like defamatory speech or speech that creates a clear and present danger of lawless action, to cite two examples, obscene speech never was protected. In contrast, the kind of political speech you object to was right at the heart of the speech the First Amendment was meant to protect--what the Supreme Court has called "core" free speech.

That explains why the Supreme Court in the 1970's upheld the right of a group of Nazis to parade, in uniforms with swastika armbands, through Skokie, Illinois, which was largely inhabited by Jewish concentration camp survivors. It also explains why the Court more recently upheld the right of members of the Westboro Baptist Church to engage in a demonstration meant to disrespect the memory of a young serviceman, not far from where his grieving family was burying him. It also helps explain why the Court in 1992 held unconstitutional a city "hate speech" ordinance under which a teenager would have been punished for burning a cross on a black family's lawn. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.

For anyone who wants to understand the boundaries between the First Amendment and so-called "hate speech" or "fighting words," Justice Scalia's superb, detailed opinion in R.A.V. is a very good resource. Here is the link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/case.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom